Stargate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2017, 08:05 PM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2017 08:19 PM by nosferatu323.)
RE: Stargate
(01-07-2017 07:30 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(01-07-2017 07:16 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  I don't think these are random assumptions.

1. Eternity of life is assumed in almost all religions.
Assumed. Stated. Asserted. Not evidenced.
(01-07-2017 07:16 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  2. Unreality of this life and its pain and pleasure, and the reality of after life is emphasized all through the Bible and the Quran. "People are asleep, when they die, they wake up" (Ali-ibn Abi Talib) This is from a Muslim Imam (highest religious authority), fits very well for the argument.
Furthermore, unreality of pleasure and suffering is one of the major basic beliefs in Buddhism and various Hindu traditions.
Argument from authority / popularity.
(01-07-2017 07:16 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  3. Finite punishment: The concept of Limbo is clearly present in the Quran and based on some interpretations is also present in the Bible. This is the stage of temporary pain for those who have the capacity to join the Lord but are not ready yet.
Argument from authority / popularity.
(01-07-2017 07:16 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  The case of pure suffering being equal to absolute peacefulness attained infinitely far from God, is not an assumption either, it is a mystical and philosophical interpretation based on the concept of non-duality. This view is supported in various authentic Islamic sources, not sure about the Christian sources though. The supposedly infinite hell is for those souls who hate their creator, but due to the benevolence attribute, even these souls are brought into the plane of existence and they move towards their destination, infinitely far from their creator, so they can find their peace.
There is no basis to excuse suffering as acceptable. Religious faith has attempted to do so since time immemorial, but that doesn't make it right or moral.
(01-07-2017 07:16 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  I didn't quite get what you mean there. What is the flaw exactly? I personally find the cessation of suffering in a supposedly infinite hell with infinite suffering quite consistent from a philosophical point of view, and as I said there are various sources that suggest the same interpretation.

I didn't bother giving you the references. In case you are interested to know the references, please tell me.
Suffering does not disappear in the absence of contrasting pleasure, anymore than pleasure disappears in the absence of contrasting suffering. Hedonic tone exists, of course, but does not need extreme contrasts to appreciate changes in tone. Modest contrasts are more than sufficient.

I am not interested in references that involve quotations from holy books or the pronouncements of seers or shamans. If you have falsifiable propositions to demonstrate that have been put forward and properly tested, that would be of interest.

Quote:I am not interested in references that involve quotations from holy books or the pronouncements of seers or shamans. If you have falsifiable propositions to demonstrate that have been put forward and properly tested, that would be of interest.
Quote:Argument from authority / popularity.
I think there is a mis-conception here. We are talking about a hypothetical God that is portrayed in the Bible and the Quran and I'm trying to point out that this God can be a consistent entity. I have not assumed that there is anything real about this God except that it is described in these books. Therefore these books are valid references for my arguments. Since these books are the origin of this God.

You might be interested to read about the concept of non-duality, in a state of non-duality every experience will cease to exist since there will be no opposite for it, all that remains will be pure being or equivalently non-being. This state is referred to as Nirvana in various eastern religions. Both Hell and Heaven are ultimately non-dualistic and it is sensible to assume they are ultimately describing the same experience using different expressions. Suffering means nothing when hell is described, since there is no opposite for it, it just gives the reader the impression that this is not the path that God wants for his creation and they should avoid it.

Anyway, I have nothing to add to the points I've already mentioned, thanks for giving me the opportunity to express my thoughts on this Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: