Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit nwn.beamdog.com to make an order. NWN:EE FAQ is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE, PST:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

The Religion and Philosophy Thread

1235725

Comments

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456

    Well, if you're going to assert something exists outside of the physical universe, I would first like an argument why that is even possible before considering it.

    Make an argument that it’s impossible.
    Why? I'm not convinced it is impossible. Neither am I convinced it's possible.

    Balrog99mashedtaters
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,564
    @Balrog99 @mashedtaters Everthing being attributable to God depends on how you look at it. God didn't create evil, so much as evil is a corruption of what God already made. Personally, I tend to make an argument that I don't think I've ever seen another "Everything in the Bible is true" make. God values personal choice and the responsibility that comes with it more than anything else. God could very easily have made a world with no choices where all would worship Him and everything was perfect and that would be the end of it. But for some reason, He included a choice. There was the perfect world He made, and one cetain tree. The choice laid out for Adam and Eve was thus: Everything God has made and its perfection, or the knowledge what else could be, aka. imperfection. Even God is omniscient and knew the choice that would eventually be made, he still made the choice available. I don't know why choice and free will was so important to Him, but it is.

    The exact same choice is still reflected in the Chrisitan afterlife. Getting to heaven isn't about being perfect, but about the choice we make. Do we accept God and everything He made, or do we reject it and choose everything that isn't Him. One gets us into heaven (which can remain perfect because those who enter choose that existence), the other into Hell (the opposite of the good things of God).

    mashedtaters
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    edited December 2018
    @ThacoBell Do you believe there is free will in heaven? If yes, there is no conflict between free will and a perfect world. If not, what makes you you in heaven if not your will?

    Grond0ThacoBellmashedtaters
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,564

    @ThacoBell Do you believe there is free will in heaven? If yes, there is no conflict between free will and a perfect world. If not, what makes you you in heaven if not your will?

    Partial? I don't think the opportunity to reintroduce evil will be available in heaven, which is why we make the choice now. Are you willing to accept an existence without death or sickness or selfishness without the choice to introduce those things, or do you reject it and keep all of your free will? Note that this is one instance where I am picking an interpretation out of ambiguity. The Bible is somewhat scant on explicit depiciotns of heaven beyond "its perfect and no one dies".

  • QuickbladeQuickblade Member Posts: 769

    *Now, what this really means is that there are boxes in boxes. ___is everything that x is to the left of. This box necessary contains y, because we have specified it, but it may contain other things. A fun and important thing about sets, which are the boxes I'm talking about.

    And it's turtles all the way down.

    Sorry, couldn't help myself.
    ThacoBell said:

    @Balrog99 @mashedtaters Everthing being attributable to God depends on how you look at it. God didn't create evil, so much as evil is a corruption of what God already made. Personally, I tend to make an argument that I don't think I've ever seen another "Everything in the Bible is true" make. God values personal choice and the responsibility that comes with it more than anything else. God could very easily have made a world with no choices where all would worship Him and everything was perfect and that would be the end of it. But for some reason, He included a choice. There was the perfect world He made, and one cetain tree. The choice laid out for Adam and Eve was thus: Everything God has made and its perfection, or the knowledge what else could be, aka. imperfection. Even God is omniscient and knew the choice that would eventually be made, he still made the choice available. I don't know why choice and free will was so important to Him, but it is.

    The exact same choice is still reflected in the Chrisitan afterlife. Getting to heaven isn't about being perfect, but about the choice we make. Do we accept God and everything He made, or do we reject it and choose everything that isn't Him. One gets us into heaven (which can remain perfect because those who enter choose that existence), the other into Hell (the opposite of the good things of God).

    1. God is perfect.
    2. God can see the future.
    3. Therefore, God can see the future perfectly.
    4. God saw the future evil of his creation.
    5. God is benevolent.
    6. God did not try fixing his evil creation, before its corruption, because...logic?

    Because of my personal experiences, I would say that I KNOW that free will is a myth, everything is predetermined. The problem is, that knowing you're at point A, and that at some point you'll be at point B, doesn't tell you how you're going to GET to point B.

    Because everything is predetermined, it kind of derails an intelligent creator. Such a being couldn't change a deterministic universe. At least, not without rewriting reality from the Big Bang and up.
    Balrog99 said:

    @Grond0
    (To add to your post:)
    Besides, if God does exist, by most definitions he would have to have power to create the universe, which would essentially make him immune to the laws governing the universe (at least before its creation).
    Kind of how a kid isn’t bound by the properties of legos: a child can move, legos can’t, a child can assemble legos, legos can’t.

    The trouble with an omniscient and omnipotent God is that everything that happens is attributable to Him. Evil outcome? God. Good outcome? God. I was taught that God gave us free will so that we would choose Him. However, if we dont choose Him, we're cast into a pit of fire for all eternity. If, however, he is omniscient, he already knew what every single person would choose. In that case, he's creating people for the furnace. Sounds like a great plan to me...
    And this. It goes back to the root 'Problem of Evil'.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    edited December 2018
    @Quickblade There is no way tell whether the universe is predetermined or just seems predetermined. Therefore the assertion "the universe is predetermined" is unfalsiable.

    mashedtaters
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    ThacoBell said:

    @ThacoBell Do you believe there is free will in heaven? If yes, there is no conflict between free will and a perfect world. If not, what makes you you in heaven if not your will?

    Partial? I don't think the opportunity to reintroduce evil will be available in heaven, which is why we make the choice now. Are you willing to accept an existence without death or sickness or selfishness without the choice to introduce those things, or do you reject it and keep all of your free will? Note that this is one instance where I am picking an interpretation out of ambiguity. The Bible is somewhat scant on explicit depiciotns of heaven beyond "its perfect and no one dies".
    Well, partial free will is not free will. Are you still you without your free will is the point.

    mashedtaters
  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 1,908
    edited December 2018

    Well, if you're going to assert something exists outside of the physical universe, I would first like an argument why that is even possible before considering it.

    Make an argument that it’s impossible.
    Why? I'm not convinced it is impossible. Neither am I convinced it's possible.
    That’s a reasonable answer.

    But I think a reasonable believer wouldn’t say they were convinced it was possible/impossible either. They would say that they have faith. Certainty and faith are not the same.

    Grond0
  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 1,908
    LadyRhian said:

    Heaven has always seemed weird to me. Basically (according to classical heaven) you sit/stand around praising God and/or playing the harp all day, which, honestly, sounds extremely boring, but I am assured that will be all I want to do. Others assure me that Heaven will make me as omniscient as God, so that I will never want to do anything or go anywhere else- and that sounds boring, too.

    Praising God forever sounds like being part of Donald Trump's Cabinet, forever. If God is god, why does he want such praise forever? It sounds very Trumpian, someone who must be praised forever.

    @LadyRhian
    There’s a reason why heaven isn’t detailed to any extent in the Christian scriptures. Anyone telling you abour heaven is selling it to themselves, or repeating mantras, or, like @ThacoBell said, just trying to interpret something vague with ambivalence

    Unlike God, there really are no descriptions of heaven except for the emotions felt there. “All we really know” about the afterlife is that heaven will be worth it.

    Oh, and that hell totally sucks.

    I think the idea of heaven/hell has been influenced in part by the requirement to defer gratification in order to survive.
    “Work now and you’ll eat, or else you’ll starve in the winter,” “Save some of your harvest for planting or you’ll starve next year,” “Don’t slaughter all the pigs and you can have bacon for a long time, or else you’ll have no pigs left to make more.”

    It’s basically the same concept. “Live this moral principle and you’ll go to heaven, or else you’ll go to hell.” Of course, failure to abide by moral principles often has horrible, observable real life consequences, though some people manage to escape a lot of them through power and money.

    semiticgodmlneveseThacoBell
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456

    Well, if you're going to assert something exists outside of the physical universe, I would first like an argument why that is even possible before considering it.

    Make an argument that it’s impossible.
    Why? I'm not convinced it is impossible. Neither am I convinced it's possible.
    That’s a reasonable answer.

    But I think a reasonable believer wouldn’t say they were convinced it was possible/impossible either. They would say that they have faith. Certainty and faith are not the same.
    Reasonable? No, the sort of faith you speak of is the definition of unreasonable.

  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 1,908

    Well, if you're going to assert something exists outside of the physical universe, I would first like an argument why that is even possible before considering it.

    Make an argument that it’s impossible.
    Why? I'm not convinced it is impossible. Neither am I convinced it's possible.
    That’s a reasonable answer.

    But I think a reasonable believer wouldn’t say they were convinced it was possible/impossible either. They would say that they have faith. Certainty and faith are not the same.
    Reasonable? No, the sort of faith you speak of is the definition of unreasonable.
    Agree to disagree.

    But remember it was mostly Christians who invented the modern scientific method.

  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 12,710
    I wouldn't credit Christians for the scientific method any more than I would credit white people or men for the scientific method. Just because the folks who pioneered it a few hundred years ago happened to be white Christian men doesn't mean the two are linked in any way.

    mashedtatersFinneousPJmlneveseBelgarathMTH
  • Grond0Grond0 Member, Moderator Posts: 4,869
    LadyRhian said:

    Heaven has always seemed weird to me. Basically (according to classical heaven) you sit/stand around praising God and/or playing the harp all day, which, honestly, sounds extremely boring, but I am assured that will be all I want to do. Others assure me that Heaven will make me as omniscient as God, so that I will never want to do anything or go anywhere else- and that sounds boring, too.

    Praising God forever sounds like being part of Donald Trump's Cabinet, forever. If God is god, why does he want such praise forever? It sounds very Trumpian, someone who must be praised forever.

    I think that was what first turned me off the classical idea of God. In my mind, an entity that wanted to be worshipped, didn't deserve to be worshipped.

    BelgarathMTH
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 12,710
    Honestly, I can see the appeal of having people worship you as a god.

  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 1,908
    edited December 2018

    I wouldn't credit Christians for the scientific method any more than I would credit white people or men for the scientific method. Just because the folks who pioneered it a few hundred years ago happened to be white Christian men doesn't mean the two are linked in any way.

    @semiticgod
    My point wasn’t that Christianity is responsible for the scientific method.

    My point is that believers can be reasonable, as proven by the fact that believers created the scientific method.

    We all have irrational beliefs. It’s whether or not we are aware of them.

    Grond0semiticgodThacoBell
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    I never said they cannot be reasonable in other areas. But you said they believe something to be true without being rationally convinced it's even possible. That is unreasonable. No way around it.

  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 1,908

    I never said they cannot be reasonable in other areas. But you said they believe something to be true without being rationally convinced it's even possible. That is unreasonable. No way around it.

    Do you believe it’s impossible for people to be reasonable about their irrational beliefs?

    (Merry Christmas, btw! Just waiting for the kids to get up!)

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    I don't understand what that means.

  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 4,155

    I don't understand what that means.

    What's with the jailbars around you and @ThacoBell icons?

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    @Balrog99 I got jailed. I don't see any bars though.

    JLee
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 4,155

    @Balrog99 I got jailed. I don't see any bars though.

    What's your lockpick skill level?
    ;)

    FinneousPJ
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 4,155

    @Balrog99 I got jailed. I don't see any bars though.

    @semiticgod

    Why was this man not gagged?

    FinneousPJJLeeThacoBellmashedtaters
  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,433
    edited December 2018
    Balrog99 said:

    Very interesting argument @Artona . This reminds me of Descartes' mind body problem. It's definitely not nonsense.

    Let's say we have a box. The box contains all existent things. That is, if something has the 'property' of existence, then it is in this box. This gets weird because if we suppose the box exists, then it contains itself. Plato thought that the box itself is in the box. Frege, too. Of course, this would be physically impossible, but it isn't mathematically impossible. Nicely, this tells us that we are not dealing merely with 'material things', but rather all existing things. As such, if God exists, then God is in this box, along with the material world, and (maybe) the box itself.

    Okay, so let's say that the box only contains God. Would we look in the box that contains only God and nothing else and say, 'why is there nothing in this box?' Would that make any sense? We could stop here, but let's go on.

    Now imagine a different box. This box contains all relations. Necessary, it contains all objects that are in relation with other objects. If x is to the left of y, then both x and y are in the box. That is, without y, then x is to the left of ___.* If we were to say that x is to the left of [insert meaningless noise] we would not be saying that x is to the left of y. This is similar to looking into a non empty box and asking why is it empty. (See the astrisk below. It is important to realize for completeness that the box of causal relations is in the box of relations).

    A kind of relation is a casual relation. But I'm going to talk about a dependence relation, here. One way to define God logically, as a ground of being, is as some x, where for any y, can if y=/=x, then y depends on x for it's existence. As such, x and y are in the same set.

    I'm a bit lost once we get to this part. I outlined an argument from evil in the other thread that depends on these conceptions, but it was primarily about the first box/set.

    My understanding is that the argument challenges God's omnipotence, suggesting that God must adhere to (say) the rules of dependence or causation in order to create and maintain the world (?) The issue here seems to be that there are plenty of theologians that would accept this, and define God's omnipotence 'around' those rules (I.e. omnipotence allows one to do anything that is logically possible)

    *Now, what this really means is that there are boxes in boxes. ___is everything that x is to the left of. This box necessary contains y, because we have specified it, but it may contain other things. A fun and important thing about sets, which are the boxes I'm talking about.

    What if the box had to be infinite to contain everything? There can be no walls that could contain everything, because there is no 'everything'. No boundaries, no beginning and no ending. There is no containing infinity because 'everything' would have to finite to be contained.
    These 'boxes' are metaphorical. They are actually sets and we're actually taking set theory. Sets can be infinite (and multiply so!) And sets can contain themselves. Math is weird.
    Grond0 said:

    Very interesting argument @Artona . This reminds me of Descartes' mind body problem. It's definitely not nonsense.

    Let's say we have a box. The box contains all existent things. That is, if something has the 'property' of existence, then it is in this box. This gets weird because if we suppose the box exists, then it contains itself. Plato thought that the box itself is in the box. Frege, too. Of course, this would be physically impossible, but it isn't mathematically impossible. Nicely, this tells us that we are not dealing merely with 'material things', but rather all existing things. As such, if God exists, then God is in this box, along with the material world, and (maybe) the box itself.

    Okay, so let's say that the box only contains God. Would we look in the box that contains only God and nothing else and say, 'why is there nothing in this box?' Would that make any sense? We could stop here, but let's go on.

    Now imagine a different box. This box contains all relations. Necessary, it contains all objects that are in relation with other objects. If x is to the left of y, then both x and y are in the box. That is, without y, then x is to the left of ___.* If we were to say that x is to the left of [insert meaningless noise] we would not be saying that x is to the left of y. This is similar to looking into a non empty box and asking why is it empty. (See the astrisk below. It is important to realize for completeness that the box of causal relations is in the box of relations).

    A kind of relation is a casual relation. But I'm going to talk about a dependence relation, here. One way to define God logically, as a ground of being, is as some x, where for any y, can if y=/=x, then y depends on x for it's existence. As such, x and y are in the same set.

    I'm a bit lost once we get to this part. I outlined an argument from evil in the other thread that depends on these conceptions, but it was primarily about the first box/set.

    My understanding is that the argument challenges God's omnipotence, suggesting that God must adhere to (say) the rules of dependence or causation in order to create and maintain the world (?) The issue here seems to be that there are plenty of theologians that would accept this, and define God's omnipotence 'around' those rules (I.e. omnipotence allows one to do anything that is logically possible)

    *Now, what this really means is that there are boxes in boxes. ___is everything that x is to the left of. This box necessary contains y, because we have specified it, but it may contain other things. A fun and important thing about sets, which are the boxes I'm talking about.

    There's still the same issue that the above argument starts from the assumption that God must share the same properties as the physical universe. I agree that plenty of theologians have made this sort of argument in the past (such as Thomas Aquinas), though I think it gets rarer over time. I suspect that's the result of this type of argument seeming far weaker than it once did, so that what were once taken as arguments for the existence of God are now commonly used as arguments against that. For instance one of Aquinas' arguments was that everything must have a cause. He assumed that there could not be an infinitely long chain of causation and therefore at the root of it there must be something that was not caused by anything else - which he termed God. As science goes further back along the chain of causation, however, there is increasing doubt both over the requirement of cause and effect in the first place and that God must be at the root of a chain if that does exist.

    As I was saying before, arguing for the existence of God as a physical reality akin to the universe doesn't make sense to me. If the answer to who made the universe is God, that immediately begs the question of who made God - and you're no further forward. That would have been far less obvious to someone like Aquinas in the thirteenth century, when so much less was known about the physical universe and mechanisms we now understand were perceived as 'the hand of God'.

    I don't think there are any good grounds nowadays for believing you can demonstrate the existence of God through examining the physical structures of the universe. Even if you were somehow able to show that there was an intelligence that had created the universe I wouldn't accept that would be God in the modern sense (though it could certainly be a god). Rather you would be just demonstrating the existence of something previously hypothesized by science fiction, e.g. the alien child from another dimension who casually brought our universe into existence "just to see what would happen" ;).
    Have to take this one in bitable chunks:

    There's still the same issue that the above argument starts from the assumption that God must share the same properties as the physical universe.


    Not necessary. There is no commitment to this. The assumption is that God could have a causal relationship with the physical universe. Of course, this might be the implication--again, thinking of the mind body problem--but that's a separate issue. The mind body problem is likely not as much of a problem for God (because magic).

    I agree that plenty of theologians have made this sort of argument in the past (such as Thomas Aquinas), though I think it gets rarer over time. I suspect that's the result of this type of argument seeming far weaker than it once did, so that what were once taken as arguments for the existence of God are now commonly used as arguments against that. For instance one of Aquinas' arguments was that everything must have a cause. He assumed that there could not be an infinitely long chain of causation and therefore at the root of it there must be something that was not caused by anything else - which he termed God. As science goes further back along the chain of causation, however, there is increasing doubt both over the requirement of cause and effect in the first place and that God must be at the root of a chain if that does exist.


    I don't think that Artona is making making some kind of reverse cosmological argument. I see the origin of the argument being more recent, in philosophy of language and mathematics (Aqinas didn't have set theory, as far as I know--though, he was smart enough to understand it intuitively, I'm sure).

    Just because two objects are in the same set, doesn't necessarily mean that they are both subject to exactly the same laws unless such laws are directly relevant to the set (see below). For example, if Plato is right and mathematical objects exist, they are most definitely not subject to physical laws (though they would be in the first 'box'/set of existent objects along with physical objects.)

    However, there point as I understand it is that if we are talking just about causal relations, then all objects in that set must be subject to whatever necessary and sufficient conditions are required for there to be such a relationship as we conceive of it. This would apply to God as well as any other causal agent.

    If we suppose that things are different for God, well then fine, but we are no longer talking about causation--we're not talking about anything, as far as we know, because who knows what this 'causation' would be. We can only talk about causation as we can conceive of it. As such, if we're talking about something totally Alien to our notion of causation, but calling it 'causation', we're really just talking nonsense (unless we happen to be God).

    Put another way, that's not the set of causal relations as we understand them. That's a set only accessable to God like Creatures (or no creatures at all)

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,564

    ThacoBell said:

    @ThacoBell Do you believe there is free will in heaven? If yes, there is no conflict between free will and a perfect world. If not, what makes you you in heaven if not your will?

    Partial? I don't think the opportunity to reintroduce evil will be available in heaven, which is why we make the choice now. Are you willing to accept an existence without death or sickness or selfishness without the choice to introduce those things, or do you reject it and keep all of your free will? Note that this is one instance where I am picking an interpretation out of ambiguity. The Bible is somewhat scant on explicit depiciotns of heaven beyond "its perfect and no one dies".
    Well, partial free will is not free will. Are you still you without your free will is the point.
    That's why the choice is made now. If you don't like the idea of a perfect place with no wrongs or sadness at the cost of neing able to commit acts of evil, then don't make that choice. Its all up to the individual if that is what they want or not. Also, remember that there are almost no specifics of heaven. The limited choice after getting there is my interpretation of how "this place is perfect and will never change". It might not be that way at all.

  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 1,908

    I don't understand what that means.

    @FinneousPJ
    When I said a “reasonable believer,” I was talking about someone who is able to examine their own beliefs critically. Like how a person can be reasonable to deal with.

    We all have beliefs that aren’t based on logic or rationale. In this context, I would say someone who is aware of those beliefs to some extent, accepts them, and is able to look at them critically, and have an honest conversation without freaking out would be reasonable. As opposed to someone who refuses to hear any opposing viewpoint that challenges their beliefs.

    I know reasonable and rational are supposed to be synonymous, but most people I interact with use reasonable often to vaguely refer to an emotional or mental state of being/behavior, and rational to refer to a logical conclusion or conjecture of some sort.

    semiticgodThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member, Moderator Posts: 4,869

    Not necessary. There is no commitment to this. The assumption is that God could have a causal relationship with the physical universe. Of course, this might be the implication--again, thinking of the mind body problem--but that's a separate issue. The mind body problem is likely not as much of a problem for God (because magic).

    However, there point as I understand it is that if we are talking just about causal relations, then all objects in that set must be subject to whatever necessary and sufficient conditions are required for there to be such a relationship as we conceive of it. This would apply to God as well as any other causal agent.

    If we suppose that things are different for God, well then fine, but we are no longer talking about causation--we're not talking about anything, as far as we know, because who knows what this 'causation' would be. We can only talk about causation as we can conceive of it. As such, if we're talking about something totally Alien to our notion of causation, but calling it 'causation', we're really just talking nonsense (unless we happen to be God).

    Put another way, that's not the set of causal relations as we understand them. That's a set only accessable to God like Creatures (or no creatures at all)

    The above just demonstrates my point. The argument that logically there can be no God starts off by limiting the nature of God to something we can understand and then goes on to demonstrate that God could not in fact have been responsible for creating everything under those conditions.

    I agree with that logic, but don't think it's that useful. My previous reference to Aquinas was in the context that this argument would have been far more relevant when our understanding of science was much more limited and it was much harder to conceive of how anything could come into existence without a creator. While the rationalist approach to attempting to demonstrate the existence of God was an important theme in the past, I don't think it is so any longer.

    I think it is the case that if we are talking about God as being responsible for creation, we are not talking about causation as we can conceive of it. There should be nothing surprising about that of course - it's always been the case that most religious people have accepted that humans could not fully understand the nature of God. I disagree though that this means we are just talking nonsense. As I've said before I don't myself have faith in the existence of God, but that doesn't mean that those who do have such faith are talking nonsense.

    I'm a strong believer in taking a scientific approach to questions of science. I would therefore have no sympathy with someone who believes for instance that the earth is flat. While such people may have little influence on others, I also have no sympathy with people who want to follow 'alternative' explanations for other scientific issues that are still questioned today despite the evidence - like teaching that the world was created 6,000 years ago alongside evolution, or the belief that climate change isn't happening. I don't, however, believe that the existence of God is a scientific issue and treating it like that puts an unnecessary limit on the way people can experience the world.

    mlneveseThacoBell
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    @Grond0 By scientific do you mean it's also immune to reasoning and logic?

    @mashedtaters Someone who is able to examine their beliefs critically should abandon any beliefs that are irrational when he discovers them. That is what I would call reasonable.
    ThacoBell said:

    ThacoBell said:

    @ThacoBell Do you believe there is free will in heaven? If yes, there is no conflict between free will and a perfect world. If not, what makes you you in heaven if not your will?

    Partial? I don't think the opportunity to reintroduce evil will be available in heaven, which is why we make the choice now. Are you willing to accept an existence without death or sickness or selfishness without the choice to introduce those things, or do you reject it and keep all of your free will? Note that this is one instance where I am picking an interpretation out of ambiguity. The Bible is somewhat scant on explicit depiciotns of heaven beyond "its perfect and no one dies".
    Well, partial free will is not free will. Are you still you without your free will is the point.
    That's why the choice is made now. If you don't like the idea of a perfect place with no wrongs or sadness at the cost of neing able to commit acts of evil, then don't make that choice. Its all up to the individual if that is what they want or not. Also, remember that there are almost no specifics of heaven. The limited choice after getting there is my interpretation of how "this place is perfect and will never change". It might not be that way at all.
    No, I don't like the idea. Even worse for believers, there is no evidence to suggest there is such a place.

    ThacoBell
Sign In or Register to comment.