If Hell is a place of eternal torment

[Hockeycowboy]

So when it comes to errant beliefs being deemed an offense, who's the victim? An insecure god with a frail ego?

No “god”; rather, the one who suffers because the other’s beliefs allow him to say, “My god says I can kill you”!

That’s been the sad story for thousands of years.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It's not logically coherent to have 2 omnipotent beings. What happens when they play poker?

The inclination to instantly dismiss anything that is not logically coherent, places severe limits on our capacity for understanding.

 

[Meow Mix]

The inclination to instantly dismiss anything that is not logically coherent, places severe limits on our capacity for understanding.

It's not that anything is dismissed out of hand: it's that there's nothing to dismiss, that's what it means for an utterance to be logically incoherent: it is a reference without any possible referent.

So there is a difference between rejecting logical incoherence (which we all must do) and rejecting something else, like, say, improbable things or ill-understood things. "Illogical" doesn't mean improbable or ill-understood, it means literally that some utterance is nonsense and can't even refer to a real possible thing.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It's not that anything is dismissed out of hand: it's that there's nothing to dismiss, that's what it means for an utterance to be logically incoherent: it is a reference without any possible referent.

So there is a difference between rejecting logical incoherence (which we all must do) and rejecting something else, like, say, improbable things or ill-understood things. "Illogical" doesn't mean improbable or ill-understood, it means literally that some utterance is nonsense and can't even refer to a real possible thing.

So something which appears illogical, irrational or impossible may not actually be so on further investigation? Due maybe to hidden variables, maybe to our own limited capacity for understanding, or to other factors inherent in the phenomena, the observer, or the manner of their interaction.

So there is still an argument for not dismissing out of hand, that which on the face of it makes no sense.

 

[ChristineM]

can you help me understand why you believe this is real, and why it doesn't cause you to think your god is a monster?

Religious conditioning, indoctrination.

I guess its one of several reasons why I don't have a god belief

 

[Meow Mix]

So something which appears illogical, irrational or impossible may not actually be so on further investigation? Due maybe to hidden variables, maybe to our own limited capacity for understanding, or to other factors inherent in the phenomena, the observer, or the manner of their interaction.

So there is still an argument for not dismissing out of hand, that which on the face of it makes no sense.

Each of these words means different things and would have a different rebuttal (or agreement) for this statement.

Illogical things are never possible because there's nothing there to be possible: in order to exist, something must exist as something, which means it is not some other thing than what it is (which means it can't both be what it is and not what it is at the same time and in the same respect). This is logical identity, excluded middle, and noncontradiction. So we can say with certainty that anything that exists is logically coherent.

Something can appear logically incoherent until we have more information: for instance, there are some art formations that look like a square if you look at it from one side and a circle if you look at it from another side. But this isn't incoherent: to be incoherent there would have to be a square that is circle at the same time and in the same respect. There's no cognitive content to that, no possibility: it wouldn't be possible for truly incoherent things to exist, only perceived "incoherent" things which cease being incoherent with more information.

Irrational things are just beliefs that are arrived to for wrong reasons; but it's possible to arrive to correct beliefs for the wrong reasons, so we shouldn't necessarily automatically discount such things (that'd be fallacy fallacy).

Impossible things are things which don't exist in any possible world, but they aren't necessarily incoherent.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The inclination to instantly dismiss anything that is not logically coherent, places severe limits on our capacity for understanding.

Ha... who's dismissing anything?
You can have 2 God's, God-infused matter, or whatever you like.

Assigning omnipotence to multiple beings at once is a nonsense. It's not about limiting God, it's about what the word in our language means.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Each of these words means different things and would have a different rebuttal (or agreement) for this statement.

Illogical things are never possible because there's nothing there to be possible: in order to exist, something must exist as something, which means it is not some other thing than what it is (which means it can't both be what it is and not what it is at the same time and in the same respect). This is logical identity, excluded middle, and noncontradiction. So we can say with certainty that anything that exists is logically coherent.

Something can appear logically incoherent until we have more information: for instance, there are some art formations that look like a square if you look at it from one side and a circle if you look at it from another side. But this isn't incoherent: to be incoherent there would have to be a square that is circle at the same time and in the same respect. There's no cognitive content to that, no possibility: it wouldn't be possible for truly incoherent things to exist, only perceived "incoherent" things which cease being incoherent with more information.

Irrational things are just beliefs that are arrived to for wrong reasons; but it's possible to arrive to correct beliefs for the wrong reasons, so we shouldn't necessarily automatically discount such things (that'd be fallacy fallacy).

Impossible things are things which don't exist in any possible world, but they aren't necessarily incoherent.

Okay then. So in order to use “logical incoherence” as the pretext for dismissing a proposition, we have to prove a) that the proposed phenomenon does not exist, and b) that it cannot exist, in any universe. A pretty tall order, don’t you think?

It’s also a huge assumption to make, that all phenomena have a logical explanation. For that to be the case, presupposes that nothing is beyond human comprehension. Unless there exists a higher comprehension, beyond the reach of human intellect.

Regarding your example of optical illusions in art; are Escher’s stairs logically incoherent? If they were purely a fantasy, a figment of the artist’s imagination, how then is he able to provide a graphic illustration of such a logical fallacy? In fact, they can and do exit. They exist in the imagination, and they also exist in two dimensions; but not in three. So the question of whether or not a phenomenon exists, may depend not only on what conditions, but also on how many dimensions, are necessary to bring it into existence, and to sustain it; if it even needs sustaining (which it will do at least momentarily, in order to be observed).

The bit in brackets raises another question btw; does a phenomenon have to be observed, in order to be said to exist or to have existed?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Ha... who's dismissing anything?
You can have 2 God's, God-infused matter, or whatever you like.

Assigning omnipotence to multiple beings at once is a nonsense. It's not about limiting God, it's about what the word in our language means.

Not really. You were faced with a binary choice; either two contradictory positions can be simultaneously true whilst ruling each other out, or they cannot.

You decided they could not, and off you hopped down the path which made sense to you, dismissing the other as nonsense. Which perhaps it is, but having rejected further investigation, you cannot know for sure whether the nonsensical proposition may yet have value.

 

[Meow Mix]

Okay then. So in order to use “logical incoherence” as the pretext for dismissing a proposition, we have to prove a) that the proposed phenomenon does not exist, and b) that it cannot exist, in any universe. A pretty tall order, don’t you think?

Not a tall order in terms of logical incoherence: all we have to do is check for knowable contradictions for instance. Remember, logic is different than rationality. It's much easier to show that an utterance is illogical than it is to show that it's irrational.

For instance nearly every time Spock says "That's illogical" in the original series of Star Trek, he's using the word wrong. What he means is "That's irrational" or "That's unreasonable." I think a lot of people similarly mix these up.

It’s also a huge assumption to make, that all phenomena have a logical explanation. For that to be the case, presupposes that nothing is beyond human comprehension. Unless there exists a higher comprehension, beyond the reach of human intellect.

Regarding your example of optical illusions in art; are Escher’s stairs logically incoherent? If they were purely a fantasy, a figment of the artist’s imagination, how then is he able to provide a graphic illustration of such a logical fallacy? In fact, they can and do exit. They exist in the imagination, and they also exist in two dimensions; but not in three. So the question of whether or not a phenomenon exists or not, may depend not only on what conditions, but also on how many dimensions, are necessary to bring it into existence, and to sustain it; if it even needs sustaining (which it will do at least momentarily, in order to be observed).

The bit in brackets raises another question btw; does a phenomenon have to be observed, in order to be said to exist or to have existed?

Here again is the case where you may be using the word wrong in the first sentence: logic doesn't explain things. Reason and rationality do. Logic is just whether something is coherent (and coherence doesn't mean "understood," it just means internally and externally consistent such that there are no contradictions).

It's irrational to believe that gravity may fall up tomorrow, but it's not illogical: gravity reversing tomorrow would entail no internal inconsistencies.

So with Escher, the eternal staircases and the like are only apparently incoherent (because they are illusions). But this is why they can't actually be physically built in 3D space. You may be able to build them in 4D space though.

As for the last question, I don't think existence is dependent on observation, no.

 

[Spirit of Light]

If Hell is a place of eternal torment, do you think it is good that God allows a place like this to exist?

How do you reconcile finite crimes with infinite punishments?

What is your theory of justice: for instance, Hell seems purely retributive: since someone is ostensibly there forever, there could be no rehabilitative purposes for it.

What about belief? Some worldviews believe that people will go to Hell for mere nonbelief in a savior or religion in general. How do you reconcile that without thinking your god is terrible?

Basically, for those that believe in Hell as a place of eternal torment, can you help me understand why you believe this is real, and why it doesn't cause you to think your god is a monster?

I wish i could help you understand what Hell is and why it was created (if it actually is a place)
Could it be that hell is a state of mind? that even here on earth in a physical world it is possible to experience both Hell but also Heaven?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Not a tall order in terms of logical incoherence: all we have to do is check for knowable contradictions for instance. Remember, logic is different than rationality. It's much easier to show that an utterance is illogical than it is to show that it's irrational.

For instance nearly every time Spock says "That's illogical" in the original series of Star Trek, he's using the word wrong. What he means is "That's irrational" or "That's unreasonable." I think a lot of people similarly mix these up.



Here again is the case where you may be using the word wrong in the first sentence: logic doesn't explain things. Reason and rationality do. Logic is just whether something is coherent (and coherence doesn't mean "understood," it just means internally and externally consistent such that there are no contradictions).

It's irrational to believe that gravity may fall up tomorrow, but it's not illogical: gravity reversing tomorrow would entail no internal inconsistencies.

So with Escher, the eternal staircases and the like are only apparently incoherent (because they are illusions). But this is why they can't actually be physically built in 3D space. You may be able to build them in 4D space though.

As for the last question, I don't think existence is dependent on observation, no.

So I watched too much Star Trek as a kid? And Spock put me wrong? Like him, I'll never understand humans.

Anyway, for anything to be logically coherent, it must contain no inherent contradictions? That rules out about 90% of human behaviour then. Spock was right.

 

[viole]

There can't be two omnipotent beings because that's the equivalent of having an immovable object and irresistible force at the same time and in the same respect.

Well, some believe the laws of logic are contingent and depending on God's command, too. Because they cannot accept God sharing space with something eternal and immutable, too, apparently. So, for such a God it would be indeed possible to move what is immovable. All He has to do is to suspend the contradiction by commanding that an object can have a property and not have that property at the same time.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

The scriptures say ...

So God created man in His ownimage; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:27

The scriptures also say God is Spirit. So God is not a male or female human, but the qualities of both male and female represent or give a picture of the qualities of God.

Ergo, God is a sinner, too.

Ciao

- viole

 

[stvdv]

If Hell is a place of eternal torment, do you think it is good that God allows a place like this to exist?

IF God is forgiving THEN this proves that "eternal torment" is NOT from God, but an inhumane human invention

 

[Meow Mix]

Well, some believe the laws of logic are contingent and depending on God's command, too. Because they cannot accept God sharing space with something eternal and immutable, too, apparently. So, for such a God it would be indeed possible to move what is immovable. All He has to do is to suspend the contradiction by commanding that an object can have a property and not have that property at the same time.

Ciao

- viole

The problem with this is that it's not possible and in fact, doesn't even communicate anything, and the explanation is lengthy, I'm trying to think of how to whittle this down since I'm trying to multitask with my thesis.

Basically there's a reason I keep using the word "utterance," because incoherent things are just utterances. Statements communicate: they have a reference (the speech about something) and a referent (the thing spoken about). Propositions are statements that have truth values: there is something about them that corresponds to reality. So for instance, "Green is the best color" is a statement because it communicates something, but it is not a proposition because it doesn't have a truth value (it's just a preference statement).

All propositions are statements, and all propositions are utterances (an utterance is just speech of some kind, whether it communicates or not).

All statements are utterances, but not all statements are propositions.

Not all utterances are propositions, and not all utterances are statements.

What it means for an utterance not to be a statement or a proposition is that it has no truth value and doesn't communicate anything: it has no referent that it's referring to (and therefore it doesn't even have a reference).

Logically incoherent things can't be referents because of their incoherence (in order to be a referent, logic has to apply: if A doesn't equal A, then what are you referring to when you say "A?" Nothing!) So utterances with logically incoherent combinations of words aren't referring to anything and don't communicate anything. It's important to realize that this is different than saying "this thing can't exist," it's stronger than that: it's that there is no "this thing" that's possible to exist at all. You might as well type "sduhghwlegewiy" instead of anything that's logically incoherent.

So when someone says something like "God can make the logically impossible possible," this is just an utterance. There is no referent, there is no reference, there is no truth value, there is no communication. It's equivalent to being "not even wrong." The person might as well have typed "sdghjkthjwutehitkewthweu."

Even God/omnipotent beings are bound by logical coherence because logic is really just limitation: what it means to be real or to exist is to be limited: limited to be a particular thing, and limited from being things that particular thing is not. That's what it means to exist at all. If you don't have that limitation, you don't have anything that exists: you don't have anything at all. Trying to even talk about it just produces an utterance.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

In my understanding of religion there are two rulers, god and the devil.

imo,
You are right! 2 Corinthians 4:4.

(I’d sure appreciate it if the Admins could add another Bible instead of just the KJV. It’s wording is atrocious in places, and it would provide readers with a comparison. There used to be 3 different translations, I miss that.)

 

[danieldemol]

So something which appears illogical, irrational or impossible may not actually be so on further investigation?

Sure, but it makes sense to change ones mind upon that further investigation after one discovers that which appeared illogical etc turns out to be logical, rational or possible.

What does not make sense is to simply accept the illogical, irrational, or impossible as logic, rational and possible prior to that further investigation revealing it as such.

So by all means feel free to walk us through that further investigation if you can, but don't expect us to believe you without being able to demonstrate the counter-intuitive results to be true.

In my opinion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If Hell is a place of eternal torment, do you think it is good that God allows a place like this to exist?

How do you reconcile finite crimes with infinite punishments?

What is your theory of justice: for instance, Hell seems purely retributive: since someone is ostensibly there forever, there could be no rehabilitative purposes for it.

What about belief? Some worldviews believe that people will go to Hell for mere nonbelief in a savior or religion in general. How do you reconcile that without thinking your god is terrible?

Basically, for those that believe in Hell as a place of eternal torment, can you help me understand why you believe this is real, and why it doesn't cause you to think your god is a monster?

Hell is a place of eternal torment, not infinite torment.

Hell is partially retributive for sin but also logical -- only transformed (morally perfected) people can live in a utopia.

What else would you like Jesus to do (died for us, rose for us, per the Bible) to help us escape Hell? Per the Bible, a person can trust in Christ in a moment after a lifetime of sin and be saved (eternal life). No one in Hell says, "How did I wind up here?"

 

[RestlessSoul]

Ergo, God is a sinner, too.

Ciao

- viole

If God’s creation bears within it the seed of corruption (sun), then God, as the creator, could reasonably be held responsible for that corruption, yes.

But responsibility, justice, right and wrong - these are human concepts; products, perhaps, of our limited, subjective perceptions.