‘Eternal suffering’ is nonsensical

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
My neighbour is hypothetical sir, but she represents millions of very real souls who Sonship's God has apparently cast in to eternal suffering. - Such divine judgement is blatantly suspect rendering the deity concerned tyrannical and a construct of blessed fiction.


My own divinity however is greatly exaggerated...

My own divinity however is greatly exaggerated...
The ultimate judge is the divine.
You've simply replaced one for another: you for Him.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
[b]My own divinity however is greatly exaggerated...
The ultimate judge is the divine.
You've simply replaced one for another: you for Him.[/b]

Nothing is divine but what is agreeable to reason.

Immanuel Kant

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Nothing is divine but what is agreeable to reason.

Immanuel Kant

Reason is to reckon, to think.
I'm okay with that.
I reckon that we are limited in our ability to see things with absolute clarity.
I think that my thought is indicative of an ultimate thinker.

-No one of any long-term consequence

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Reason is to reckon, to think.
I'm okay with that.
I reckon that we are limited in our ability to see things with absolute clarity.
I think that my thought is indicative of an ultimate thinker.

-No one of any long-term consequence

'I think that my thought is indicative of an ultimate thinker.'


Please rationalise (Bearing in mind you lack clarity) and explain how that approach is any different from primitive man looking up to the sun and reasoning it must be a God.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
'I think that my thought is indicative of an ultimate thinker.'


Please rationalise (Bearing in mind you lack clarity) and explain how that approach is any different from primitive man looking up to the sun and reasoning it must be a God.

I'm not dim enough to equate being bright with being the sun.
I think enough to conceptualize an ultimate thinker.
With no notable exceptions, the entirety of man thinks the same thing.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
I'm not dim enough to equate being bright with being the sun.
I think enough to conceptualize an ultimate thinker.
With no notable exceptions, the entirety of man thinks the same thing.

I think enough to conceptualise that my brain function evolved to its current state of reasoning, without the need for an ultimate thinker.

What's the difference?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I think enough to conceptualise that my brain function evolved to its current state of reasoning, without the need for an ultimate thinker.

What's the difference?

In your scenario, the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.
That's absurdity, nonsensical.
In reality, the ultimate truth is that ultimate truth exists.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
In your scenario, the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.
That's absurdity, nonsensical.
In reality, the ultimate truth is that ultimate truth exists.

My scenario is lacking an ultimate thinker (that much is true) but why does that vanquish ultimate truth from my scenario? (It's that conclusion that delivers the nonsensical absurdity).

For some, i'm afraid, ultimate truth has nothing to do with God.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
My scenario is lacking an ultimate thinker (that much is true) but why does that vanquish ultimate truth from my scenario? (It's that conclusion that delivers the nonsensical absurdity).

For some, i'm afraid, ultimate truth has nothing to do with God.

In your scenario, you become the ultimate thinker, which requires the truth to have been there all the time... unless you made it up and its existence requires your imagination.
While most find the thought of pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps appealing, further consideration renders such scenarios illusory.
If the truth has been there all the time, it is the ultimate truth, independent of any thinkers discovering the same.

Amidst all the competing suggestions and/or claims of truth, arriving at a conclusion that no ultimate truth exists is akin to salt which has lost its flavor: what is it, if not salty?

Originally posted by @freakykbh
In your scenario, you become the ultimate thinker, which requires the truth to have been there all the time... unless you made it up and its existence requires your imagination.
While most find the thought of pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps appealing, further consideration renders such scenarios illusory.
If the truth has been there all the ...[text shortened]... at no ultimate truth exists is akin to salt which has lost its flavor: what is it, if not salty?

Please evidence why the ultimate truth = your particular brand of God.

Perhaps the ultimate truth is Vishnu, or indeed that the universe itself has always existed and that it's merely our finite understanding of time that has befuddled you. Perhaps one of these scenarios is the independent truth you allude to?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Please evidence why the ultimate truth = your particular brand of God.

Perhaps the ultimate truth is Vishnu, or indeed that the universe itself has always existed and that it's merely our finite understanding of time that has befuddled you. Perhaps one of these scenarios is the independent truth you allude to?

Isn't it pretty easy though, to suggest the "perhaps this, perhaps that, as a vague non-committal position? The easiest position to defend is non-commitment.

Maybe Vishnu?
Maybe an eternal universe?
Perhaps some other scenario, perhaps ... just ... maybe.

Why not Jesus speaking frankly in proclaiming that He is the truth?
Does He live like it?
Definite does not always mean narrow.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Please evidence why the ultimate truth = your particular brand of God.

Perhaps the ultimate truth is Vishnu, or indeed that the universe itself has always existed and that it's merely our finite understanding of time that has befuddled you. Perhaps one of these scenarios is the independent truth you allude to?

Well, at least we're making headway and you're acknowledging that such a thing, truth, exists independent of the observer.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
[b]Take for example my (hypothetical) elderly neighbour...
I'm encouraged to see others who, like me, consider themselves above grade in imagination and both problem-solving and puzzle-creating.
While it is fanciful to consider any number of scenarios in which God's perfection is challenged, at the end of the day, He actually can make a rock bigger ...[text shortened]... enario in which God's judgment is suspect.

What does that make you, goad, if not God Himself?[/b]

You, sir, are so full of yourself that you have no business speaking in this way... to anyone, much less to those whom you rank as somehow 'below you', which I assume is everyone, according to you.

Yet another "Christian" falling short.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
In the same order as quoted:

Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and [b]the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Jesus said unto her,
I am the resurrection, and the life:
he that believeth in me,
though he were dead,
yet shall he live:

But as touching the resurrection of the dead,
have ye not read t ...[text shortened]... irit saith unto the churches;
He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.[/b]

None of these say the soul is eternal; only that it survives the first death.

An important difference.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
My scenario is lacking an ultimate thinker (that much is true) but why does that vanquish ultimate truth from my scenario? (It's that conclusion that delivers the nonsensical absurdity).

For some, i'm afraid, ultimate truth has nothing to do with God.

For some, i'm afraid, ultimate truth has nothing to do with God.

If man is the measure of all things, then which man is ?