For StarStruck4, Pt. 3
(continued, from last entry.)
“If there is indeed a God up in the sky who sends people to hell for “not believing” or not “seeing the truth”, then we’re probably all going to hell. Don’t tell me I’m going to hell. Too many people have done that in the past. That kind of stuff is judgemental and it’s [bovine excrement].”
This whole part of the debate is predicated on different definitions of justice. That’s an issue I will deal with at some point in the future. For now let me just say this. It all depends on what Hell is. I believe Heaven is eternity with God, and Hell is eternity apart from God. Why would someone who does not acknowledge God care if someone tells them they are going to spend eternity apart from a God they don’t believe exists? It would be like saying you’re mad someone told you a tregmard was going to eat you, even though you don’t believe in such a thing as a tregmard. It doesn’t follow, logically. I am certainly not about to tell StarStruck she doesn’t have a right people to be upset that people throw it in her face, I happen to agree with her, but it’s still not a logical complaint in the light of this discussion in question. That people have told her she is going to a hell she doesn’t believe in does not argue for or against the metaphysical–it is a statement against the proselytes of organized religion, which is a different question. I’ve had Christians tell me I’m going to Hell. That irks me more than just a little bit, but I believe in God.
“I believe that we live in a giant computer program called the Matrix, run entirely by machines. You tell me I’m wrong? You ask me how I can possibly believe in something so ludicrous. You tell me that there is no proof that we live in the Matrix….”
I cut this part of the entry shorter. The argument is easy to summarize. If there is no proof for something, and the only argument for it is individual experience, we could argue, under the same logic, anything we want. This is something philosophers call the argument from ignorance–that the only proof for something is that it can’t be disproven. And it would be valid, if I was the only one testifying to something. But I’m not. We have thousands of attestations of various ethnic, political, social, economic and geographic backgrounds all attesting to the same things, especially in the case of Christianity. That is not the same thing. And there is proof, just not as substantial as might be preferred. How do we explain that people who get prayed for heal 15% faster than those who don’t, even if the people don’t know they’re being prayed for? How do we account for those unexplained phenomena that never make it on the news? How? Christianity and other religions offer at least intellectually possible explanations for this unexplainable phenomena, and the explanations are much simpler than you might think. In short to make the argument from ignorance about world religions with a long history of multiple attestations over periods of time is to call everyone who makes the attestation ignorant. It takes an awful big ego and a lot of presumption to do that, especially seeing there is no evidence of any kind against it, other than craftily worded definitions and incomplete logic. Moving on, once again.
Keep your eyes peeled for an entry from me about reasonable expectations about what we can expect from the Bible. People keep wanting to make the Bible faulty because it doesn’t include every detail about every event ever. That argument is also based on incomplete logic, and I want to look at it critically, offering a variety of viewpoints, but that time is not now.
Finally….
“One final thought. You might say that the universe is too huge and complex for everything to have been a giant coincidence, and that there myust be some higher force behind it. Wouldn’t such a higher being have to be even more huge and complex than the universe it created? Then how did that get here? It couldn’t be coincidence…so where does it end?? By solving the “problem” of a universe that is too complicated for our understanding, you’ve created a bigger one.”
My only statement on this is to ask another question: “A bigger problem for whom?” I have no delusion of understanding the universe in all it’s majesty. I’m not capable of that–it would take a God bigger and complex than the universe–and that just happens to be the God I believe in. How did God get here? That’s another question without an answer, but my faith doesn’t require that answer. Since everything was created by God, there would be no way to measure the answer, even if one was available. God is outside of our time. The minute you use the word ‘beginning’ you’ve muffed the question, from my perspective.
I’ve tried to make this as light as I could. I hope no offense is taken by this, I certainly didn’t mean any. I hope this response was what you were looking for, Starstruck. If you want to get in touch with me by email or something or AIM, let me know in a private message, and I’ll get back to you. Blessings, everyone.