You say you based your belief system on the reasoning you found to be true... so why did you mention that you wanted to first find out who you were, if that wasn't going to affect what your ultimate reasoning was going to be?

Well, finding myself was not for completely religious reasons, but I agree with most of what you say there so there isn't anything more to say about it.

All in all, if you're just going "shopping" for a belief system that fits you, this isn't the one you're going to be looking for, because it doesn't care if it doesn't fit you; it will make you fit it.

You're right; it only cares about the selfish being who created it all.

In essence, by being free you are enslaved, but by submitting to a higher authority you are free.

No disrespect but that's kind of a ridiculous statement.

Well, that's just what I say. The other funny thing is, when denial of the self is involved, you start to forget exactly why you became a Christian. It's almost as though such a thing were inevitable... almost as if my becoming a Christian were...predestined.

Then god chose me to go to hell.

I think that is why I've always had a problem with strict Calvinism, not that I agree with strict Arminaism either, but with Calvinism God must choose man (I'm sure TBG will correct me if I'm wrong here). I mean, that sort of limits our free will even less than we've already talked about. Although I don't want to spark a discussion about predestination, it doesn't really interest me and no destiny is going to tell me what to do. Assuming I'm not following it right now

TBG:
This is the crucial thing, though: in the reductionist model, physics in (sic) the lens through which metaphysics is to be viewed---and of course the result is epistemological empiricism (which collapses under its own weight due to the limitations of the senses) and metaphysical materialism.

Your whole statement is unfounded due to its reliance on a dubious premise. In the Reductionist Model, Metaphysics is wholly non-existent--which is one of the key reasons that I think the Reductionist Model is limited to only describing Physical Empirical Events and Artifacts, and only in "pieces" as it were (which it does quite well). The Reductionist Model is completely unusable for Psychological, Sociological, and Metaphysical purposes. And it is also not particularly suited to examining the Physical Universe as an interconnected whole.

TBG:
However, for Lewis and Tolkien, the order is reversed: the physical world is to be viewed in light of the metaphysical, which is just as real. Ontologically, they have the same level of existence, they are just known by different mechanisms---different in kind, not quality.

I don't disagree with your first sentence. However; the second part of your statement confuses the issue because metaphysics and physics are NOT ontologically equivalent. The different means of Knowledge makes all the difference in the world. One means of Knowledge (Metaphysics) is unfalsifiable, whereas the other (Physics) IS falsifiable.

TBG:
First, what is your basis for believing the law of non-contradiction, since you don't think it circular? How about the law of the excluded middle?

It's been so long since we first discussed this very issue, that I'm not surprised you don't remember my position: Those principles are both Rhetorical First Principles, simply accepted for the sake of argument. They are not Tautological in the sense of Circular Reasoning, nor are they necessarily Tautological in the sense of "holding true in all circumstances" (as in Mathematical Logical Tautologies).

To jog your memory, I'll repost part of my original post from the Old Narniaweb. And I should also remind you that I am using Tautology in it's Rhetorical (verbal logic) sense. Mathematical Tautologies are a different kettle of fish that don't factor into this discussion at all.

My commentary is in red font:

First, the Greeks divided principles into 2 parts:
1) Principles of Nature and Being -- essentialy the science of the day. i.e. existential facts on which a philosophical argument can be built. Not a tautology.
2) Principles of Reason -- the starting point of a valid argumentation. i.e. Rhetoric

Let us now examine the First Principles outlined under Principles of Reason.

-The principle of non-contradiction: The same thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. The same proposition cannot be both true and false. (This is in itself debatable, but is not a tautology)

-The principle of the excluded middle: Either a thing is or it is not. There is no third possibility. (This is even more debatable, but still not a tautology)

-The principle of the reason of being (the principle of intelligibility): Being is intelligible to the human intellect and as an object of intellection it can be explained ontically only through being, and so it cannot be identified with non-being. Every being has a reason of its existence either in itself or in something else. (Bingo...drum roll please...this is as close to a tautology as I could find among the First Principles. Score one tautology to you. It makes my head hurt as much as your tautologies)

-The principle of finality: Every agent acts for an end. (Again, debatable but not a tautology)

-The principle of causality: Every effect has a cause. (Modern Physics has turned this on it's head, but still not a tautology)

-The principle of identity: Every being is that which it is. Each being is separated in it's existence from other beings. (The first sentence is not a tautology, it's an existential statement of identity "Here I Am", and I agree with it. The second sentence is more problematic; ecology demonstrates that no being is truly separate, but it is not tautological)

So, out of 6 First Principles of Philosophy, we find only One that is a relatively clear tautology.

So ultimately, there is no particular basis for "believing the 'law of non-contradiction'," or 'the law of the excluded middle'. For all intents and purposes these are simply a set of rhetorical principles or "rules" that form the basis of logical discussion as set down by Greek Philosophers. Other Philosophies have very different sets of First Principles, if any.

TBG:
Second, what is the ultimate metaphysical basis of your counter-model?

I don't have one, as I am not attached to one system of Philosophy or Metaphysic. All systems have their merits and their drawbacks. Thus I am free to examine issues in multiple contexts, giving me a broader perspective. Though, as I have stated in the past, my preferred Metaphysical systems are Eastern, Animist and Gnostic. But again, I am not attached to any one of them as being "ultimate." They are all but a means to greater understanding.

Live Long and Prosper

GB

I believe the Bible talks about us having Free Will and God directing our path (Divine Destiny). Somehow both work hand-in-hand. This doesn't make sense to us but I don't think we'll ever be able to understand God fully. God died to save everyone, but sadly not everyone responds to his sacrifice. But everyone has the opportunity to believe in him.

Pondering further, it occurs to me TBG, that you are a lot like Doubting Thomas , unhappy with Faith alone, you seek to equate it with an Empiricism (by drawing no ontological distinction this is EXACTLY what you are doing). As I said, By Claiming Truth you are in fact Destroying Truth. I meant this in terms of Empiricism, but you are also undermining the Edifice of Faith that so any Christians base their belief on.

John 20
25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

This is a clear rebuke to Thomas for seeking to put Empiricism on the same level as Faith. So by millions of Christians' standards Faith in things "not seen" is the key to Salvation.

Well TBG, your reasons may be different than Thomas's, but you are doing precisely the same thing, attempting to put Empiricism on the same level as Faith, therefore crumbling the very edifice you hope to place your Faith on.

Thus your abuse of Philosophy not only undermines the value of Empiricism, but also undermines the value of Faith. Congratulations...you killed two birds with one stone.

GB

Firstly on the suicide stuff. That brings this admonition:

On this forum, do not even approach anything that resembles a promotion of suicide.

This is not pure discussion and debate. Ideas have consequences. None of us knows who is reading here, and who may be struggling with depression or anxiety that could lead to worse. I know of many members here who have had these struggles. Show compassion for these people, if they are reading; do not make things even slightly worse for them.

Now back to my (likely last) lengthy treatment of these sorts of things.

My life hasn't been hard, in fact an easy one at that. And I think that is why my beliefs can potentially mean something - they are not just a way of dealing with hard times, they are the reality.

Interesting. This could be the result of a society that prizes victimhood and "sticking up for the little guy" overmuch: everybody wants a piece of the action. I can understand someone who's had a hard time thinking a hopeless worldview is the way to go -- that's why I leaned toward that assumption. But someone who's had it easy and just as easily admits it?

This makes me think of spoiled rich suburbanite white kids who want a piece of the seamy-side action, so they get into ghetto hip-hop. There may be nothing wrong with the music, but they're just playing at the whole gritty tough-life thing. The real tough kids would laugh at them.

Meanwhile, you still have to deal with the fact that you are not the only person in your own customized universe (sounds like you are badly in need of the Total Perspective Vortex from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe). What about the "problem of good"? People who've been in situations worse worse than yours turn to God. Who do you think you are to know more than they do, as if you alone have discovered life's hardships? Such a view would be beyond arrogant and uncaring.

While Western atheists turn from belief in God because a tsunami in another part of the world caused great suffering, many brokenhearted survivors of that same tsunami found faith in God. This is one of the great paradoxes of suffering. Those who don't suffer much think suffering should keep people from God, while many who suffer a great deal turn to God, not from him.

Imagine eavesdropping on a conversation between [atheist and supposed "former Christian" author/activist Bart] Ehrman and the very people whose suffering he uses as an argument for disbelieving in God. After hearing Ehrman's case, someone says, "You've lost your faith because of my suffering? But my faith in God has grown deeper than ever. Why would I turn away from the only one who can comfort me, the only one who has planned eternal life for me, the only one who suffered immeasurably, beyond any of us, so that one day I need suffer no longer?"

You won't find the strongest Christian churches in the world in affluent America or Europe, where the problem of evil [as a debate issue has the most traction. In Sudan, Christians are severely persecuted, raped, tortured, and sold into slavery. Yet many have a vibrant faith in Christ. People living in Garbage Valley in Cairo make up one of the largest churches in Egypt. Hundreds of thousands of India's poor are turning to Christ. Why? Because the caste system and fatalism of Hinduism give them no answers. So they turn to a personal God who loves them and understands suffering. I have interviewed numbers of people who take comfort in knowing that this life is the closest they will ever come to Hell.

Later, Alcorn quotes the final "nihilism"-laced paragraphs of Ehrman's book (which is rather cheekily titled God's Problem). First he quotes the man's encouragement to seek money, material goods, nice cars and homes and families and the good life. Then Alcorn goes on:

What we have in the here and now is all that there is. We need to live life to its fullest and help others as well to enjoy the fruits of the land. ... But just because we don't have an answer to suffering does not mean that we cannot have a response to it. Our response should be to work to alleviate suffering wherever possible and to live life as well as we can.

Do you see the inconsistency here? If we follow Ehrman's advice to "drive nice cars and have nice homes" and consume expensive meals and drinks and spend as much as we can—in fact, "the more the better"—then we will not be working to alleviate suffering whenever possible.

What percentage of the royalties from Ehrman's best-selling book has he ear-marked for easing world suffering? If it seems unfair to ask, remember that I am merely applying the standard he expects God to live up to: using all of one's resources to relieve suffering. Does Ehrman place himself under the same condemnation he places God? Based on the lifestyle he seems to advocate, the answer appears to be no.

Compared to what other people have been through, I wouldn't claim to have a tough life either, Andrew. Nor is any of this meant to minimize whatever struggles you have been through (though I daresay it seems bad now, mere religious propaganda by your parents or whomever won't seem so terrible after ten years). Instead I simply ask (again): if you are telling the truth about this, why are you letting them control the debate and "frame" Christianity in this way?

I am not enslaved because what I want does not determine what I believe.

I doubt anyone here believes you.

Ask yourself which worldview -- Christianity or supposed "nihilism" -- will be the most helpful if you want to make any of the below choices:

1) Should I maintain posted speed limits?

2) Should I bother about the whole "going to church" thing?

3) Should I sleep with my girlfriend (if she'll let me)?

Now ask yourself how you would decide each of those scenarios (but do not post the answers here, on a "family-friendly" forum).

Stardf29's firm rebuttal stands. (And by the way, in the future try keeping an open mind with the whole "analogy" thing? You took The Black Glove's brilliant J.K. Rowling analogy far too literally and missed the metaphor; and I thought Christians were the "literalists" here. ...)

I only resent god, if he exists.

And that only adds to the proof: your want of resenting God leads to your professed belief. And by the way, why resent a God who (in your religion) is only behaving the way you want to behave -- as a "nihilist"? What is "wrong" (ha!) with Him acting as though there is no right and wrong, and only living His life as if life has no intrinsic meaning or value?

[W]e are supposed to lead others to Christ, so they will lead others to Christ, and to what end?

If you've only ever understood Christianity as a spiritual pyramid scheme, not beneficial to you unless you spread it to others, and as a mere system in which you must work, work, work to earn God's favor (before or after salvation), it won't sound like fun -- better: joy -- to you at all.

Until you see God as the most glorious Being in the universe, perfect holiness and love, more than worthy of your worship, and by comparison your sin as disgusting in His sight, none of this will make sense to you.

You need to know what you say you're rejecting. Maybe others have not taught you the whole truth (I am again trying to assume the best here).

With your reading comprehension it should be no trouble for you to delve deep into a book about God's nature and the reason why it is beneficial for human beings to love and enjoy Him above all else -- and for Him to love and enjoy being Himself above all else: Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist by John Piper.

For a summary of Christianity's solid basis in the doctrine of Christ's death and resurrection, read The Cross-Centered Life by C.J. Mahaney.

An eternity of worshiping him? Sounds like fun.

That depends on how you define "worshiping." Ask me more about the broader Biblical definition of worship if you wish -- only if you ask honestly will I continue to interact about this, and I'd love to do that.

Or go to your library and find the book Heaven by Randy Alcorn, which outlines the too-often-neglected expansive Biblical view of resurrection, not just of Christ's people but the Earth and universe themselves. Also read If God is Good, the natural followup to Heaven about why, if God is good, there is suffering in our world.

[W]e're told it is wrong to lie, fight, and steal, when in reality the natural inclination is to do just that - look at any other animal, in addition to humans.

Yet you later stole from the Christian worldview -- again -- to complain about these very problems:

The world is already miserable, though. Let's talk about this world you're so in love with. In fact one country in the world:

In the United States over 22 million people have alcoholism, in 2008 alone there were over 89,000 reported rapes and 16,000 murders.

Why complain about these? They're the natural result of your selfishness-based worldview, the logical conclusions of "nihilism." And can you point to anything anyone said claiming they're in love with this world?

Again I refer you to the Biblical teaching of resurrection. We only love life here, or love this world, because it reminds us of the next: the perfect world God has planned. Sunrises, parties, holidays, great conversation with friends, learning, debate, science and technology, new things, old things, singing, music, dancing, writing, art -- all these things hint of the New Earth to come. All can be worship, in service to our Creator. That is what true believers anticipate, as they find their joy in the Joyous One.

If you haven't been taught a Christianity that includes these truths, then I am sorry for you. However, at least you're hearing about it here.

If you stand for something in life, it means nothing if you do not stand for it in death.

You are presenting things as black-or-white, both/and, while Scripture (and others here) present this in living vibrant color. Christians do not strive for life with this kind of desperation. Rather, they see life as God's gift and worth defending, though they in Christ also do not fear death.

Pippin: "I didn't think it would end this way. ..."

Gandalf: "End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path ... one that we all must take. The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass ... and then you see it."

Pippin: "What, Gandalf? See what?"

Gandalf: "White shores ... and beyond. The far green country under a swift sunrise."

Pippin: "Well, that isn't so bad."

Gandalf: "No ... no, it isn't."

With that, I draw to a close. Fencer has already made his gracious exit, and now so do I, yet without as much of a good excuse as he has. Instead, I will no longer go round and round about professed "nihilism."

One who claims that suicide, or the death of a child, or any of that is not wrong does not have my respect, and has likely lost it with others here as well. Others (working according to the Christian worldview, even if they are not Christians) would move to help you, and we Christians have even more motivation to do so: because we "selfishly" want to love and care for you the way Christ loves us, and so become more like Him.

I am sorry if others professing Christianity have not shared the "repent, believe, come to Christ and rest" side of Biblical truth, and have instead only promoted a pyramid scheme. However, as I said before, you are hearing it here, from people who care about you, even long-range. They've given you attention, been friendly and welcoming, written you essays, quotes, and respected you like anyone else (age makes no difference there). And they've/we've cited resources you can look up if you truly wish to pursue this further and learn how real Christians think.

You are now responsible for making the choice: what will you do with this information? Ignore it, in favor of your own disposition to "resent" God (for supposedly behaving exactly how you want to be)? Or will you check into this further, thinking "independently" about these ideas and not blindly following your emotional reaction against God or other "Christians"?

I've grown so much and learned so much in these threads. For your civil attitude (against your "nihilism") and for reviving this topic, I am thankful.

However, mere posturing personally motivated propaganda for "nihilism" is already very tiresome. Other participants and topics are getting left out, and I'd love to engage with them as well. It's time to move forward.

If you wish to ask more, I'm sure many others here will be glad to answer about what Christianity really teaches and why Christians believe it.

But if you reply with more ipso facto stuff, as if only your saying it makes it true for everyone, I won't bother about it. Let's have more actual discussion and willingness to learn other views. Friend, you make a lousy "god." And I believe your "case" has been made well enough.

Pondering further, it occurs to me TBG, that you are a lot like Doubting Thomas , unhappy with Faith alone

Quite the opposite---I believe that all beliefs rest on faith, else they would not be beliefs.

Thus your abuse of Philosophy not only undermines the value of Empiricism

I undermine empiricism because empiricism is reductionism. What I don't reject is empirical knowledge---but even this is faith. Again, whenever I assent to a proposition, that is a kind of faith.

So by millions of Christians' standards Faith in things "not seen" is the key to Salvation.

This is where your misunderstanding of biblical text comes to the fore. I don't have to see to believe, but I also know that even when I do see, that if I do not see through eyes of faith, I will not believe. Again, may I recommend the dialogue here.

I am using Tautology in it's Rhetorical (verbal logic) sense.

And I in the sense of formal logic.

Now, let's look at those tautologies:

The principle of non-contradiction: The same thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. The same proposition cannot be both true and false.

Here you oversimplify. The actual principle is a thing cannot be both A and non-A at the same time or in the same relationship.

My question is how you would argue against this. But let me try: A can be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship.
The law of non-contradiction may be both true and not true at the same time and in the same relationship.
Yet if the law of non-contradiction is true in that relationship, it cannot be false in that relationship.

Ergo the law of non-contradiction is true.

The principle of the excluded middle: Either a thing is or it is not. There is no third possibility.

Not quite: the actual principle is that one can only choose one option when given the following disjunct: A v ~A (again, this is contingent upon same time and same relationship).

My question here is this: what is the third option?

The principle of causality: Every effect has a cause.

Now this is, in fact, the most blatantly obvious one there is, despite its long history of dispute. To say that this is not a tautology is to nit have considered this carefully. An effect is something which by definition has been caused.

The physicist merely demonstrates his ignorance of metaphysics when he says to the contrary.

GB, why do you want to escape from reason?

I don't have one

In other words, you have no counter-model.

Only because what you call truth, isn't.

How do you know? Can you show me that God isn't there or that He doesn't care?

TBG

No disrespect but that's kind of a ridiculous statement.

No disrespect taken; I'm a ridiculous person.

Then god chose me to go to hell.

Not necessarily. You haven't died yet.

At the same time, it is true that God has, somehow, "chosen" some people to go to Hell. And yet He is still loving and kind.

I figured I already made one ridiculous statement; what's another going to hurt?

There are reasonings behind those statements, though. Whether you can grasp those reasonings, I'm not sure. They are, after all, "illogical" reasonings. But if you want to hear them out anyway (if only so you can go ahead and mock them for all they're worth), let me know and I'll throw out what I can when I have time (which, for the record, isn't right now).

At the same time, it is true that God has, somehow, "chosen" some people to go to Hell.

Stardf, can you explain this further, or is this just another way of wording what I said in my previous post? Thanks

Another way of wording what you said in the previous post, with a return-connection back to God's sovereignty.

That'll do for now? I won't be able to reply further until this afternoon.

At the same time, it is true that God has, somehow, "chosen" some people to go to Hell. And yet He is still loving and kind.

Hold on! I totally agree that God is loving and kind. But he has not chosen people to go to hell. He allows them to choose hell. There's a slight difference but it's important. Some things God wills positively, others He wills negatively.

Andrew, your determination to love everyone is really admirable.
But if you believe there's no good and evil, what's the basis of love? I always thought it was helping a person towards the good and defending them from evil.

Two sides exist to the question and have Scriptural support: God does allow people to choose Hell, but ultimately it is His choice. And as has been pointed out in different ways during the past several pages, our free will is always based on our own desires. Without Christ, people will inevitably choose to sin, because they are dead in sins (Ephesians 1-2).

The Bible's very end describes the punishment due for the wicked. It does not mention their fate being their own choice, but God's. I present it here not to say "nuh-uh, not that, but this," but rather, "yes, that, and this."

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Revelation 20: 11-15

Dr Elwin Ransom, even if you are leaving the discussion I will answer your points one last time if I may:

What about the "problem of good"? People who've been in situations worse worse than yours turn to God.

It is not a problem, certainly not one of good (which doesn't exist). Desperate people will turn to anything if they're told it will help them.

Do you see the inconsistency here? If we follow Ehrman's advice to "drive nice cars and have nice homes" and consume expensive meals and drinks and spend as much as we can—in fact, "the more the better"—then we will not be working to alleviate suffering whenever possible.

That's Ehrman's fail, not mine. I wouldn't say we should do anything, I plan to work hard and have something when I retire because I want to live comfortably, even if there is no good reason to. Alleviating others' suffering is also a choice.

Ask yourself which worldview -- Christianity or supposed "nihilism" -- will be the most helpful if you want to make any of the below choices:

1) Should I maintain posted speed limits?

2) Should I bother about the whole "going to church" thing?

3) Should I sleep with my girlfriend (if she'll let me)?

The answer to all of these is, it doesn't really matter.

You took The Black Glove's brilliant J.K. Rowling analogy far too literally and missed the metaphor; and I thought Christians were the "literalists" here. ...

I only took it a way in assuming we have free will - if we're predestined, sure it works, and that proves my point even more. Let's say Joann is God and Voldemort is the devil - God made someone just so they could drag others to eternal suffering with them? If that's not love I don't know what is.

And that only adds to the proof: your want of resenting God leads to your professed belief. And by the way, why resent a God who (in your religion) is only behaving the way you want to behave -- as a "nihilist"? What is "wrong" (ha!) with Him acting as though there is no right and wrong, and only living His life as if life has no intrinsic meaning or value?

The belief came first, the resent is more recent. I resent god because of what I have found to be true, not vice versa. And that's like saying I'm going to like someone who's a jerk all the time - it doesn't mean he's "wrong," it means I don't like the way he acts for personal reasons.

You need to know what you say you're rejecting. Maybe others have not taught you the whole truth (I am again trying to assume the best here).

What I was taught about Christianity is that we must accept Christ as our savior, and he takes the punishment of sin and let's us go to heaven. Then one year at church camp the speaker revealed something to me: that wasn't enough to get to heaven. "If you deny me before men, I will deny you before my father in heaven." We must also live for Christ, keep his commandments, etcetera. To borrow from a quote I used earlier, "Christians are gambling the only life they may ever have on a dark horse in a race with no finish line."

Why complain about these? They're the natural result of your selfishness-based worldview, the logical conclusions of "nihilism." And can you point to anything anyone said claiming they're in love with this world?

I am not the one who sees anything as inherently right or wrong - YOU are. I'm not complaining, I'm stating facts. That's the world your supposedly loving god created.

But if you reply with more ipso facto stuff, as if only your saying it makes it true for everyone, I won't bother about it. Let's have more actual discussion and willingness to learn other views. Friend, you make a lousy "god."

I don't feel inclined to say this for the 4th time, but I will: I don't ask anyone to accept what I say merely because I said it. I want people to find the truth for themselves. And I don't want to be god.

Dr Elwin, you pick and choose from what I say the easiest things to answer and ignore the difficult points - the ones that undermine your biblical God. Not that this is necessarily wrong, just interesting.

How do you know? Can you show me that God isn't there or that He doesn't care?

No, no more than you can show that he is and does.

I will end with a quote by stardf29, that makes my point for me:

At the same time, it is true that God has, somehow, "chosen" some people to go to Hell.

Edit:

But if you believe there's no good and evil, what's the basis of love? I always thought it was helping a person towards the good and defending them from evil.

Love is putting someone and their needs before your own - the opposite of what the Christian God did.

Love is putting someone and their needs before your own - the opposite of what the Christian God did.

So what was Christ's death, then?

Wait, I know what you will answer. "Jesus was not the son of God." But that is irrelevant. With the statement I quoted above, you are making a sweeping generalization about the Christian God and the Christian worldview, and in that generalization completely ignoring the very thing that the Christian worldview is centered on: the selfless death of Christ, God dying on behalf of mankind, giving up every right He has on behalf of His creation.

I have spoken with many an atheist and agnostic before, but your statement might be the single silliest thing I've ever heard someone say against Christianity.

Even then, it is all beside the point. You dodged Lucy's question. She was asking how, in your worldview, love can even exist, since love is defined as selflessness - and there is no room for that in nihilism. There is not just no need to love as defined by you, there is no basis for it to exist at all. How then do you explain the fact that it does? That we are drawn to sacrifice on behalf of others, something that stands in stark contrast to all of our "natural" selfish tendencies?

With the statement I quoted above, you are making a sweeping generalization about the Christian God and the Christian worldview, and in that generalization completely ignoring the very thing that the Christian worldview is centered on: the selfless death of Christ

Perhaps I didn't word that as well as I could have. I think I should have just said god, not Christian. Either way, it does not effect my definition of what love really is.

She was asking how, in your worldview, love can even exist, since love is defined as selflessness - and there is no room for that in nihilism.

No room for that in nihilism? I think you misunderstand what nihilism is, perhaps - it merely states that nothing has meaning or value. It has nothing to do with selfishness in and of itself. We can be selfish, sure. But we can also be selfless.

You see, nihilism doesn't change the way the world is, because the world is already this way. Some people are selfish, some are not. The fact that it all has no purpose does not effect everything.

For example, alot of people (I daresay most people) follow hedonism, the principal that pleasure is the only purpose in life. I was like this myself once. But then you realize that those small pleasures don't last, and once you have achieved any goal you realize it means nothing once you are there. The journey getting there is the (artificial) purpose.

If I may re-state my original post, here is the basis of my beliefs about God:

If he created us to serve him, he is selfish. If he created us and abandoned us, he is indifferent. If he created us to harm us, he is malicious.

it doesn't mean he's "wrong," it means I don't like the way he acts for personal reasons.

In other words, it's just irrational emoting on your part.

I want people to find the truth for themselves.

Then stop trying to lead them to it.

I'm stating facts.

And you know this how? How did you come to the conclusion that there is no good or evil?

And I don't want to be god.

You want to be a law unto yourself---that's playing God.

I only took it a way in assuming we have free will

Again, define free will. I hold that everything is predestined and yet at the same time, we do make responsible free choices.

Seriously, Andrew, you are being irrational. You are angry at a God who may or may not be there based on a standard that only applies to you which you hold based on a set of "facts" that you still haven't told us why you believe. Honestly, you need a good splash of cold water in the face, Hamlet---wake up!

You say you don't like God? You like setting your own standards? Sir, you have a classic case of bad taste.

Love is putting someone and their needs before your own - the opposite of what the Christian God did.

Wrong: God didn't have to create us at all. He didn't have to come and die, to suffer as no human has suffered before or since. He didn't have to enter our story at all. Yet He did.

Who knows not Love, let him assay,
And taste that juice, which on the cross a pike
Did set again abroach; then let him say
If ever he did taste the like.
Love is that liquor sweet and most divine,
Which my God feels as blood; but I, as wine.

Really, you think that God owes you something. Well let me tell you that He doesn't. He has given you much and here you go throwing it selfishly away. You want to make yourself out as a great tragedian, the face of your brave new world, sticking it out with the stiff upper lip against the blows of God and man alike. "Better to reign in Hell than in Heaven serve," am I right? It's childish, really. You throw a tantrum because God doesn't do what you want Him to, even though He knows better than you what is good for you.

But Andrew, it's not too late. You want to see love? Then look for Him! No, rather He's chasing you. The Hound of Heaven is on your scent and He won't give up until you do. The cross awaits, lay your burden down at its foot. You can be forgiven: you can be free of doubt and sin, free to live an abundant life in Christ.

That is the offer: take it or leave it. I too will now bow out of answering. You have demonstrated that mercy is as foreign to you as love, but it is still offered.

If he created us to serve him, he is selfish. If he created us and abandoned us, he is indifferent. If he created us to harm us, he is malicious.

"The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." ~Westminster Shorter Catechism, question 1.

TBG