If God let you make the decision

[Stu Pidasso]

Suppose you were Adam and God said to you. "Adam, as father of the human race I'll let you decide if humans will have an afterlife" If you choose no afterlife, humans would not have immortal souls. When a human died, that would be it for them.

If you choose yes, then humans would have an afterlife. If you lived a good life you would go to heaven, if you lived a not so good life you would go to hell. Suppose its also revealed to you that roughly half the humans who will exist will "earn" a rewarding afterlife and the other half will face an unpleasant afterlife.

Question 1: As Adam, father or the human race, do you choose an afterlife for humans or not?

Question 2: What ratio of saved versus dammed would cause you to change your decision?

Stu

[soon2bepro]

I'm assuming 2 things:
A) That I care for the average well-being of these people.
B) That an eternity of suffering is much more negative than an eternity of pleasure is positive. About -85 and +15.

Q 1: No way.

Q 2: more than 85:15

[madnak]

No afterlife, and it would have to be at least 95%, but I'm not sure. It would be hard to swallow the injustice for even one person.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose you were Adam and God said to you. "Adam, as father of the human race I'll let you decide if humans will have an afterlife" If you choose no afterlife, humans would not have immortal souls. When a human died, that would be it for them.

If you choose yes, then humans would have an afterlife. If you lived a good life you would go to heaven, if you lived a not so good life you would go to hell. Suppose its also revealed to you that roughly half the humans who will exist will "earn" a rewarding afterlife and the other half will face an unpleasant afterlife.

Question 1: As Adam, father or the human race, do you choose an afterlife for humans or not?

Question 2: What ratio of saved versus dammed would cause you to change your decision?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

do the future humans already exist in conciousness somewhere and are incarnated at birth or are they initially created at birth?

ray

[Matt R.]

#1) For me, it would depend on what classified as "good" vs. "not so good". If every single person was capable of living a "good" life under this criteria, and it was not unreasonable, I would definitely choose an afterlife. Sure, some would probably choose not to live a good life, but I don't think it would be right to punish those who DO live a good life simply because some choose not to.

#2) In my opinion, the ratio would be irrelevant. Again, it would depend on the "good" vs. "not-good" criteria. If it was reasonable criteria, and 99.9999% of the people still chose to live immorally (or whatever rules we set), I would still choose the afterlife. The ratio would just be a statistic measuring people's choices, which I don't think should impact my decision for question #1.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
#1) For me, it would depend on what classified as "good" vs. "not so good". If every single person was capable of living a "good" life under this criteria, and it was not unreasonable, I would definitely choose an afterlife. Sure, some would probably choose not to live a good life, but I don't think it would be right to punish those who DO live a good life simply because some choose not to.

#2) In my opinion, the ratio would be irrelevant. Again, it would depend on the "good" vs. "not-good" criteria. If it was reasonable criteria, and 99.9999% of the people still chose to live immorally (or whatever rules we set), I would still choose the afterlife. The ratio would just be a statistic measuring people's choices, which I don't think should impact my decision for question #1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Half the people will live a good life, its in the OP.

[soon2bepro]

So if the ratio is irrelevant, what if it is humanly inherently impossible to "live a good life", and the ratio was 0:100?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
No afterlife, and it would have to be at least 95%, but I'm not sure. It would be hard to swallow the injustice for even one person.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how someone could respond like this. Wouldn't you be doing an equal if not greater injustice to the "good" people by denying them a joyful afterlife?

When I think about a solution to the problem one question that seems important to me is "How good is heaven and how bad is hell". I was always taught that there are different degrees of heaven and different degrees of hell and your particular place was determined by how good or bad you were in terrestial life.

Stu

[BobOjedaFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No afterlife, and it would have to be at least 95%, but I'm not sure. It would be hard to swallow the injustice for even one person.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how someone could responsed like this. Wouldn't you be doing an equal if not greater injustice to the "good" people by denying them a joyful afterlife?

When I think about a solution to the problem one question that seems important to me is "How good is heaven and how bad is hell". I was always taught that there are different degrees of heaven and different degrees of hell and your particular place was determined by how good or bad you were in terrestial life.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]


Yea, I'm sure that's exactly true. lol

[valenzuela]

Q1: No way
Q2: 1:0

My reasoning is that its unfair for one person to suffer eternally for something he did on a certain period of time.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No afterlife, and it would have to be at least 95%, but I'm not sure. It would be hard to swallow the injustice for even one person.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how someone could respond like this. Wouldn't you be doing an equal if not greater injustice to the "good" people by denying them a joyful afterlife?

When I think about a solution to the problem one question that seems important to me is "How good is heaven and how bad is hell". I was always taught that there are different degrees of heaven and different degrees of hell and your particular place was determined by how good or bad you were in terrestial life.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I wouldn't. First, infinite rewards for finite deeds is no more "just" than infinite punishment for finite crimes. (It's not unjust either, per se, because there's nothing wrong with pleasure.) Second, eternal pleasure has little meaning compared with eternal suffering. It doesn't matter what the level of pleasure is.

It's like saying this. I brutally torture a man for a year, slowly mutilating him and then killing him in one of the most painful ways ever devised. Ah, that was kind of unjust. But then I go and give ten other people incredible pleasure for a full year. Well, now I've given ten times as much pleasure as I've caused pain - clearly I was justified in torturing the first guy, right?

Another example. Say I become a doctor, and in my first year of practice I save a hundred lives. Then, in my second year I decide I can live out some sick fantasies and kill ten people - hey, I've saved a hundred of them, so if I kill ten that's still a huge net increase in life. Right?

These problems are compounded when infinity is involved.

Imagine what one week of torture would be like. Even something mild - solitary confinement, a relatively mild headache, or even just depression, the inability to feel happiness. I don't think many people are good at understanding this kind of situation - but if you've ever been sick for a week, you have some clue. Of course, even then you're happy sometimes, which really changes the scenario, and you get to rest during sleep, but still. Now when you have a firm idea of a week of suffering, take some time and extend it to a month. Few people in developed countries experience a week of torture, even "super-mild." But few people in the whole world experience a full month, in fact it's arguable nobody has experienced an unbroken month, but regardless. Get the idea of a month. And then extend that to a year. That's probably impossible, so stop there.

Keep in mind that you can keep going, from a year to ten, to a hundred, to a thousand, you might as well just jump straight to a googol because we're already well beyond human comprehension, and a googol isn't even a nanosecond compared with infinity. But at least with a googol, you know you'll eventually see an end to the pain. So now imagine that you know you never will. After the first year you'll be desperately wishing for the end of your existence. After ten you'll be trying to destroy yourself, hurting yourself as much as you can just to feel it, just because you're so desperate for escape you're mad. After a thousand, well, God only knows.

God only knows, and that's what is most terrifying about him. Because he does know, and he will do it - he'll do it to a person simply for not believing, simply for being stubborn. Regardless, any crime looks small in comparison. Literally - nothing any human being has ever done to any other human being can possibly compare.

Now balance all that with, "hey, some people get to live in a super-cool resort!" Does that really, honestly make you feel better about it? Or maybe you don't feel bad about it at all. Maybe the thought of fellow human beings living in eternal torment doesn't even disturb you. Humans are capable of that kind of chilling disregard - I'd like to think any real God wouldn't be.

[Stu Pidasso]

Hi Madnak,

you made an interesting post.

[ QUOTE ]
Now balance all that with, "hey, some people get to live in a super-cool resort!" Does that really, honestly make you feel better about it? Or maybe you don't feel bad about it at all. Maybe the thought of fellow human beings living in eternal torment doesn't even disturb you. Humans are capable of that kind of chilling disregard - I'd like to think any real God wouldn't be.

[/ QUOTE ]

However I think your analogy about sending people to a resort is flawed. By choosing no afterlife you are denying everyone the opportunity for eternal bliss and happiness. By choosing no afterlife you are essentially putting an end to everyone's existence in order to spare some an unpleasant existence. Since these people's existence would go on infinitely by not choosing an afterlife you are committing an infinite injustice against everybody.

Suppose there was a preschool of 50 happy content children. You have advance knowledge that in 1 hour 25 of those children would be randomly selected out of the 50 and taken away to suffer a lifetime of torture. Would you feel justified in dropping a bomb on that preschool instantly and painlessly killing all 50 children in order to spare the 25 a lifetime of pain and misery?

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
My reasoning is that its unfair for one person to suffer eternally for something he did on a certain period of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is another way of saying you trust your own judgment over a being who is of an infinitely higher order than yourself. The bible relates a story about pride being the cause of Lucifer and man's downfall. It seems it nailed our weakness right on the head.

Stu

[madnak]

Without hesitation. My main concern would be that I wouldn't fully know the consequences of my actions. With infinity it wouldn't even be a question for me.

But that isn't the situation. It's like if a bunch of terrorists told me that they were either going to murder all the children or take 25 of them and torture them for their entire lifetimes. And in such a case, if force to make a decision I would definitely choose the former. But I would definitely place the blame on the terrorists more than on myself - they could avoid torturing or murdering anyone, and the fact that they're planning to do so means they're committing a great injustice, regardless of what I choose.

However, while the idea of hell has literally caused nightmares and panic attacks for me, I find the idea of a "final death" rather comforting. Knowing that all things come to an end - it has a certain symmetry to it. A certain beauty.

So, I don't think my mind will be changing on this issue.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My reasoning is that its unfair for one person to suffer eternally for something he did on a certain period of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is another way of saying you trust your own judgment over a being who is of an infinitely higher order than yourself. The bible relates a story about pride being the cause of Lucifer and man's downfall. It seems it nailed our weakness right on the head.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

You started this thread asking about our judgment. Moreover, it's our judgment that we must use to determine whether to trust God and whether to believe in him. It is you who believes a person should be tortured eternally simply for poor judgment.

[arahant]

What's so bad about not going to heaven?
To put it another way, the choice is already made. Do you feel that you've been deprived of something by the fact that there is no heaven for you to go to?

[Phil153]

No person deserves infinite punishment for a finite sin. Especially given the nature of human development and consciousness.

[madnak]

But you aren't hearing these guys, picking your nose is an infinite sin.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
When I think about a solution to the problem one question that seems important to me is "How good is heaven and how bad is hell". I was always taught that there are different degrees of heaven and different degrees of hell and your particular place was determined by how good or bad you were in terrestial life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that would entail an almost infinite number of "levels" of heaven and hell. And what about the people who are right in the middle - they weren't "bad" but they weren't particularly "good", either. Do they spend eternity in some sort of middle place that's just kinda dull, but not painful? And what about the next guy who was just a tiny bit better? He gets a gameboy?

[alphatmw]

i wouldn't condemn one person to hell if the rest of the human race were guaranteed heaven. hells the most pointless form of senseless torture i've ever heard of.

of course, the all loving christian god would disagree with me.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]

Well that would entail an almost infinite number of "levels" of heaven and hell. And what about the people who are right in the middle - they weren't "bad" but they weren't particularly "good", either. Do they spend eternity in some sort of middle place that's just kinda dull, but not painful? And what about the next guy who was just a tiny bit better? He gets a gameboy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who knows what heaven and hell are like if they exist. I suppose it could be something like that. I was taught that the greatest torment in hell for a soul is its seperation from God and its knowledge that the seperation will be eternal. I suppose the feeling would be akin to being a hetereosexual male living in the playboy mansion and not having a wang doodle to take advantage of the situation(except the remorse would be of an infinitely higher order).

Catholics believe in something called purgatory. Its a place the "good" go to be purified of thier sins before they enter heaven. I don't think its out of the question for people in hell to suffer torments for a finite period of time(like in purgatory) but spend their eternity in perpetual remorse for what they have foolishly lost(communion with God).

The problem I have with Madnak, Phil and others is they seem to outright dismiss the possibility that a being which is by definition perfect doesn't have an equitable solution in mind. They're quick to commit thier own injustices and excuse it by saying they are preventing God from committing an even greater injustice. Their position is outright foolish.

Stu

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem I have with Madnak, Phil and others is they seem to outright dismiss the possibility that a being which is by definition perfect doesn't have an equitable solution in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely untrue. Like RayBornert I am a "godist." I believe a being that is perfect by definition must have an equitable solution. And hell is by definition not equitable. Therefore, the Christian God is not a perfect being, and if perfection is included in the definition of the Christian God, then the Christian God cannot exist.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem I have with Madnak, Phil and others is they seem to outright dismiss the possibility that a being which is by definition perfect doesn't have an equitable solution in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't dismiss anything like that. What I do dismiss is that a God with any kind of consciousness exists. Such concepts are for children, retards, and losers. I can't express the degree of utter stupidity you have to have to believe in such a concept.

There could be an afterlife. If there is, the closest representation I've seen to what it would actually be like was the movie "What Dreams May Come". The concepts expressed there pretty much sum up the likely possibilities. But if you reference God in any terms of judgement, or christian belief, we're not talking about the same thing.

[ QUOTE ]
They're quick to commit thier own injustices and excuse it by saying they are preventing God from committing an even greater injustice. Their position is outright foolish.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm neither comitting injustices nor excusing them. God, as most people refer to him, does not exist. The structure of thought, feeling, and the universe makes such a thing as unlikely as Lego people living in the centre of the earth.

[Phil153]

And to get back on topic: if the afterlife is a reflection of your awareness and spiritual development, and provides an opportunity to continue spiritual growth, then of course EVERYONE except the religious nutcases would be in favor of that.

The way your framed the question doesn't express this. But then you wouldn't be able to change the terms of reference and get all high and mighty in your responses.