When God knows a soul goes to hell..

sin_is_fun · Post by **sin_is_fun** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 6:39 pm

When God knows a soul is going to go to hell ,why does he still create that soul?Why create that soul ,judge it later and send it to eternal hell?Stopping creation of such souls seems to be a better option.Why does God create souls knowing fully well that it will land up in eternal hell?

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:36 pm

A 3rd Gentleman wrote:If God has established our future actions within a definite certainty, then he has determined our future actions. If you don't believe me you should check the dictionary definition of 'determine'.

No. God doesn't determine (i.e., "to be the cause of") our future actions. We decide what our future actions are. God just happens to know that decision because God is omnipresent throughout all of spacetime.

3rd Gent wrote:To determine - or acquire explicit knowledge of the future, the future must be definite and absolute. You can not contradict absolutes. This means, if it is possible for God to determine our future, our future must be predecided.

Why must our future be predecided by anyone but our own selves? In our own present-future we will decide (not predecide) our destiny. God doesn't do that for us. God knows what that decision will be because God is omnipresent, even in the future where we are making our decisions right "now" (i.e., "now" in terms of our future selve's frame of reference).

3rd Gent wrote:"How does one not commit murder if God already knows that they will?"

If they do not commit some hideous act because they choose not to commit some hideous act, then God knows that they won't do so because God exists in their future to see that they did or will not do so (or vice versa).

3rd Gent wrote:You are presuming that free-will exists for the sake of your argument. Omniscience and free-will are incompatible, because free-will is always indeterminate, while every event and happening is determined as a condition of omniscience.

Omniscience does not necessarily determine every event and happening. As I argue here, God has knowledge of the future because God is omnipresent in the future, therefore of course God knows what we will choose. This is not a determined will and therefore God knows. It is a free will that determined its own choice, and therefore God knows. Since God exists there (in the future) and here (as in now), God knows both (as well as the past) as an ever present now.

unicorn · Post by **unicorn** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:17 am

3rd:

...he still passes judgement on souls for things that were beyond their control...

Beyond their control? How do you figure? You do know what free-will is, right?

Bugmaster · Post by **Bugmaster** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:56 am

unicorn wrote:http://www.dyeager.org/articles/frames.php

That article says that the following line in the Bible is equivalent to the theory of relativity:

But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day (2 Peter 3:8 NKJV).

I just don't see the resemblance. The theory of relativity makes some very specific statements about time, mass, distance, and the speed of light. These statements are expressed in mathematics (as the article you linked to points out); it makes specific predictions that can be observed and measured.

The Biblical quote is a poetic statement about God's nature, that is clearly not meant to be taken literally ("what about 1001 days ?"). It makes no verifyable predictions, it contains no mathematics, it does not deal with distance, mass or the speed of light (which is the central idea that runs all the way through the theory of relativity) in any way.

I don't think your conclusion that the Bible contains the theory of relativity is justified at all.

Bugmaster · Post by **Bugmaster** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:59 am

harvey1 wrote:I think that God is the ultimate cause for there being a soul, but God didn't choose to make some souls good and some souls evil. My view is that God happens to exist, therefore souls of all varieties exist as a result of this more primitive fact. God didn't choose that a particular soul should be evil, the soul in question chooses to be evil that's what makes it evil. The basic axiom of a soul is one of free choice:
God, freedom, becoming (etc.) exists

God's existence weakly determines a boundary on what souls can and cannot be

God instantiates a world where free souls come to exist

Are you saying that God does not personally create souls ? If so, where do souls come from ?

[*] Choices in the world define what the soul is
[*] Souls freely choose their definition while in the world

So, there's at least one thing that God cannot do: he cannot influence a soul's choice to be evil. Thus, God is not omnipotent.

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:51 am

Bugmaster wrote:Are you saying that God does not personally create souls ? If so, where do souls come from ?

I think souls come from God, but they are a derived existence--not a created existence. By derived I mean that God acts as an axiom in a formal system that as a result of the axiom being true, other things are true and come to exist. One of those things that exists as a result of God are free souls (i.e., souls that are free to be whatever they want to be). This is what I meant by God weakly determines the boundary conditions of souls. God determines certain attributes for the world, and as a result there are boundaries of what souls can and cannot be. What is actually created is the instantiation of these derived existences.

Bugmaster wrote:So, there's at least one thing that God cannot do: he cannot influence a soul's choice to be evil. Thus, God is not omnipotent.

I define omnipotent as bringing about or actualizing your absolute will, and as a result of actualizing your absolute will, some things are weakly actualized (i.e., they exist because you have actualized your will). For example, if God lifts up a rock, then God has, as a result, left the dirt covered by the rock exposed. God did not necessarily specify that God wanted the dirt exposed, it happened as a weak actualizing of God's absolute will. This issue does not impact omnipotency since in that case omnipotency would be a meaningless concept that wouldn't be anything close to what sincere theists believe what omnipotence means.

In the case of souls, God actualizes the divine will to bring about free souls, and like the rock exposing the dirt, as a result God has allowed souls to choose their moral direction in their journey.

Bugmaster · Post by **Bugmaster** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:06 am

harvey1 wrote:I think souls come from God, but they are a derived existence--not a created existence. By derived I mean that God acts as an axiom in a formal system that as a result of the axiom being true, other things are true and come to exist... In the case of souls, God actualizes the divine will to bring about free souls, and like the rock exposing the dirt, as a result God has allowed souls to choose their moral direction in their journey.

Well, at first glance, your view seems to be internally consistent (even though it's a bit hard to follow), but it's certainly inconsistent with the Biblical God. In the Bible, God cares about human beings and their souls. He personally creates the first humans out of clay, breathes souls into them, makes them worship him, etc. When humans anger him, he deals with them personally, in all kinds of nasty ways. He also has the ability to directly affect people's minds; for example, he "hardens the Pharaoh's heart" in order to bring about additional plagues upon Egypt.

Your God is a lot closer to Deism than to Christianity: he is not literally omnipotent, he did not create humans on purpose, and he is hardly even a person -- he's more of a logical axiom.

Which is fine, really -- no one died and made me Pope, so you can be a Deist if you like. However, I'd be curious to find out how you arrived at the attributes you ascribe to your God (omni-everything, eternal, etc.), since, presumably, you do not view the Bible as an accurate source of information.

QED · Post by **QED** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:09 am

But what is it Harvey that convinces you that souls exists? Do you think all living things have souls? If not why is the cut-off point where you think it is? I'm sure many people conflate souls with consciousness -- particularly so in the past when the bible was being written. The fact that the bible is treated like a science textbook to some people means they take it as a fact that souls exist. I assume that your thinking is more sophisticated than this, and I hope you can explain it to me... although I also hope it doesn't come out sounding like a pseudo-scientific rationalization of the Christian doctrine on the subject.

unicorn · Post by **unicorn** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:12 pm

Bugmaster:

I just don't see the resemblance.

Really. Well, I can't make you understand. Maybe you should go back and read the article again. Funny, I thought it was quite clear!

I don't think your conclusion that the Bible contains the theory of relativity is justified at all.

Probably because you don't understand the concept. Again, all I can say is "keep trying."

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:11 pm

Bugmaster wrote:I just don't see the resemblance.

unicorn wrote: Really. Well, I can't make you understand. Maybe you should go back and read the article again. Funny, I thought it was quite clear!

Bugmaster wrote:I don't think your conclusion that the Bible contains the theory of relativity is justified at all.

unicorn wrote:Probably because you don't understand the concept. Again, all I can say is "keep trying."

2 Peter 3 wrote:But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day NKJV.

This quote from 2 Peter is not the theory of relativity. In a vague sort of way it could be said to be consistent with the theory of relativity, but it certainly is not either specific or general relativity. Until and unless you already had the theory of relativity, you would not read those theories into that passage.

unicorn · Post by **unicorn** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:40 pm

McCulloch:

This quote from 2 Peter is not the theory of relativity.

It's not? I think you should probably go back and reread the article too! You should also go back and read why I posted it in the first place. I stated that the bible is backed by science--it's ideas, concepts, systems of beliefs--are continuously supported by scientific knowledge. Did you expect that there would be a verse in the bible delineating the theory of relativity word for word? Did you think that was the only instance in the bible that supports relativity?

You did, didn't you? That's funny.

Until and unless you already had the theory of relativity, you would not read those theories into that passage.

Really? You, know, you should back that statement up with some proof... because I and others think otherwise.

http://www.bible-quotes-science-info.co ... tivity.htm