Is it Just to punish an innocent man? Pt. 5

"Well give me some examples."

Ok. In metaphysics, for instance, we'd examine the nature of being. Everything that is, including the universe itself, demonstrates a movement from potential to actual existence. Ie, everything begins and changes. This leads us to question what allows this movement from potential to actual existence, for what reason do these things exist, what most people think of as a cause. In the case of the universe itself, when we ask this question, we have three possible answers, the universe caused itself, the universe's causes regress infinitely into the past, or something outside the universe caused it.

In the first case, nothing can cause itself, this is a logical impossibility, since something would have to exist before it exists to cause itself.

In the second case, infinite regression is another logical impossibility, as without a starting point from which to begin progressing, we could never exist at this moment. Our existence in the now requires a definitive starting point from which the universe can begin the progression through its causes and eventually reach us. Otherwise there's an infinite wait until now, and so we'd never reach it.

The third case is logically possible. Due to our rejection of the first two possibilities, it's the only logically viable solution, making it the one we choose via argumentum ad absurdum reasoning. There is also the possibility of some unconsidered option, so we leave that open to consideration as well. However, I've never thought of one, and no one else in the last 4,000 years has either, so I don't worry about it so much.

That third option dictates that something outside of the universe caused the universe. We must ask again why that thing exists, whatever it is. Again, because nothing can regress infinitely, and because nothing can cause itself, we must conclude eventually that some being outside the universe is uncaused, ie it exists without causes, eternally. No beginning, no ending. This being's essence then would be equal to its existence, such that instead of having potential existence and actual existence, (like everything else that begins and changes), it would be purely actual existence, pure act of existence (thus eternal and immutable).

From there we go further to reach the conclusion that this is God, but I don't want to get too far ahead of our discussion.

"I think that a reasonable standard would be the same standards we hold for gravity and electricity. Can you offer as much evidence that God exists as there is that electricity and gravity exist. If so what?"

That gravity and electricity exist are evidence that God exists. All of science is evidence of a rational Creator. The simple fact of the matter is that the universe does not have to operate along rationally intelligible principles that we can understand and follow to conclusions like the theory of gravitation. As the anthropic principle notes, the only reason we can even ask these questions is because the universe is the way it is. But the reason WHY it is that way can be answered in only one of two ways. Either it's pure accident, or it's rational design.

If I am correct that the universe is neither self-caused nor infinitely regressing in naturalistic causes, but caused by something else, the idea of it being accidental becomes exceedingly improbable, possibly even impossible.

Now, regarding your notion concerning the "standards" of gravity and electricity, these are both empirical standards, neither of which offers definitive proof, and neither of which are logically applicable to a being which is extra-natural or super natural. Empiricism measures only what can be explored via the senses and repeated observation. It's quite useless here.

"Christianity to atheism, I was a Christian for about 18 years, then for a I started really questioning my beliefs and about a year later I became an atheist."

Then how precisely is this the same as converting to Christianity?

"Evidence as strong or stronger than other things I believe in."

IE, pure subjectivity. Evidence stronger than other things YOU believe. Again, the problem of evidence is that it's all subjective.

"What I meant was I think everyone should be given the opportunity, even after they die."

Why? Why should they? This sort of mentality, again, just demonstrates a self-centeredness. If their life wasn't enough, why would they convert in the afterlife? If they are selfish enough to believe they SHOULD always get another chance, then they're never going to be selfless enough to love God.

"That's my point, the afterlife should exist in time."

Except you're running into a logical problem. If the afterlife is to be Heaven or Hell, they cannot be temporal. It's only states that are not those two that can have temporal aspects, since both those states are contingent upon one's relationship with an atemporal being. God could make some seperate afterlife that's temporal, but if the end God desires for us, teleologically, is HEAVEN, then eventually He has to say we've had our shot and we go where we've chosen to go. Infinite progression would thwart the entire purpose of Creation.

"Why?"

I have already explained this. Our existence is continually willed by God, and thus outside our control. This is the metaphysics of our being, being stems from the being which is pure act. So long as it causes us to have actual existence, we will have it. Our physical body, and thus our physical life, is contingent upon certain material points, not just metaphysical being. Thus our physical bodies can be killed, thus ending our lives. And it so happens that we as individuals have that ability, though we shouldn't exercise it.

"You're right. What I meant when I said assume was make a logical conclusion."

Then I agree, as you probably gathered.

"Why will he allow us to die if we want, but not stop ourselves from existing?"

Because God will not allow for our existence to be taken from us, it is the greatest gift He has given us, and only He could remove it. And He will not because such an act, existence being the principle good, would be evil. And God will not do evil, as His nature is good.

"Why is it so important to be able to claim to be independent?"

I'm not sure I've ever understood why it has been so important to humanity to be free. What I do know is that observing us, it does seem to be the case, even among Christians. And it's not just independence but a seeming equality with God.

"Where did Satan come from?"

He's an angel who, when the angels were presented with the ability to choose to serve God or themselves at their creation, chose to serve himself. He was the greatest of all the angels, reflecting most fully God, and it was through this, and the same desire for equality and independence that he choose to go his own way.

Is it Just to punish an innocent man? Pt. 4

"What evidence is there?"

All kinds. Everything from nature itself to metaphysics. As I was discussing with John, the problem is that the nature of evidence is quite subjective. What one person accepts, another may not.

"They might have had the opportunity, but no reason to. And now that they have a reason to believe in God they don't have an opportunity."

That's never true, there are always reasons to believe. And I rather doubt experiencing horrific agony and separation from God would leave them to LOVE God. It is about more than just belief that God exists, after all. It is about loving Him and following Him. Mere belief guarantees nothing.

"I did it through research and thought, looking at the evidence."

You changed your mind from what, to what, after how long a period of time?

"If there was strong evidence, yes."

That doesn't answer the question. I could present tons of evidence, but there's no guarantee that any evidence is strong. A skeptic can shoot down ANYTHING, any sort of evidence, whether it be empirical, metaphysical, experiential, etc.

"I think I should be given the opportunity, even after I die."

Why should you? Sounds pretty self-centered to me. And if you're that self-centered, there's no reason to believe you'd convert no matter the chances you're given.

And logically, how could you? You're not going to exist in time as you do now, no matter what, after you die.

"How do you know which ones are heretical?"

By examining history, Church Tradition, Scripture, logic, etc. It's easy to trace the historical Church, and it's easy to note the points at which heresies sprang up, and what they rebelled against and whether it was believed prior to that time.

"But you also said that existence is good, thus the rejection of good entails and ending to existence which is good."

And I ALSO noted that it is not within our power to end our existence, as that is continuously maintained by God. Our lives are within our ability to end, our existence is not.

"Assuming is necessary in life, the best course of action is to only make logical assumptions and not illogical ones."

Depends on what you mean by logical assumptions. It's logical to believe certain things, like that you need to eat and drink and sleep. But those aren't assumptions so much as conclusions based on axioms. Now the acceptance of those axioms should be done with good reason still, not just assumed.

"What if we wanted to stop existing?"

Too bad. You can't stop your existence, and God won't stop your existence.

"Is pride good? If not then how did humanity have it when humanity was good?"

No, pride isn't good. When humanity was good, humanity still had the ability to make choices, as we do now. According to the spiritual truths presented by the Bible concerning the Fall, what is perhaps the most important aspect of the Fall was the temptation of Man to be like to God, in the sense that by rebelling against God, it was the only way humanity could claim to be independent the way God is. In the pride of seeking equality with God, we fell, and so lost God's Grace and corrupted the good of our lives.

"Is that desire good? If not then how did humanity have it?"

Humanity has always had the ability to choose. And the temptation arose through the influence of an entity most know as Satan.

"Is selfishness good? if not how did humanity have it?"

Humanity always had the influences of its animal nature because humanity has always been the commingling of body and spirit, called the soul. Animal instinct may in part have contributed to this selfishness. But again, the initial temptation sprang from Satan, and was received well by humanity.

"Maybe in your discussions, but pretty much every person I have met defines God differently."

Ahh, but do they have ACTUAL philosophical discussions, or are they just chatting about God?

"I don't think I understand, could you clarify?"

Ok. Have you ever heard the arguments regarding the Uncaused Cause?

"Does the fact that these religions are younger than Christianity change the fact that these people happily sacrificed themselves?"

You haven't demonstrated that they did. Moreover, the fact that they're all related to Christianity undermines your point, since it could be that very Christian influence which caused it.

"I don't see why the fact that Christianity was the first (but not only) religion to have happy martyrs is convincing."

It's not meant to convince you completely. It's merely one point among many small points which build up to a gradual understanding of Christianity. It was also meant to illustrate a specific point in our discussion, as I recall.