Poll: What is your preferred afterlife
This poll is closed.
Supernatural hell: Get tortured for a hundred years, but not actually and then be turned loose to temp people. 11.76% 2 11.76%
Supernatural heaven: Supposedly your idea of paradise, but from what I saw way too cramped to spend an eternity. 23.53% 4 23.53%
Catholic idea: Burn forever. 0% 0 0%
Seperation from god for eternity. 64.71% 11 64.71%
Total 17 votes 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Poll: What version of the afterlife would you prefer?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-10-2017, 01:53 AM
RE: Poll: What version of the afterlife would you prefer?
I'll be happy to clarify any language of mine which is ambiguous.

When you say that Christians blend the actus purus with a sky daddy, is this something that you attribute to all Christians?

The ones I respect go out of their way to be clear that God is the source and goal of all good, and not properly described as an emotional daddy-like figure. The ones who know about the actus purus seem pretty clear about not believing in a sky-daddy. But of course I haven't read all of them, and if you can point me to those who blend the concepts I will be willing to take a look. I'll be careful not to over-generalize.

Or do you mean something else by sky-daddy?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2017, 02:04 AM
RE: Poll: What version of the afterlife would you prefer?
(08-10-2017 01:53 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  I'll be happy to clarify any language of mine which is ambiguous.

You can't clarify what is already clear.

Quote:When you say that Christians blend the actus purus with a sky daddy, is this something that you attribute to all Christians?

When I say I just don't care about it - it being prime mover -, especially when it's blended with christian fables about sky daddy it means exactly that. There's no ambiguity there nor I mention christians. It's interesting though how you twist what I wrote.

Quote:The ones I respect go out of their way to be clear that God is the source and goal of all good, and not properly described as an emotional daddy-like figure. The ones who know about the actus purus seem pretty clear about not believing in a sky-daddy. But of course I haven't read all of them, and if you can point me to those who blend the concepts I will be willing to take a look. I'll be careful not to over-generalize.

Or do you mean something else by sky-daddy?

I think you're looking for something that isn't in sentence that I wrote. But feel free to search for some deeper meaning where there isn't one.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2017, 02:05 AM
RE: Poll: What version of the afterlife would you prefer?
No problem. I'll drop it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2017, 05:16 AM (This post was last modified: 08-10-2017 05:39 AM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: Poll: What version of the afterlife would you prefer?
(07-10-2017 07:28 PM)Belaqua Wrote:  
(07-10-2017 05:32 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  ...I personally think they were all highly intelligent, if culture-bound....
Surely everybody is aware that Galileo, Isaac Newton, and Francis Bacon were Christians who found no discrepancy between their religion and their science (whatever real or potential fights they had with church personnel).

In fact *because* those guys were intelligent, their classical theism was smarter than modern literalism, and for the most part remains compatible with modern scientific discoveries.

You think the Christian variety of theism can "for the most part" be compatible with modern scientific discoveries? I think the opposite, and would be interested in how you arrive at your conclusion. You can assume, for the sake of discussion, that we are all already conversant with cosmological, teleological, ontological, and personal arguments for the existence of God.

What is "classic theism" then?

Specifically, Christianity maintains the following:
God created the world.
Evil was caused by man's fall from a perfect state.
Jesus redeemed mankind through his blood sacrifice.
Belief in Jesus is required to be redeemed and go to heaven after death.
Jesus will return to see justice done on Earth.

All of this, frankly, is mythology. So how in the world could any of these major theological points be considered compatible with science? You may have redefined your theism in some way to be compatible with science, but I doubt you can honestly call it Christianity.

Take the Prime Mover (cosmological) argument, for instance. You may try to insert a God into any unknown (a God-of-the-gaps style argument), but how can you possibly maintain it must be the Christian God?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Thoreauvian's post
08-10-2017, 05:37 AM
RE: Poll: What version of the afterlife would you prefer?
(08-10-2017 05:16 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  What is "classic theism" then?

This would be a reasonable start.

"You may have redefined your theism in some way to be compatible with science, but I doubt you can honestly call it Christianity."

I should clarify that this is not "my" theism. It's a fascinating topic that I study. Since it was so widely known before, I find it odd that few people acknowledge it today, and in particular the people who argue against religion seem to think that all Christianity is something very different.

It is compatible with science because it holds God to be, like Aristotle's Prime Mover, the metaphysical source which holds things in being. It doesn't address any subject which science can deal with, by definition.

Whether we want to call this Christian or not is something the Christians can debate, I guess. To say it isn't Christian is to say that neither Thomas Aquinas nor Augustine is Christian, which I find to be a strange claim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Belaqua's post
08-10-2017, 05:45 AM
RE: Poll: What version of the afterlife would you prefer?
Googling around, I also find this site.

Look down at Section 3: Divine Attributes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2017, 05:48 AM
RE: Poll: What version of the afterlife would you prefer?
(08-10-2017 05:37 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  I should clarify that this is not "my" theism. It's a fascinating topic that I study. Since it was so widely known before, I find it odd that few people acknowledge it today, and in particular the people who argue against religion seem to think that all Christianity is something very different.

It is compatible with science because it holds God to be, like Aristotle's Prime Mover, the metaphysical source which holds things in being. It doesn't address any subject which science can deal with, by definition.

Whether we want to call this Christian or not is something the Christians can debate, I guess. To say it isn't Christian is to say that neither Thomas Aquinas nor Augustine is Christian, which I find to be a strange claim.

Fair enough, but you have not answered how classic theism can be reconciled with most of the major theological points from Christianity I mentioned. Are you dropping all of them but "God the Creator" ? And if so, how are you still talking about Christianity? Did your major figures of Christian history reconcile those points, or did they just gloss over them?

And from the scientific point of view, how do you personally reconcile God with evolution? With general relativity? With quantum theory? To say "God did it" doesn't nearly explain enough.

In other words, a God-of-the-gaps argument like you are employing is in fact an argument from ignorance (a fallacy) unless you supply some details.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thoreauvian's post
08-10-2017, 05:57 AM
RE: Poll: What version of the afterlife would you prefer?
(08-10-2017 05:45 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  Googling around, I also find this site.

Look down at Section 3: Divine Attributes

I am familiar with divine attributes from my own study of Islam. However, I find many of them in conflict with each other and with observations of the world we actually inhabit.

These days I prefer the concept of truth (without consciousness) to the concept of God (a willful being with consciousness).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2017, 05:57 AM
RE: Poll: What version of the afterlife would you prefer?
(08-10-2017 05:48 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  Fair enough, but you have not answered how classic theism can be reconciled with most of the major theological points from Christianity I mentioned. Are you dropping all of them but "God the Creator" ? And if so, how are you still talking about Christianity? Did your major figures of Christian history reconcile those points, or did they just gloss over them?

And from the scientific point of view, how do you personally reconcile God with evolution? With general relativity? With quantum theory? To say "God did it" doesn't nearly explain enough.

In other words, a God-of-the-gaps argument like you are employing is in fact an argument from ignorance (a fallacy) unless you supply some details.

You have a lot of fair questions, but it's night time here, and I'm sleepy. I promise to get back to this tomorrow.

"My" major figures of Christian history did not gloss over these things. They worked hard on them, and it's sad that neither modern Christians nor the atheists who argue with them seem to have heard these arguments at all.

I'm surprised you would call this a God of the gaps argument. It isn't one.

I do not personally reconcile God with evolution. I study the subject of how others do it. Evolution poses little problem for theology before the mechanistic view of the universe took over after Newton, with the Deists, etc. The Neoplatonic tradition of the Great Chain of Being, especially as described by Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus, prepares the way for the theory of evolution, and comes quite close to describing it. Charles' contribution was to describe the mechanism: natural selection.

OK, later.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Belaqua's post
08-10-2017, 06:12 AM (This post was last modified: 08-10-2017 06:23 AM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: Poll: What version of the afterlife would you prefer?
(08-10-2017 05:57 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  "My" major figures of Christian history did not gloss over these things. They worked hard on them, and it's sad that neither modern Christians nor the atheists who argue with them seem to have heard these arguments at all.

I'm surprised you would call this a God of the gaps argument. It isn't one.

I do not personally reconcile God with evolution. I study the subject of how others do it.

Why would atheists need to study ancient Christian philosophers at all since science does a perfectly adequate job of explaining the world we see without any God hypothesized for its theories? The burden of proof is on theists to show how atheists need their God concept to explain anything. Thus my questions about evolution, general relativity, and quantum mechanics. How is God necessary for any of them?

When I was trying to answer those questions myself, I considered God the one and only absolute. So evolution was necessary because there are no absolute forms of life. General relativity was necessary because there are no absolutes in time and space. Quantum mechanics was necessary because there are no absolute positions. Thus the idea of "no god but God" central to monotheism could be considered an explaination of the observable world.

But really, that all comes down to apologetics. It simply doesn't add anything new to the explanations, and it certainly doesn't support the detailed mythologies common to all varieties of theism.

Further, my revised God concept did not require consciousness to work. Once consciousness fell out of my God concept, I had to acknowledge to myself that I wasn't talking about any recognizable God at all. God must necessarily be conscious and willful as defined by the usual attributes of both Islam and Christianity. What I was left with was a concept of truth, or Truth if you prefer, but not God.

So classic theism must lead to science in the end. It doesn't really support theistic assumptions at all, at least in my personal experience.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Thoreauvian's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: