Endless Punishment, Fundie style

[turingtest]

You must admit it's clever, though. If you can make the nonexistence of God proof of his existence, the gates of logic swing wide, and you can ride your unicorn right through.

It passes for clever; but I don't think I've ever seen such speciously convoluted nonsense as this:

Here, Stace (who never raises the topic of God, mind you) offers a solution, namely that from our experience we can understand that Being and Nothingness are essentially the same. That is, take something, like a salt-pot, and describe it: glassy, metallic, perforated, rigid, octagonal lower cross-section, contains salt, etc., and also “exists”. The salt-pot exists. Now, take away those qualities one by one, until only the “existence” quality remains. What are we left with? Apparently, nothing. Being and Nothing are equivalents. Stace goes on to describe this fact's relevance to Hegel's triadic system of Logic, but, we don't need to venture there. Suffice to say that Being and Nothingness are conceptually equivalent, in this manner of thinking.

If so, we have a problem that needs rephrasing, because Being and Nothing being equivalent crashes the related question, “Why is there anything rather than nothing?” “Anything” and “nothing” are, in this schema, the same, and so there's no conceivable alternative to them. Why should Being be, presupposes the alternative of Nothing, but, if Being and Nothing are equivalent, there can be no question of why, for there is no alternative to the alternative (i.e. Nothing).

I mean, really? Because descriptions of something that exists are fluid, the thing itself is equivalent to non-existent? I'm sure I've said this before, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone work so hard to say nothing at all (which, I suppose, by CplFerro's "reasoning," would be a compliment, since it's the equivalent, to him, of saying everything). It's superficial fluff masquerading as deep, substantial thought- no more, and it can't possibly be any less.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You must admit it's clever, though. If you can make the nonexistence of God proof of his existence, the gates of logic swing wide, and you can ride your unicorn right through.

Right. The apophatic 'god' that is "real", but does not "exist".

Words mean things, that is, words have actual meanings*; grammar and lexcion are our tools against the darkness.


*(at least, they do if used honestly)

 

[Slowvehicle]

It passes for clever; but I don't think I've ever seen such speciously convoluted nonsense as this:

I mean, really? Because descriptions of something that exists are fluid, the thing itself is equivalent to non-existent? I'm sure I've said this before, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone work so hard to say nothing at all (which, I suppose, by CplFerro's "reasoning," would be a compliment, since it's the equivalent, to him, of saying everything). It's superficial fluff masquerading as deep, substantial thought- no more, and it can't possibly be any less.

"In 'Nothing' is 'Anything'"

...reminds one of the Pledge of the Adelphian Lodge:
“Sickness Is Health, Blackness Is Truth, Drinking Is Strength.”

And nearly means as much, almost.

 

[tsig]

"In 'Nothing' is 'Anything'"

...reminds one of the Pledge of the Adelphian Lodge:
“Sickness Is Health, Blackness Is Truth, Drinking Is Strength.”

And nearly means as much, almost.

Reminds me of:

“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”

G. O.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Reminds me of:

“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”

G. O.

Exactly.

Once you deceive yourself into accepting that "nothing" means the same thing as "anything", words stop being useful.

Reminds me of one of Jabba's threads...

 

[crhkrebs]

CPlFerro seems to be a nice person. But it's difficult to have a meaningful discourse with someone who:

Refuses to answer direct questions put to him/her. (#216, #219, #221)
Conflates the words "reason" and "purpose" and then denies it.
Conflates word salad with a meaningful argument.
Relies on "special pleading" and then denies it.

I'm out of here.

 

[crhkrebs]

You must admit it's clever, though. If you can make the nonexistence of God proof of his existence, the gates of logic swing wide, and you can ride your pink unicorn right through.

There, isn't that much better?

 

[Slowvehicle]

CPlFerro seems to be a nice person. But it's difficult to have a meaningful discourse with someone who:

Refuses to answer direct questions put to him/her. (#216, #219, #221)
Conflates the words "reason" and "purpose" and then denies it.
Conflates word salad with a meaningful argument.
Relies on "special pleading" and then denies it.

I'm out of here.

...and #247, and #252...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10036429#post10036429

 

[Warrior1461]

A dominant falsehood that Satan has foisted on mankind is the belief that one's soul goes to heaven after death. Many people assume that the phrase Kingdom of God is synonymous with heaven, but the Bible teaches that when Jesus Christ returns, the Kingdom of God will be established on earth!

Second Coming, you know because Jesus needs a sequel because he could not do this the first time around, like what the messiah is supposed to do in the Torah. The biggest problem I have with this form of religion is that is really BADLY written.

It is a theological continuity that is up there with badly written 80's afternoon cartoons meant to sell action figures.

Jesus himself was also a continuity rewrite, his sacrifice was about creating a new covenant that did away with the convoluted purity laws. Just like rewrites like DC Crisis on Infinite Earths, these rewrites are not consistent and eventually get many of their fixes reversed by later writers and editors.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

You must admit it's clever, though. If you can make the nonexistence of God proof of his existence, the gates of logic swing wide, and you can ride your unicorn right through.

But you forget, God is beyond logic, so said gates have long since been torn off their hinges and buried in the mud. That reminds me:

P1: An all-powerful God could overcome the greatest possible obstacles.
P2: Nonexistence and impossibility are the greatest possible obstacles.
C: Therefore God does not exist, and is still omnipotent in our universe.

 

[Donn]

I think Frozenwolf just broke me.

 

[Pacal]

One of the most amusing features of Fundamentalist talk about punishment in the afterlife is that along with feigning regret that you will be burning forever in hell for not accepting Jesus has your Lord and Savior they make it abundantly clear that the idea of the unsaved burning forever in hell gives them great joy and pleasure.

It comes across all too frequently in the tone of their voice and the smug satisfaction with which they reiterate that you will burn and the smile that crosses their lips has they utter the phrase that you are lost.

UGH!!

 

[Giordano]

One of the most amusing features of Fundamentalist talk about punishment in the afterlife is that along with feigning regret that you will be burning forever in hell for not accepting Jesus has your Lord and Savior they make it abundantly clear that the idea of the unsaved burning forever in hell gives them great joy and pleasure.

It comes across all too frequently in the tone of their voice and the smug satisfaction with which they reiterate that you will burn and the smile that crosses their lips has they utter the phrase that you are lost.

UGH!!

What would a good heaven be unless you could watch people in hell suffer?

I think one of the most "attractive" parts of fundamentalist religion is the prospect of turning the tables on all those people who did well in "this" life" and having these others realize that they chose wrong, and you, having chosen right, will have a superior afterlife compared to them. There are exceptions: religious people who hope everyone gets into their heaven. But for most fundamentalists, the joy of the prospect of heaven is made even greater by considering all those people who now will suffer hell. I think the defining question is: "If on entering heaven you found out that everyone gets to heaven, would you be happy or unhappy?" Of course, there being no heaven, no one is likely to be surprised in this way.

 

[tsig]

One of the most amusing features of Fundamentalist talk about punishment in the afterlife is that along with feigning regret that you will be burning forever in hell for not accepting Jesus has your Lord and Savior they make it abundantly clear that the idea of the unsaved burning forever in hell gives them great joy and pleasure.

It comes across all too frequently in the tone of their voice and the smug satisfaction with which they reiterate that you will burn and the smile that crosses their lips has they utter the phrase that you are lost.

UGH!!

One of the joys of heaven is seeing the suffering of the dammed:

11
This knowledge and sight of hell does not detract,
in any way, from the joys of
heaven; rather, it even contributes to it. By this
visual display of the end result of
rebellion against God the saints are allowed to “en
joy their beatitude more thoroughly.”
12
This sight does not ruin heaven; it enhances it.



https://www.rts.edu/Site/Virtual/Resources/Student_Theses/Johnson-Seeing_Hell.pdf


The whole point of much religious literature like "Left Behind" is enjoying the suffering of the unsaved while you sit smugly in your cocoon of righteousness.

 

[CplFerro]

Stace talks about how the universals, such as whiteness, length, sharpness, and so on, are called “real,” but, don't exist, because there is nowhere in the Universe we can point to as being whiteness itself, length itself, sharpness itself, and so on. These universals are real, but, they do not exist in time and space. That which does exist in time and space, we say “exists.” So, salt exists, and is white and salty, but, that which exists is not strictly real, in the terms given, whereas whiteness and saltiness are real but don't exist.

I read that and get the sensation that I'm being played, being set-up for a con. Something in my reason rebels early.

"Whiteness" of salt does exist, because salt exists. Absolute whiteness does not exist, because "white" is a category name and is applied to many differing shades of the idea of the colour.

This white, cursor indicates JREFF background, exists.
That white, points to a boiled egg, exists.

The "white" that is reserved for potential things which have not yet (or cannot ever) be seen by human eyes, does not exist -- just as those potential things do not exist.

The white and the thing-which-displays-whiteness are both extant: the whiteness is a result of physical properties, of photons and their physics.

So, every single individual observed shade of white does, in fact, exist.

There are no observed gods at all.

Dear Donn,

I agree that white particulars exist, but the white universal does not. The whiteness of a particular does not exist outside of that particular. That we can point to different white particulars and call them all “white” only because we grasp the universal. It's that universal I point to as being outside of space and time, as a simile for God. We can observe suggestive evidence for God, but God Himself is, at present, not present in space and time.

If you cannot back-up words with reality/observation, then you cannot speak of your words as real.

Is love real? We can point to words and actions, but we don't really know if another's love is true or not.

Now, he took a hundred pages to talk about the above, and I'm squeezing it into a paragraph, but, overall it's not a terribly difficult concept to grasp. He goes on to talk about how the real is associated with Being—eternal entities, outside of time and space--and the existent is associated with Becoming--that which changes in time and space.

The bait and switch happens. Real + Being. Existent + Becoming. Huh?

It's really not that hard to see what he's referring to.

And from there you find enough virtual concrete to build your edifice...

Is faith real or becoming? Is it existent or being? For you reserve that weasel-word as a final fall-back to stop all critical input.

You can turn faith about as a shield to any angle. One moment it is Real and deflecting all hypotheticals; the next it is Being and rebuffing all matter.

You have built your house on shifting ground because you are defending a pre-conceived position and that takes flexibility - all integrity be damned.

Or, it's following the argument where it leads. Given that the Universe cannot be eternal, we must look further afield than the Universe to find its source. “Being” explains the Becoming, whereas quantum foam or the multiverse or the perennial ignorance defense “I don't know” does not. [hands lifted palms up] “Where did all this come from?” “I don't know.” I do know, because it's the only answer that makes sense. I have no choice, if I possess integrity with regards my apprehension of the Logos, but to build my house on the rock of the Logos.

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

Not only am I amazed that you believe that word salad, but amazed that you presumably think it answers the question asked.

Do you understand the word "nothing?"

I don't understand your question, Giordano.

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

Six hundred and twenty two words to say "God just is, no reason needed".


Special pleading (also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment[1]) is a form of spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.[2]





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Does your philosophy hold no possibility for the existence of necessary beings*, tsig? If not, then all beings are contingent, containing not their own reason for existence, which begs the question of where did the Universe come from in the first place.

Cpl Ferro

* Using "existence" and "being" in a non-Hegelian sense.

 

[CplFerro]

"Reason" is not "purpose." You keep trying to weasel God into the equation. Also, many things just exist and just happen, even if we don't fully understand them or haven't figured them out yet. Physics is full of examples.

And you're trying to weasel in material causes, Frozenwolf.

"Physics" says this or says that. I don't believe "physics" has the answers here, and I don't believe anything "just exists."

You're wrong in a couple of ways here. Mind is an emergent property of matter in every single observation we have ever made as a species. There is no such thing as a mind that exists outside of a material substrate. Also, you've given no good reason to rule out a material cause of the universe. Quantum fluctuations were the most likely cause of the Big Bang expansion.

Yes, the all-powerful quantum fluctuations. Are quantum fluctuations mind? Or are they matter? Or are they a third thing?

Cpl Ferro

 

[Donn]

The punishment of the other in heaven is basically deferred revenge porn.

 

[Giordano]

I don't understand your question, Giordano.

Cpl Ferro

To be explicit, nothing usually means the opposite of something. Nothing is the absence of something. Didn't your quote use a very different definition?