Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibninjas
God did not chose a set of arbitrary rules and then force everyone to follow them "or else". God, as the creator of life, knows how life works. He has revealed to us what it takes to maintain life, as well as warned us what causes us to lose life. You assume that things could be different and that every path can lead to life and that God just arbitrarily chose to make it difficult. That is just not the case (at least with the God that is revealed in the bible). God wishes that all are saved and that none should perish.
You believe that God is both omnipotent and the creator of everything. If there are "rules" about life, then yes, God did choose them. They may not have been chosen "arbitrarily," but you are suggesting that God chose them - out of all the infinite possible sets of rules he could have chosen.
Now, you can ask me to believe that in all those infinite sets of possible rules,
none of them resulted in a better outcome than this - a hellhole world, followed by torment and then destruction for a large proportion and paradise for everyone else.
But let's not forget that God is described as personally making the choices, as personally judging people, and sending them to torment, wailing and gnashing of teeth, etc etc etc.
Quote:
I don't think that this would be better. But it really depends on what your view on this pocket universe is, and also what your view on the natural consequence of sin is. I do not believe that it is possible that certain people even if allowed to live forever could ever be in a better situation then destruction.
What about free will? I thought everyone had a chance at salvation, and that all they had to do was choose with their free will to accept God. Now are you claiming that some people are predetermined not to accept God ever? I mean, given an infinite span of time, it stands to reason that everyone would
eventually choose God, as long as they have free will and there is a non-zero likelihood of their doing so at any given moment.
If there are some people who could not possibly experience anything better than destruction, then why did God create them in the first place? And why didn't God create humanity such that everyone can eventually choose to accept him? Why create a humanity such that some people have absolutely zero chance? Is this another case where your all-powerful God had no choice?
Quote:
Well, personally if I had a terminal illness that was causing me excruciating pain and it was only going to get worse, and there was no possibility of getting better, I would much rather be put out of my misery.
You say that now, but research shows that you would probably change your mind if it happened. Most terminally ill patients, even those in excruciating pain who go through a suicidal period, ultimately make some kind of peace and report a sense of contentment.
But there are numerous problems with this. First, I would love to be put out of my misery. But it would be better not to have ever been born. If there is absolutely no chance that I will achieve anything better than destruction, then I should not have been created in the first place. Perhaps the cruelest move of God, if such a being exists, is forcing us into existence in the first place.
Second, the Bible doesn't just talk about destruction. It makes clear mention of suffering and torment and regret and so on. You aren't just talking about God destroying people, you're talking about God torturing them and then destroying them. How could it possibly do anyone any good for these people to suffer before being destroyed? Yes, putting them out of their misery would be far more merciful than dragging them through the "punishments" for how they've lived only to then destroy them.
And very few people claim to want destruction - if those are the only people destroyed, it's not so bad, but this is not what the Bible seems to suggest. People who want to live, who enjoy living, are going to be destroyed. Now, God could just make a Matrix-like world for these people, or just make a separate world for each of them, populated by automatons, or probably do something much better than I can think of. Provide them with the sustained existence they
want to have, the sustained existence that makes them happy. But instead you are suggesting that God will destroy these people who
don't want to be destroyed.
Quote:
I don't see how you think this follows.
God could choose to be merciful instead of "just," and not torment these people. Would you prefer that? If so, then you disagree with God. If not, then it sounds like you have a preference for the nasty outcome, because you think that outcome is "just."
Quote:
You would trust a doctor that thought he could make you live forever? Wouldn't that make you a little nervous? Do you think that because doctors right now who believe that everyone will die, actually work less hard to make life as good as possible?
If Aubrey de Grey were to get his research off the ground, and it were successful, no it wouldn't make me nervous in the least. And yes, I think doctors would largely show more concern for patients if they believed those patients would live. I think when a patient is dying, there is some tendency in the medical community to distance from that patient, often to the patient's detriment.
Quote:
Do you believe that someone who devoted their life to science, would think that it is a waste of time? Because that is exactly what you are implying. I find this absurd.
I don't believe he considers science a waste of time. I do believe that he is very much capable of harming scientific progress. I also suspect that he is more motivated by ego than by a passion for the work itself, and his obsession with genomics as the tool to find God's master plan is irrational and not conducive to effective scientific inquiry. I don't think he is attracted to science because he believes it can make the world a good place to live for everyone. I don't think he believes the world can be a good place to live for everyone. I think he is attracted to science because he ascribes a kind of mystical quality to it, and I think part of the reason his own scientific perspective only scratches the surface is that he feels it's more important to preserve his sense of God in science than it is to accept the truth, lumps and all.