Pot, Meet Kettle: A Master Class in Hypocrisy from a Self-Proclaimed Paragon of Truth

[MG 2.0]

God and an afterlife are not necessarily related. That there is a God doesn't equal that there's an afterlife. That there's an afterlife doesn't require there to be a God. Some folks believe in God without worrying themselves about an afterlife; others believe in afterlife without necessarily thinking there's an all-powerful God. Why anyone would think one requires the other is a mystery.

Exactly. It's obvious to MG that there will be an afterlife but that's only because this is what he's been taught, and he's lived a life of individualism and materialism. The Old Testament doesn't teach an immortal "soul" that survives death. This belief took thousands of years to develop as the Jews were infected with heathen beliefs. The JST and Book of Moses and Book of Abraham re-write parts of the Old Testament to make it sound like 19th century ideas about the soul. The Sadducees didn't believe in the immortality of the soul because the first five books of Moses don't teach it. The JST does, because Joseph made up whatever he wanted and put it in there. Likewise, the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day's don't believe in a spirit that persists after death for this reason.

The important thing here is that the entire edifice of Christianity is based on the Torah, and so for many thousands of years, from Adam until Christ if you don't count possible interpolations after the Babylon captivity, God's chosen people didn't believe in an afterlife, whether as a spirit entity persisting after death or as resurrected beings.

I think we're referring to some of the earliest Church Fathers. Specifically, those I've mentioned. Apparently Jesus taught something that caused them to essentially harmonize the theology/doctrine of multiple heavens/glories. (from another thread currently running).

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

My counter argument:

God and an afterlife are not necessarily related. That there is a God doesn't equal that there's an afterlife. That there's an afterlife doesn't require there to be a God. Some folks believe in God without worrying themselves about an afterlife; others believe in afterlife without necessarily thinking there's an all-powerful God. Why anyone would think one requires the other is a mystery.

You’re right that ‘God’ and ‘afterlife’ are logically separable concepts in the abstract, but once ‘God’ is specified as a good, personal creator of moral agents, the hypothesis of an afterlife becomes a natural and arguably expected consequence of that God’s character and purposes, rather than a disconnected add‑on. I was just talking to someone today in my neighborhood who is an atheist. Has been for forty years or so. I mentioned that I went through a period of time 'in the same boat' as he. I said that that to me it doesn't logically follow that a 'good God', a perfectly moral God, the creator of agents with moral judgement, would simply annihilate us at death.

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

If there is a God it seems reasonable to believe that this God has a purpose in mind for His creations which includes moral agency to choose/grow/progress.

I suppose you could believe in an afterlife without believing in a personal/loving God but the most coherent and morally fitting outcome, to me, seems to be a situation in which God is working along with us in concert towards some greater goal. Some kind of eternal goal. Otherwise, it all comes down to annihilation again. That seems to be at cross purposes with a perfectly moral/superior Creator.

Regards,
MG

Perhaps you don't see this as a problem, but if you are attempting to counter arguments that don't, of necessity, include a god of any sort - especially as a pre-requisite for an afterlife - then it doesn't seem to make much sense to inject "once ‘God’ is specified as a good, personal creator of moral agents".

Furthermore, even if, for the sake of argument, such a god is admitted, it by no means follows that "the hypothesis of an afterlife becomes a natural and arguably expected consequence of that God’s character and purposes".

It also does not logically follow that "a 'good God', a perfectly moral God, the creator of agents with moral judgement", would simply preserve us at death - not even if he had the capability of doing so. As your religion points out, your god's ways are not your ways, and I don't believe that you have any way of imposing your personal moral views on your god. "good" and "perfectly moral" may mean completely different to your god than they mean to you. Look at the Old Testament for examples.

[MG 2.0]

You’re right that ‘God’ and ‘afterlife’ are logically separable concepts in the abstract, but once ‘God’ is specified as a good, personal creator of moral agents, the hypothesis of an afterlife becomes a natural and arguably expected consequence of that God’s character and purposes, rather than a disconnected add‑on. I was just talking to someone today in my neighborhood who is an atheist. Has been for forty years or so. I mentioned that I went through a period of time 'in the same boat' as he. I said that that to me it doesn't logically follow that a 'good God', a perfectly moral God, the creator of agents with moral judgement, would simply annihilate us at death.

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

If there is a God it seems reasonable to believe that this God has a purpose in mind for His creations which includes moral agency to choose/grow/progress.

I suppose you could believe in an afterlife without believing in a personal/loving God but the most coherent and morally fitting outcome, to me, seems to be a situation in which God is working along with us in concert towards some greater goal. Some kind of eternal goal. Otherwise, it all comes down to annihilation again. That seems to be at cross purposes with a perfectly moral/superior Creator.

Regards,
MG

Perhaps you don't see this as a problem, but if you are attempting to counter arguments that don't, of necessity, include a god of any sort - especially as a pre-requisite for an afterlife - then it doesn't seem to make much sense to inject "once ‘God’ is specified as a good, personal creator of moral agents".

Furthermore, even if, for the sake of argument, such a god is admitted, it by no means follows that "the hypothesis of an afterlife becomes a natural and arguably expected consequence of that God’s character and purposes".

It also does not logically follow that "a 'good God', a perfectly moral God, the creator of agents with moral judgement", would simply preserve us at death - not even if he had the capability of doing so. As your religion points out, your god's ways are not your ways, and I don't believe that you have any way of imposing your personal moral views on your god. "good" and "perfectly moral" may mean completely different to your god than they mean to you. Look at the Old Testament for examples.

I suppose we can agree to disagree on this, malkie. I don't see the logic in what you're saying vs. what I'm saying. But that's to be expected, right?

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

I think we're referring to some of the earliest Church Fathers.

No, that's not what were we're talking about. We were talking about this:

The life after death conversations are interesting, aren't they? I think that we might be able to save some time if we simply consider whether or not there is a creator God. If there is, which science has come onboard with more in the last few years, then in turn it just makes sense that God did not create us to whiff out when we die

It doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to people of the Bible for thousands of years.

Again, the question isn't who is ultimately right or wrong, but whether belief in God implies an afterlife, which it doesn't. Einstein believed in God. Einstein did not believe in an afterlife.

[MG 2.0]

My counter argument:

God and an afterlife are not necessarily related. That there is a God doesn't equal that there's an afterlife. That there's an afterlife doesn't require there to be a God. Some folks believe in God without worrying themselves about an afterlife; others believe in afterlife without necessarily thinking there's an all-powerful God. Why anyone would think one requires the other is a mystery.

You’re right that ‘God’ and ‘afterlife’ are logically separable concepts in the abstract, but once ‘God’ is specified as a good, personal creator of moral agents, the hypothesis of an afterlife becomes a natural and arguably expected consequence of that God’s character and purposes, rather than a disconnected add‑on. I was just talking to someone today in my neighborhood who is an atheist. Has been for forty years or so. I mentioned that I went through a period of time 'in the same boat' as he. I said that that to me it doesn't logically follow that a 'good God', a perfectly moral God, the creator of agents with moral judgement, would simply annihilate us at death.

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

If there is a God it seems reasonable to believe that this God has a purpose in mind for His creations which includes moral agency to choose/grow/progress.

I suppose you could believe in an afterlife without believing in a personal/loving God but the most coherent and morally fitting outcome, to me, seems to be a situation in which God is working along with us in concert towards some greater goal. Some kind of eternal goal. Otherwise, it all comes down to annihilation again. That seems to be at cross purposes with a perfectly moral/superior Creator.

Regards,
MG

*bump

Sorry gadianton, I was in a hurry and started meshing two conversations together a little bit.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I think we're referring to some of the earliest Church Fathers.

No, that's not what were we're talking about. We were talking about this:

The life after death conversations are interesting, aren't they? I think that we might be able to save some time if we simply consider whether or not there is a creator God. If there is, which science has come onboard with more in the last few years, then in turn it just makes sense that God did not create us to whiff out when we die

It doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to people of the Bible for thousands of years.

Again, the question isn't who is ultimately right or wrong, but whether belief in God implies an afterlife, which it doesn't. Einstein believed in God. Einstein did not believe in an afterlife.

I've said what I've said in the bumped post in response to this. If I haven't been clear or left something out, correct me.

In Einstein's case did he say that he “cannot conceive” of individual survival and that it is “beyond [his] comprehension,” then treat this as support for denying it?

Some of Einstein's peers did believe in an afterlife, didn't they? Max Planck, Charles Townes, and Kurt Godel would be three of these. The question might be whether or not these three might have had a greater sense of humility than Einstein did in this regard?

You probably know more about this than most of us do. But him saying that he couldn't/wouldn't believe something beyond his comprehension is telling, if that is true.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

It doesn't make sense to you, it made sense to people of the Bible for thousands of years.

This caught my eye, Gad.

Your point about “ancient people living comfortably with non-systematic beliefs” can also be supported by the Pharisees/Sadducees divide over resurrection.

[malkie]

Perhaps you don't see this as a problem, but if you are attempting to counter arguments that don't, of necessity, include a god of any sort - especially as a pre-requisite for an afterlife - then it doesn't seem to make much sense to inject "once ‘God’ is specified as a good, personal creator of moral agents".

Furthermore, even if, for the sake of argument, such a god is admitted, it by no means follows that "the hypothesis of an afterlife becomes a natural and arguably expected consequence of that God’s character and purposes".

It also does not logically follow that "a 'good God', a perfectly moral God, the creator of agents with moral judgement", would simply preserve us at death - not even if he had the capability of doing so. As your religion points out, your god's ways are not your ways, and I don't believe that you have any way of imposing your personal moral views on your god. "good" and "perfectly moral" may mean completely different to your god than they mean to you. Look at the Old Testament for examples.

I suppose we can agree to disagree on this, malkie. I don't see the logic in what you're saying vs. what I'm saying. But that's to be expected, right?

Regards,
MG

Let me make it really simple.

Remember when you used to rail against hypotheticals? Your arguments that I was responding to in this thread seem to be a string of one hypothetical after another. In particular you are projecting your own ideas of morality onto a yet-to-be-demonstrated god, and seem to think that that makes for a valid argument.

Please tell me if I still need to simplify further.

[Marcus]

You’re right that ‘God’ and ‘afterlife’ are logically separable concepts in the abstract, but once ‘God’ is specified as a good, personal creator of moral agents, the hypothesis of an afterlife becomes a natural and arguably expected consequence of that God’s character and purposes, rather than a disconnected add‑on. I was just talking to someone today in my neighborhood who is an atheist. Has been for forty years or so. I mentioned that I went through a period of time 'in the same boat' as he. I said that that to me it doesn't logically follow that a 'good God', a perfectly moral God, the creator of agents with moral judgement, would simply annihilate us at death.

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

If there is a God it seems reasonable to believe that this God has a purpose in mind for His creations which includes moral agency to choose/grow/progress.

I suppose you could believe in an afterlife without believing in a personal/loving God but the most coherent and morally fitting outcome, to me, seems to be a situation in which God is working along with us in concert towards some greater goal. Some kind of eternal goal. Otherwise, it all comes down to annihilation again. That seems to be at cross purposes with a perfectly moral/superior Creator.

Regards,
MG

Perhaps you don't see this as a problem, but if you are attempting to counter arguments that don't, of necessity, include a god of any sort - especially as a pre-requisite for an afterlife - then it doesn't seem to make much sense to inject "once ‘God’ is specified as a good, personal creator of moral agents".

Furthermore, even if, for the sake of argument, such a god is admitted, it by no means follows that "the hypothesis of an afterlife becomes a natural and arguably expected consequence of that God’s character and purposes".

It also does not logically follow that "a 'good God', a perfectly moral God, the creator of agents with moral judgement", would simply preserve us at death - not even if he had the capability of doing so. As your religion points out, your god's ways are not your ways, and I don't believe that you have any way of imposing your personal moral views on your god. "good" and "perfectly moral" may mean completely different to your god than they mean to you. Look at the Old Testament for examples.

Exactly. Starting with one's conclusion is a fallback for mentalgymnast, but it has no logical basis. He knows this (or at least has been told literally dozens of times) but he persists in doing it. It wouldn't be the first (or the 3rd, or 10th) time he engages in an illogical strategy on purpose once people point it out, so it may be nothing more than that. Trolls will troll.

But your second point is equally significant. There is no logic to the assumption that a belief in god implies an afterlife as mentalgymnast envisions it. Reincarnation was the example that came to mind for me. I don't believe in it, but many do.

[MG 2.0]

I suppose we can agree to disagree on this, malkie. I don't see the logic in what you're saying vs. what I'm saying. But that's to be expected, right?

Regards,
MG

Let me make it really simple.

Remember when you used to rail against hypotheticals? Your arguments that I was responding to in this thread seem to be a string of one hypothetical after another. In particular you are projecting your own ideas of morality onto a yet-to-be-demonstrated god, and seem to think that that makes for a valid argument.

Please tell me if I still need to simplify further.

In the post in question there seem to be a number of hypotheticals. Pot calling kettle, right? Sometimes in a discussion about those things that are 'in concrete' are hard to navigate around without hypotheticals. I stand corrected.

Really not sure how to get away from that, however. I probably won't. Looks like I'm going to have to give more grace to others in certain situations also.

Regards,
MG