I meant no disrespect to your intellect. I've mentioned how much I've enjoyed the conversation, and did not intend to offend.

> I don't think it's fair to say that my withholding of my belief in god is synonymous with me seeking to reject God.

To me it might be like me saying to you, "Hey, I'm heading to Sears. Ya wanna come?" When you respond, "Let me think about it," i can be patient for a while, but eventually I need to leave. Suppose 30 minutes later I say, "So, do you want to come?" and you respond, "I'm still thinking about it," I'm gonna just go without you. I wanted to pick up my stuff, and your decision to not make a decision is a decision all in itself. And if you don't quick grab your coat and come with me, you've certainly decided by your "withholding" not to come. That's what I mean. Your pondering the possibility of God is as of yet inconclusive, but that means for the time being it's not yes.

> whitewash hell

Have you seen "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire"? About a third of the way through, Katniss' boyfriend is being beaten mercilessly chained to a post. Katniss steps in to stand between him and his tormentor, only to be told, "I'll kill you if you don't get out of the way." Her persecutor is so blind to his condition and his nature that he can live comfortably in it. Everyone else (the moviegoer, and even the local spectators) can see that he's an angry, violent, bitter, blinded man, but he can't.

Have you seen "The Matrix"? I know it's getting to be a long time ago now (1999), but the Matrix is a systematic enslavement that blinds people to their true condition. They have no clue they are subjugated by a force they can neither see, nor are they even aware of it, and yet it has them under their control. They go about their "merry" lives oblivious to their true condition, and most would even choose it, given the chance or prospect of escape.

That is the Biblical image of hell. The door is locked from within, as you have mentioned, because it's not stubbornness or stupidity that bars it closed, but because all those inside will have eyes and a nature that desires that status quo.

> The true me

Ah, a theological perspective, to be sure. 1 John 3.3 (and Phil. 3.8 and others) claim that we can know God, and will one day "see him as he is." I believe God has a true essence, and that essence will one day be know. By the same token, I believe that humans have a true essence, since we are made in the image of God. Granted, it gets added onto by derivative experiences and various personality traits that emerge as experiences get piled on, and we perceive those as our "true self", since that is what, by our perceptions, we have become. Like Shrek (I guess it's a movie analogy day for me!), we're an onion of layers. The layers may make up who we are, but our true essence is that of an onion. It's my theological perspective, which I'm sure you wouldn't share since you subscribe to an atheology. Now, granted, my point is almost getting lost in the analogy (analogies are so frustrating, but frustratingly useful also), since I'm not talking about my nature as a human that is my essence, but who I am.

You're right that now we are dipping in the mind-body problem of self. As you most likely know, Christians find themselves in one of three diverging camps: monist, dualist, and tripartite. Each one claims some Scriptural "evidence" for their perspective, which tells us that is something Scripture doesn't try to teach us. As much as the Bible tells us about ourselves, that one doesn't fall within its purpose or scope.

I don't think either of us will benefit from a discussion that tries to solve the definition of something as subjective as love, so it was a mistake on my part to attack your argument here. I think I was more concerned with the ambiguous nature of your distinctions between "our" form of love and god's, but still think it's better that we move on.

You said, "if you reject God in this life, when you die and find out you're wrong and you're standing face to face with God, you still won't be attracted to him." I think this is where the disconnect lies, I don't reject God, I just don't know or understand him if he exists. If I die and find myself to be wrong, I don't think there's any reason to say that I would necessarily be more inclined to reject him than accept him anymore than you can say the same thing for someone that you have never met. I understand that the analogy is not perfect (are any of them?) since in God's case, if he exists, there would be some things I would implicitly know about him, I just would have been misunderstanding them during my life. I think as I have shown in this discussion that I am, like yourself, a well reasoned individual who is seeking truth. I don't think it's fair to say that my withholding of my belief in god is synonymous with me seeking to reject God.

You mentioned, "C.S. Lewis has what I think to be a great description of that in his first chapter of 'The Great Divorce,' if you can get ahold of a copy of that."

And this is one of my issues with Mr. Lewis, although I consider him a formidable intellectual and brilliant writer, he seeks to both whitewash hell - "it's not the fire and brimstone torture" and saying that the people who are in hell want to be there, but still says that it will be a terrible place because the separation from God will be so awful. If hell is so horrible, than why would the gates be locked from within as he was fond of saying? He likes to point to the stubbornness of those in hell, but that doesn't sound like a rational being and I consider myself and many other atheists (not to mention followers of other religions) to be rational actors. If God offered me heaven out of love and I was finally able to understand that love, why wouldn't I reciprocate?

Again, you said, "It's interesting to me to hear to talk about the lack on continuity of self, and yet continue to talk about yourself as 'I'. There seems to be an obvious continuity if you recognize that you're still 'you', but adapting and emerging as new situations present themselves."

So I should clarify. Of course I recognize the continuum of experiences that have brought me to this moment and understand that these experiences are what make me, "me" today. To argue otherwise would be absurd. But this comment you made is what I was really addressing (my emphasis added): "I know what you mean, and that's a great point, but what happens is that my desires will be purged so that the true me can finally be seen." I don't believe there is a "true me," anymore than there is a true idea of an elephant or a true idea of a perfect english speaker. All of these are subjective. We can ask a room full of people to imagine a perfect elephant and if we could see what they were thinking, every single person would have a slightly different idea of what a "perfect" elephant is. Some would have bigger ears, some shorter tails, etc... They may only differ slightly, but they definitely would differ. That's because there is no essence of elephant. The word elephant is just a description of the current version of an animal that has evolved from prior ancestors. The same is true for me. There is no true or ideal me. Sure I could think of my perfect self, but it would differ, however slightly, from what my wife would come up with or what my kids would come up with. It would even differ from what I would have come up with a year ago or a year from now.

If I really pushed on you to define who you are, you could come up with some characteristics for sure, but would those characteristics be consistent throughout your life? If we could find a set of such characteristics would they even be a meaningful set that could only describe you?
All of this and we haven't even gotten into the mind-body problem of self.

> If one can just define love to be something else, than it loses all meaning and purpose.

Thanks for the challenge. Love all by itself is a difficult, if not impossible, word to define, and I think we would all agree that it has so many nuances and facets that its definition wobbles in each context, though at its core it's consistent, and we all "know" what it means, sort of. I would say that I'm not redefining love for God as contrasting how I define love for me; I would say that the love that I know, experience, and define is an incomplete and limited form of the love that God is and practices. His is unbound and part of his eternity and holiness; mine is bound by my limitations and the adequacies and corruptions of my nature. At core they are the same, but in their expressions his finds a much fuller, and therefore different, articulation.

> So do you believe that anyone can choose for god at any point, even after death?

No I don't. This life is our time of choosing. But I think I would add this: if you reject God in this life, when you die and find out you're wrong and you're standing face to face with God, you still won't be attracted to him. I believe that as you find a relationship with him distasteful now, that will not change in his presence.

I also don't believe that hell is fire. I think fire is a consistent image that the Bible (primarily Jesus) uses to describe, in terms we all understand, the agony of separation from God. I think we just have no clue that so much of this world is underwritten by God, and we all experience his grace and blessings at very natural levels (rain, sun, health, rationality, love, kindness, etc.) that we take it for granted. I think hell will be the withdrawal of his nature from those who want to be separated from him. C.S. Lewis has what I think to be a great description of that in his first chapter of "The Great Divorce," if you can get ahold of a copy of that.

> This seems akin to saying that you won't be you anymore.

I know what you mean, and that's a great point, but what happens is that my desires will be purged so that the true me can finally be seen. Paul, in Romans 7, says that we all wrestle with doing things that we know we shouldn't do (and then feel guilty about them), or do things that we regret (and we kick ourselves), or do things just naturally that makes a mess of things, but we just can't seem to stop. Heaven is the state of all that being purged away so I can finally be me in my best sense—the ideal me that I wish I could be now. The Bible likens it to gold that is refined in a fire to be the gold that it always was, but now without the dross.

It's interesting to me to hear to talk about the lack on continuity of self, and yet continue to talk about yourself as "I". There seems to be an obvious continuity if you recognize that you're still "rparkm", but adapting and emerging as new situations present themselves. Therein lies the continuity of self. As a human, you are adaptive but not dissociated. As you interact with your environment, you reorganize yourself, incorporate most elements of who you were before, but also assimilate new systems, so to speak. So you're not the same person, but you're the same self.

"Plantinga? About two sentences towards the bottom of the first paragraph are shaped by his writings, but the rest of the thoughts are mine. Thanks for the compliment. : )"

You're welcome. Although I disagree with Plantinga's conclusions, I still consider him to be a great thinker.

Your first paragraph is well taken, although I would contend that although you are using the same word, it seems the definition of love in each instance is dramatically different. If one can just define love to be something else, than it loses all meaning and purpose.

"But in his love he will not override human free will and force people to spend eternity with him who don't love him and don't wish to spend eternity with him."

So do you believe that anyone can choose for god at any point, even after death? For me, it's not an issue of not wanting to spend an eternity with him (honestly not sure I'd want to spend an eternity anywhere), but a matter of me just not accepting the claim that he exists in the first place. If I die and find out I am wrong, and he asks me if I want to go to hell and be tortured, will he respect my choice if I say no, I'd rather go to heaven? This seems to be a watered down version of hell that has become more popular these days where hell is not a punishment, just a separation. And god only does it because people in hell don't want to be in heaven. This, however, seems to be clearly contradicted in scriptures where visions of hell fire and torture are more common.

"As to heaven, the Bible says that when people go to heaven they will be transformed into a different reality, meaning (in the context of our discussion) that the set of parameters for us will be changed as well. The time of probation will be over, so to speak, and so the desire for wrong will be purged out of us and we will only aspire to the good. But since we have chosen to be transformed in such a way, it will neither violate our free will nor create a situation where love and morality are impossible."

This seems akin to saying that you won't be you anymore. If my desires to do wrong are now gone, how I can say that I am the same person I was before? For me, this isn't really an issue, because I see no evidence for the continuity of self. I am not the same person I was a year ago or ten years ago. I am me, right now. But for a Christian, this seems to contradict the idea of an immortal soul that is your essence. Which version of "you" do you become in heaven? Was it the most recent version from when you died? What about if you had a terrible accident and had brain damage to the point where your whole personality changed? Which "you" is in heaven?

You know, I'm enjoying this discussion. Thanks.

Plantinga? About two sentences towards the bottom of the first paragraph are shaped by his writings, but the rest of the thoughts are mine. Thanks for the compliment. : )

> Two competing claims

I'm drawing my reasoning from the idea that God and humans have different parameters circumscribing the set of what falls as the potential for free will decisions. Maybe an analogy (though all such things fail when pressed too hard): Donald Trump has a different set of possibilities for life than I do by virtue of his assets. His range of prospects is simply different than anything that will ever be available to me. I guess that's what I was trying to get at. God's nature gives him a different set of possibilities than those that I have, by nature of the kinds of beings that we are, and therefore I can't define love and free will the same for him as I do for me. For me, love is defined by my choice to act sacrificially in someone else's behalf; for God, love is defined by his omnibeneficent nature and his acting in compliance with it. Since I don't have such a nature, the parameters defining what is in the scope of free will for me are different than they are for a divine being. So I see no contradiction, and therefore don't agree with your conclusions, which I consider to be based on false premises.

I would agree that God values freedom, but I again think your sentence is misguided. Freedom in the Biblical sense is the freedom to choose for God or against him, so it's a skewed antithesis to say the option is freedom vs. allowing everyone into heaven. God would gladly let everyone into heaven, and actually desires that, according to the Bible. But in his love he will not override human free will and force people to spend eternity with him who don't love him and don't wish to spend eternity with him.

As to heaven, the Bible says that when people go to heaven they will be transformed into a different reality, meaning (in the context of our discussion) that the set of parameters for us will be changed as well. The time of probation will be over, so to speak, and so the desire for wrong will be purged out of us and we will only aspire to the good. But since we have chosen to be transformed in such a way, it will neither violate our free will nor create a situation where love and morality are impossible.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you are basically using Plantinga's free will defense, no?

The issue I have with this is that it makes two competing claims. One it says that God loves us and there is no way for God to not love us as this would contradict his omnibenevolence (I think this is the same argument as the wholly good vs. freedom to do evil that we agreed on). But then we get to the contradiction when you say that in order for someone to truly love, they must be free to not love as well. So either love is possible without the choice for non-love or God does not truly love us.

So it seems that there is no contradiction between creating creatures that have no choice but to love by their nature since that is what God is. This leads us to the conclusion that either God values freedom over allowing everyone into heaven, which means he ultimately bears responsibility for everyone in hell (this also seems to contradict omnibenevolence), or God does not exist (at least not the Christian idea of God).

This seems to be the same argument against your moral good vs moral evil claim. If God is incapable of choosing evil, than he is not capable of doing moral good, just good, since your definition of moral good necessarily includes the possibility of evil. If God is incapable of moral good, than why is moral good to be valued more than providing eternal bliss for all his creations?

Lastly, you did not respond to my question about heaven. If heaven is perfect than there is no potential for evil there. This means, by your definition, there is no love in heaven, and there is no moral good in heaven. Why is this okay for heaven but not here on earth, especially when considering the consequences of this action?

Great conversation. Thank you. I think the nature of love is the key player here. Love is a unique entity in our existence. It can only exist as an act of the will, and it can only exist as a moral and positive act of the will, otherwise, it isn't love. Therefore the only way love can truly exist is if there is a legitimate choice for non-love, since it is not self-contradictory for humans (as it is for God) to make the choice of non-love. Hence it is not possible for God to have created a world in which humans were free in all other respects, except to do evil. For love to truly exist, it is necessary to have world containing creatures free to decide between love and non-love, good or evil, and impossible that God would create a world of quasiautomata who are free in all other respects except to do evil because they are unable to do otherwise. God can create creatures with free will, but he cannot causally or otherwise determine them to do only what is right. If he did that, they are not doing right freely, or loving freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, those same creatures must necessarily be capable of moral evil. Nor is it possible for him to create the possibility of moral evil and at the same time prohibit its actuality.

And here we are. Some of the creatures have exercised their freedom to do what is wrong, and the result is moral evil. But that in no way speaks against God's omnipotence or his goodness. He could only remove the possibility of moral evil by also removing the possibility of moral good.

That was a perfect breakdown of the issues I am trying to address and will be very helpful in moving this discussion forward so thank you for that.

We agree completely on the first three points, in so far as to say that I am willing to grant these characteristics to the Christian God and agree that he still could have freewill within these parameters.

The issue comes up when we get to point 4. Why is it necessary for humans to have the freedom to do evil? Could god have not created a world in which humans were free in all other respects, except to do evil, thus negating the need for hell? If you are going to say that one must have divinity in order for evil to be excluded, I am not sure how you are coming to this conclusion. If heaven is to be perfect, surely human souls must be incapable of evil while still being free in other respects, otherwise heaven is not perfect. If this set of affairs can be actualized in heaven, than why not on earth? The only answer I can think of is because it's what god wants, and that just begs the question why?

Sure, thanks for the clarification. I think there are several problems with the proposition, so I try to address those, and then the conclusions. A standard of logic is the law of non-contradiction: A cannot equal non-A. Self-contradiction is irrational. Secondly, evil is not an entity of itself, but the absence of good. Now, since God is good, and cannot be self-contradictory, it's impossible that evil have any part of his being or that it's a possible choice for him.

On to the next piece. Free will encompasses the parameters of possible choices. It's not rational to say that if I don't have a choice to travel at the speed of light, or to live on Alpha Centauri, than my free will is just a sham and a ruse. No, free will is the legitimate exercise of legitimate choices within the parameters of what is rational within my context.

Now on to your questions (hopefully). God is considered to be maximally good, and cannot choose evil, because that would be self-contradictory. But nor does that mean he doesn't have legitimate free will, because he exercises free will within the parameters of what is rational and non-contradictory. That by no means leads to the conclusion that he is not maximally or wholly good.

By the same token, human beings, since we are not divine, have the choice of evil within our orbits, and therefore to have a legitimate choice, evil is included as a potentiality. Therefore it's valuable for us to be free to commit evil, and not disqualifying for God not to have that potentiality.

I don't think this really addresses the issue I brought up. I am not arguing that god's inability to commit evil violates his omnipotence (although I think that's a good argument in and of itself), but instead I am saying that if god is to be considered maximally good, than he can't even have the potential for evil since that would mean that in some possible world, god does evil (otherwise the concept of potential loses all its meaning). The dilemma then becomes, does god have the power to do evil, meaning he is not maximally or wholly good, or if not, than how can we consider god to be a moral agent?

If god is not free to do evil, than why is it so valuable for us to be free to commit evil, especially when considering the consequences of this (eternal damnation)?