Note: We've hit the faith-zone. I can't argue definite on faith-based arguments, I try to avoid them for that reason, or take the high road and claim universalism and peace.
It's why I'll argue against, say, religion and government going hand in hand, not whether or not someone is allowed to believe in something. After all, the same laws that protect their belief protect my non-belief. It would be self-destructive to demand anything less than tolerance.
But... Lets see where this goes anyway.
Kho said
While I agree the test which is set by the Abrahamic God (if we assume he is the same God in the sense that they all believe in this test) is a very difficult one, I wouldn't say it is impossible, there are numerous ways of coming to an answer, and there is nothing to say any are wrong or right.
Think for a moment about what what has just been said in this section before we continue to the rest. It's very malleable--that is, it's very... Non-concrete, lacking any sort of force or specific idea. Essentially: You're saying that there are numerous potential answers and that any of those options could be right or wrong, in any kind of combination.
The Bible, on the other hand, is the piece I'm arguing against generally here. It's very concrete in its answers--believe in God
or else burn in purgatory is a repeated message throughout. I can't argue against all religion because I just don't think I could learn the details of every single one and then form some kind of argument. Only the ones I know, can I argue.
Kho said
The point of a test is we only ever know that once it is done.
Erm, no. A test can easily be given to you for you to solve. School gives out plenty of tests, for example, that blatantly state "TEST [subject] ##" on them.
Now while there are tests whose point is not to be revealed until the end, the idea that life is a test, is merely belief. There's no evidence to back that up and so, as someone who places his faith in the rational, I can't accept it. I won't even try to deny others who see it that way, because faith-based arguments are unassailable and it's foolhardy to try, but I myself... Just can't.
Kho said
On your second two points, the issue of free will vs. destiny is enormous, if we were to delve into that it would take a long time. Maybe when I am not half asleep, but I agree with you that it does appear contradictory, though there are those who would be more than happy to tell us how they don't - and I certainly don't mind exploring the arguments when I have time to write.
Oh, even putting aside religion, the argument of free will versus destiny or human nature or memory is absolutely mind numbing even if you do know all the factors in play (which I openly admit I generally don't). For example: Hard determinism versus soft determinism, Tabula Rasa, nature versus nurture, the two door paradox, choice versus knowledge...
What I -do- know, though, is this: If the future is premapped, that is, if someone can see into the future with any sort of certainty (a qualification for omniscience), then free will is merely an illusion, in the same sense that no matter how many times you watch Frodo reach Mount Doom he will never be able to change the fact that he will succumb to wearing the ring and then have his finger bitten off for it. After that it becomes the argument of hard determinism versus soft determinism, that is, do you have any flexibility in how you reach your ultimate course, can you change your course once you know it, and so on and so on.
Ironically this is why the ending of Bioshock Infinite tends to confuse people who don't understand that it's a significant plot hole, because the universe constantly tells you that it's hard determined and yet the future changes. Oops.
Kho said
We must take into account that while the reward in the after life is eternal, the Abrahamic faiths, and their various sects, actually differ on whether punishment is eternal or has a fixed time before God forgives the 'wrong-doers.'
Also depending on the version. Some Bibles just go "they go to hell and burn" some add "eternally". I don't know enough about Biblical history to know why that is. Mine tends to be limited to major events, like the separation of the catholic and orthodox churches, the rise of islam, protestantism, the great awakening in north america, and so on.
Kho said
Thus non-eternal crimes, certain interpretations would argue, are punished with non-eternal 'sentences.'As for evidences, that is really a personal matter.
Eh'... Evidence isn't really personal. Evidence is as non-personal as it gets: If the evidence points to the innocent looking woman committing a murder, then 99 times out of 100, it's probably the woman who did it assuming the evidence isn't rigged.
One can have personal
reasons, but evidence, as in defined as something that all can see and universally understand (ex: fingerprints), is never personal.
Kho said
I outlined how I believe the closest thing to the scientific method/process can be used on the God issue, and as long as we live we'll just research and learn more till we are convinced for or against. It is a life long journey which we should never close at any stage in our lives, because then we allow for stubbornness and intolerance of different viewpoints to set-in, which is never good, and I am glad to see you're quite open to acknowledging another view.
Why yes, good chap, that is a healthy view of things. It's why I stick to the rational, I know things will change as our understanding of the universe grows and that makes it extremely exciting. Maybe we'll find out our creators were really unisex aliens who made us to figure out what would happen if you created creatures with two genders and biologically made them different. Or maybe there is a god but he's not this all wise and omniscient god, maybe he's like... A child and he created this... Fantastical, fantasy-like universe, and maybe all those mythological stories we have of like dragons and faeries and so on were all once real but he retconned them over time and the mythos is all we have left of the non-canon stuff, and people who go to heaven are his friends who tell him about mortality and pain and emotions and feelings and weakness and things he can't intrinsically understand.
All really interesting shit I can't disprove but won't believe until otherwise proven, though.
