Heaven and the after-life, the skeptic's hell

Pardalis

Banned
P
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
25,817
I was discussing Pascal's Wager the other day with someone, and after saying that I choose not to believe because of lack of evidence the person asked me what I would say if I was in heaven before God, would I apologize and try to make amends?

I thought about it and I realized I wouldn't even be sure whether what I'd have in front of me would be God or not, that even if he told me he was how could I make sure? I wouldn't have anything to compare it with, let alone a proper definition of what that thing is. How would I even be sure I was in heaven in the first place, and not hallucinating?

That lead me to think even further that Heaven, in the Christian way anyway, could very well be the worst place for a skeptic to be. If reality doesn't exist anymore, if the laws of physics don't apply, this means we can't really be sure about anything, or inversely, if after we're dead we're given knowledge about everything, so what's the use of keeping existing forever? What's there to do when you already know everything? Wouldn't that suck? Either way we're screwed, either we can't know anything, or we know too much.

Just a thought, I didn't have a particular thing to discuss.
 
Last edited:
One of the parts of theology that comes into play here is called revelation. In this context, it means that God reveals himself to your spirit directly. The idea there is that not only does that prove his existence to you, but also proves the existence of your spirit at the same time (sort of a two-fer). Like having a limb or a sense you don't know you have, and then one day, it wakes up or finally encounters something it can report on.

It probably doesn't directly provide an answer to your speculation, but from my understanding that is how some theologies answer the question of how someone can be sure God is there: the above process of revelation somehow clinches it.
 
Denver said:
One of the parts of theology that comes into play here is called revelation. In this context, it means that God reveals himself to your spirit directly. The idea there is that not only does that prove his existence to you, but also proves the existence of your spirit at the same time (sort of a two-fer). Like having a limb or a sense you don't know you have, and then one day, it wakes up or finally encounters something it can report on.

It probably doesn't directly provide an answer to your speculation, but from my understanding that is how some theologies answer the question of how someone can be sure God is there: the above process of revelation somehow clinches it.
Click to expand...

Sounds pretty dicey. What has become of free will if the supreme being MAKES you believe in him?
 
aggle-rithm said:
Sounds pretty dicey. What has become of free will if the supreme being MAKES you believe in him?
Click to expand...

Hence the problem inherent in the free-will / revelation argument. Theology has tried to rationalise that one in the past and never seems to get very far. Basically, God can't 'make you' believe by flicking a switch, as that contradicts the whole free-will law He made for Himself.

But I've considered the same question as the one Pardalis proposed, and figured I'd have little choice in the matter, as such. If I believed I was dead and a figure claiming to be God said 'I run this joint. Now, do you believe in me?', I could only believe in the same capacity as I do now; I'd believe I was seeing some figure calling themselves God in a place that I might believe was an afterlife.

That said, if He confessed to being the God of the bible, I'd also probably have a few words to exchange about His behaviour. ;) My problem then would be that I'd have an issue with a) eternity (don't like the sounds of it) and b) worshipping some deity that had an oversized ego and indulged in childish behaviour forever and a day. That would in itself be my personal Hell - sitting in front of such an arrogant son-of-a-bitch and hailing Him for countless eternities.

The response I normally get to that is that I'll be so full of love for Him that I'd simply feel compelled. Which means 'I' would no longer be 'me', in which case - I'd have a different personality altogether.

Hence I'm quite content with there being no after life, thanks.

Athon
 
Denver said:
One of the parts of theology that comes into play here is called revelation. In this context, it means that God reveals himself to your spirit directly. The idea there is that not only does that prove his existence to you, but also proves the existence of your spirit at the same time (sort of a two-fer). Like having a limb or a sense you don't know you have, and then one day, it wakes up or finally encounters something it can report on.

It probably doesn't directly provide an answer to your speculation, but from my understanding that is how some theologies answer the question of how someone can be sure God is there: the above process of revelation somehow clinches it.
Click to expand...

If God approached me wearing a trenchcoat and fedora, I'd have the pervert arrested.
 
Denver said:
One of the parts of theology that comes into play here is called revelation. In this context, it means that God reveals himself to your spirit directly. The idea there is that not only does that prove his existence to you, but also proves the existence of your spirit at the same time (sort of a two-fer). Like having a limb or a sense you don't know you have, and then one day, it wakes up or finally encounters something it can report on.

It probably doesn't directly provide an answer to your speculation, but from my understanding that is how some theologies answer the question of how someone can be sure God is there: the above process of revelation somehow clinches it.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is something many people report in NDEs. Direct knowing, not mediated by anything (such as sense-data).
 
If I had to spend eternity in a place full of bible thumping christians, I would assume that to be hell. Heaven would be a place where only the people I liked would be, I could drink and drug my self silly with no repercussions, and I could fish all day long and catch just the right amount of fish. Not so many that it becomes a job, and not so few that my mind would wander to subjects such as this.:D
 
plumjam said:
Yes, this is something many people report in NDEs. Direct knowing, not mediated by anything (such as sense-data).
Click to expand...
Personally I think that this "direct knowing" is the source of most woo. The whole idea of knowing something withough having sensed it seems to me to indicate that it's all in the mind. People are known to fabricate things in their minds that don't exist. When presented with someone who claims direct knowledge of God, is it more parsimonious to think that an entity exists which is capable of inserting knowledge of itself into someone's brain, or that the person's brain has fabricated an experience?

Anyway.

If I were to ever find myself in this situation, I wouldn't be too worried. I live a decent life. I help other people and am generally a good person. I would think that a merciful God would not punish me eternally just because I didn't spend my life on my knees.

Then again, I have no particular reason to think that the God of the Bible is particularly merciful.
 
plumjam said:
Yes, this is something many people report in NDEs. Direct knowing, not mediated by anything (such as sense-data).
Click to expand...

Sigh... near-death experiences explained by medical science :rolleyes:

So let me get this straight, Plumjam - you are essentially arguing that this knowledge would be magically revealed without any reference to our sensory organs?

If that is the case, what is to distinguish the supposed "revelation" from a really wicked acid trip?

And how would you distinguish the validity of two mutually-exclusive "revelations"? By what standard could you tell the true "revelation" from the false one?
 
MattusMaximus said:
And how would you distinguish the validity of two mutually-exclusive "revelations"? By what standard could you tell the true "revelation" from the false one?
Click to expand...

Easy. They'd both be correct. It's idealism - where there's no such thing as a rule, and the universe is whatever the hell you want it to be.

Quick - there goes the white rabbit! I got 'im!

Athon
 
athon said:
Easy. They'd both be correct. It's idealism - where there's no such thing as a rule, and the universe is whatever the hell you want it to be.
Click to expand...

Sadly enough, I've seen some people here actually make these arguments seriously. But then I simply ignore them as they (the people, that is) are nothing more than figments of my imagination ;)

Quick - there goes the white rabbit! I got 'im!

Athon
Click to expand...

Athon, you wacky guy :)
 
Just before he smited me I'd probably say some smartassed thing instead of apologizing.
 
Pardalis said:
I was discussing Pascal's Wager the other day with someone, and after saying that I choose not to believe because of lack of evidence the person asked me what I would say if I was in heaven before God, would I apologize and try to make amends?
Click to expand...

Well, from a Christian viewpoint if you get to heaven you need not apologize for anything since you have been deemed worthy of the heavenly reward based on your faith in Jesus' Ransom Sacrifice. If you hadn't known about Jesus Ransom sacrifice you wouldn't have gotten to heaven in the first place.

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.


Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord


So the confusion you imagine you might experience in heaven is impossible within the parameters of biblical Christian theology.

I thought about it and I realized I wouldn't even be sure whether what I'd have in front of me would be God or not, that even if he told me he was how could I make sure? I wouldn't have anything to compare it with, let alone a proper definition of what that thing is. How would I even be sure I was in heaven in the first place, and not hallucinating?
Click to expand...

If you made it to heaven you'd definitely have a proper definition. So your confusion itself would be sufficient proof that you are either dreaming or hallucinating.

That lead me to think even further that Heaven, in the Christian way anyway, could very well be the worst place for a skeptic to be. If reality doesn't exist anymore, if the laws of physics don't apply, this means we can't really be sure about anything, or inversely, if after we're dead we're given knowledge about everything, so what's the use of keeping existing forever? What's there to do when you already know everything? Wouldn't that suck? Either way we're screwed, either we can't know anything, or we know too much.
Just a thought, I didn't have a particular thing to discuss.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would suck. Fortunately, however, your description of heaven isn't scripturally supported. Neither is it a Christian view of heaven. Nowhere are we told that we will be omniscient and know everything there is to be known. In fact, angels and the Son of God are said to be ignorant of the day when God brings Armageddon.


Mathew 24:36
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.


BTW
Nowhere are we told that heaven is a place completely devoid of physical laws or other nonphysical laws by which we could make sense of things.

1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace,....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom