Question about Heaven II

[Mister Emu]

It is a common refrain from certain people within the RF community that those whom do not believe in God are going to hell. Yes, I know this is not shared by everyone.

I leave it up to God

It is also quite common to hear that those whom are of a religious nature that they have received some evidence of God's existence

Guilty

All of these comments raise an interesting question for those whom assert that those whom do not believe in God will not go to Heaven. God has given those whom now believe proof of his existence, and has not given those whom disbelieve proof. From these statements, we should presume that God has decided whom he wants with him in Heaven or not.

Interestingly enough, I did not receive evidence until after I believed

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Interestingly enough, I did not receive evidence until after I believed

Yep, it's called 'confirmation bias'. It's quite powerful.

 

[Mister Emu]

Yep, it's called 'confirmation bias'. It's quite powerful.

I know what confirmation bias is... my evidence is not...

 

[rojse]

your logic fails for one reason only. you have free will. God does not give me proof out of blue. i ask for it. how could you be answered if you did not ask for it?

I have heard many atheists ask for said proof, and not receive it. Admittedly, I would not fit myself in this category, but I have read this often enough on here to be able to object to this reasoning.

 

[rojse]

I know what confirmation bias is... my evidence is not...

But surely if you only receive proof after you believe, this is confirmation bias?

It's as bad as the methodology for some experiments with psychics.

 

[Mister Emu]

But surely if you only receive proof after you believe, this is confirmation bias?

Why surely? The mere fact that information is received which verifies a belief does not mean that that verification is biased...

In other words, no one can have a belief confirmed?

 

[rojse]

Why surely? The mere fact that information is received which verifies a belief does not mean that that verification is biased...

In other words, no one can have a belief confirmed?

The fact that a concept cannot be confirmed unless you already believe is confirmation bias, because people cannot do the same thing and get your results.

 

[Katzpur]

I have heard many atheists ask for said proof, and not receive it. Admittedly, I would not fit myself in this category, but I have read this often enough on here to be able to object to this reasoning.

An LDS Prophet once wrote a book called "Faith Precedes the Miracle." It pretty much takes the position Mister Emu has explained. God rewards faith by providing us with evidence. For whatever reason, He doesn't find it necessary to try to prove His existence to people who are convinced that He's a figment of believers' imaginations. I suppose you could call it confirmation bias, but isn't the reverse true, too? You don't believe in Him. He doesn't give you reason to. You conclude that you were right.

 

[rojse]

An LDS Prophet once wrote a book called "Faith Precedes the Miracle." It pretty much takes the position Mister Emu has explained. God rewards faith by providing us with evidence. For whatever reason, He doesn't find it necessary to try to prove His existence to people who are convinced that He's a figment of believers' imaginations. I suppose you could call it confirmation bias, but isn't the reverse true, too? You don't believe in Him. He doesn't give you reason to. You conclude that you were right.

I look at it as a nice out. "You have no proof? Obviously you don't believe hard enough."

 

[Katzpur]

I look at it as a nice out. "You have no proof? Obviously you don't believe hard enough."

You know, I almost think we're pre-wired to believe or doubt. I don't think I could doubt God's existence no matter how hard I tried, and I'm sure there are lots of people who couldn't believe in Him if their lives depended on it. My parents actually have a friend who is an atheist. This woman is a pediatrician who grew up under communism (in one of the Eastern European countries, I forget which one) but who now lives in England. She and my parents were talking religion once and she told them how much she wishes she could believe in God. She said that when she is treating a really sick child, she wishes so much there was a Higher Power she could ask to save the child's life. It kind of made me sad, but it also reinforced my belief that we can't just will ourselves to believe.

I think about Thomas, who (at least from the Christian perspective) spent three years with Jesus, witnessed miracles and heard Jesus say He would rise from the dead three days after His death. But what happens when Jesus appears to the other Apostles in Thomas' absence? Thomas simply refuses to believe it had happened. Now he had to have wanted to believe. He had to have tried to believe. He just couldn't. He required proof, and once he had that proof (seeing Christ for himself and touching His wounds), he was totally on board with the other Apostles. I don't know why some people seem to be able to have so much faith and others so little, but I don't necessarily believe it's their choice.

 

[Mister Emu]

The fact that a concept cannot be confirmed unless you already believe is confirmation bias

How so? Confirmation bias is when someone only seeks out information which would confirm their hypothesis, and avoids information that would disprove...

I look at it as a nice out. "You have no proof? Obviously you don't believe hard enough."

I never meant to imply that... I was just saying that God not showing up to everyone who asks, especially before belief, can not, necessarily, be construed as God wanting certain people to experience torment...

 

[rojse]

How so? Confirmation bias is when someone only seeks out information which would confirm their hypothesis, and avoids information that would disprove...

I won't argue the point, since we are arguing with different definitions, but confirmation bias, to me, means that you only get proof if you already believe. However, it seems to me that some (not all) religious people act in this manner, so I am not too far away from your definition in this regard.

I never meant to imply that... I was just saying that God not showing up to everyone who asks, especially before belief, can not, necessarily, be construed as God wanting certain people to experience torment...

I was applying that to Katzpur's reasoning, not yours. The different phrasing Katzpur used boils down to that reasoning, to me.

 

[StephenSmith]

Hi Kathryn,

Surprise!

You know, I almost think we're pre-wired to believe or doubt. I don't think I could doubt God's existence no matter how hard I tried, and I'm sure there are lots of people who couldn't believe in Him if their lives depended on it. My parents actually have a friend who is an atheist. This woman is a pediatrician who grew up under communism (in one of the Eastern European countries, I forget which one) but who now lives in England. She and my parents were talking religion once and she told them how much she wishes she could believe in God. She said that when she is treating a really sick child, she wishes so much there was a Higher Power she could ask to save the child's life. It kind of made me sad, but it also reinforced my belief that we can't just will ourselves to believe.

How do you think that affects agency then? Being hardwired that is, and how do you see Alma 32 in light of this?

I think about Judas, who (at least from the Christian perspective) spent three years with Jesus, witnessed miracles and heard Jesus say He would rise from the dead three days after His death. But what happens when Jesus appears to the other Apostles in Judas' absence? Judas simply refuses to believe it had happened. Now he had to have wanted to believe. He had to have tried to believe. He just couldn't. He required proof, and once he had that proof (seeing Christ for himself and touching His wounds), he was totally on board with the other Apostles. I don't know why some people seem to be able to have so much faith and others so little, but I don't necessarily believe it's their choice.

I think you were meaning Thomas, no?

 

[Caladan]

I think about Judas, who (at least from the Christian perspective) spent three years with Jesus, witnessed miracles and heard Jesus say He would rise from the dead three days after His death. But what happens when Jesus appears to the other Apostles in Judas' absence? Judas simply refuses to believe it had happened. Now he had to have wanted to believe. He had to have tried to believe. He just couldn't. He required proof, and once he had that proof (seeing Christ for himself and touching His wounds), he was totally on board with the other Apostles. I don't know why some people seem to be able to have so much faith and others so little, but I don't necessarily believe it's their choice.

This is an interesting point, and in fact this point stretches to more than just Judas. all the apostles abandoned Jesus in his dark hour. if these people, who were closest to him and supposedly witnessed miracles, and even performed miracles under his guidance did not support him in his tribulations, I think any thinking believer should take into serious consideration that they have turned their back on Jesus the man, who as a regular human being who had to walk the land and spread his message, with all the hardships it involved, and instead they embraced a mythological figure, a God, no less. keeping in mind that people attributed prominent figures a deification. it seems to be worth serious consideration that the worship of Jesus may be in fact denying Jesus and his humanity.

 

[Peace]

The point of divergence seems to be that you are assuming that God chooses whom He admits to Heaven based on a innate feature that He bestows upon them to enable them to find Him and see proof of His existence. While I cannot really see into the mental processes that take place within the minds of athesist for example, I think that individuals themseleves are also responsible for making that choice. If God wanted us all to go to heaven, He would have stripped us from our free will and we would not be questioning His existence now. What He did do, however, is send messengers with a consistent message throughout man's history. In addition to our ability to see proof of His existence in ourselves or the world around us, we also have words coming directly from Him to indicate His presence. Of course many will disbelieve His existence and even more will dispute the validity of the words of His apostles.

I can understand your skepticism. I really do not mean to impose my views on you. Far from it. I only wish to share and develop my views. Thank you, Iman

:clap: Masha'Allah great post sister Iman

 

[Muffled]

It is a common refrain from certain people within the RF community that those whom do not believe in God are going to hell. Yes, I know this is not shared by everyone.

It is also quite common to hear that those whom are of a religious nature that they have received some evidence of God's existence, even if this evidence is only based on their own personal experiences. Those that do not believe (myself included) have not received any evidence that would allow us to believe, and many atheists (myself included here too) have said that they would reconsider their religious positions should they receive evidence that would change their viewpoint.

All of these comments raise an interesting question for those whom assert that those whom do not believe in God will not go to Heaven. God has given those whom now believe proof of his existence, and has not given those whom disbelieve proof. From these statements, we should presume that God has decided whom he wants with him in Heaven or not.

Now, is there anything wrong with my logic? If so, what is it?

If you don't believe in God's word, there is very little chance of your getting to Heaven.

You are talking about Calvin's doctrine of election which some believe and some don't. I agree with one of the posters that God is more likely to reveal Himself to the willing and needful.

 

[Katzpur]

Hi Kathryn,

Surprise!

Hey!!!

I think you were meaning Thomas, no?

Duh! Yes, I just fixed it.

 

[Katzpur]

How do you think that affects agency then? Being hardwired that is, and how do you see Alma 32 in light of this?

I haven't decided, though I've definitely given it some thought. Maybe "hard-wired" is not the right way to put it, since that would definitely take away our free agency. I just think some people have a much easier time accepting something on faith than other people do, and I also believe that some very sincere people, when presented with the gospel and when looking for the truth, just don't seem to be able to accept it. I can't explain why.

 

[Katzpur]

This is an interesting point, and in fact this point stretches to more than just Judas. all the apostles abandoned Jesus in his dark hour. if these people, who were closest to him and supposedly witnessed miracles, and even performed miracles under his guidance did not support him in his tribulations, I think any thinking believer should take into serious consideration that they have turned their back on Jesus the man, who as a regular human being who had to walk the land and spread his message, with all the hardships it involved, and instead they embraced a mythological figure, a God, no less. keeping in mind that people attributed prominent figures a deification. it seems to be worth serious consideration that the worship of Jesus may be in fact denying Jesus and his humanity.

I just had to point out that I messed up big time and meant to type "Thomas." "Judas" makes no sense in this context at all.

 

[Caladan]

I just had to point out that I messed up big time and meant to type "Thomas." "Judas" makes no sense in this context at all.

LOL ok, there goes my moment of triumph