A Fear of Heaven

Originally Posted by erinys

no, I'm afraid I don't see what you're saying. I said that a world without bad things is a good place. I then said that it was a good place because there wasn't anything bad in it. I am, in this instance, defining good as the lack of bad. Just because people in that world wouldn't know what good was (since everything would be good and they would have nothing to compare it to) doesn't mean that it isn't, from my perspective and in my opinion, good.

First, you stated that this world has no bad in it. You then went on to compare good to bad, even though bad did not exist in your scenario. Therefore how can you define good in this way?

Good, is also not the lack of Bad, it is something separate. something not bad is not inherently good.

Since your scenario assumed that bad does no exist, and that you base your own opinion on the comparison of the two, how can good possibly exist in this world if the method you use to tell them apart is rendered impossible by the lack of the concept of bad?

you know, I'm getting the distinct feeling that you're not listening to a word I'm saying.

Well, I am sorry you are getting that feeling, I assure you I am not blatantly ignoring you. I am trying to respond to what you are saying.

also, since when does good rely on bad? I can do good things and compare them to other good things, or to a lack of good things.

That doesn't make them good, rather, beneficial. That does not rely on bad, and that is, to me, what you describing.

a fetus wouldn't know anything. That doesn't mean that nothing exists, only that nothing exists in the perspective of that fetus.

My point exactly, it would be sent to heaven for what? An eternity of nothingness? Thats not fair : /

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

First, you stated that this world has no bad in it. You then went on to compare good to bad, even though bad did not exist in your scenario. Therefore how can you define good in this way?

bad does exist, just not in that world. I'm defining good as compared to bad in this world.

Good, is also not the lack of Bad, it is something separate. something not bad is not inherently good.

nothing is inherently good. Good and bad are not objective. I can say that good is the lack of bad.

Since your scenario assumed that bad does no exist,

in that world.

and that you base your own opinion on the comparison of the two,

good and bad are matters of opinion.

how can good possibly exist in this world if the method you use to tell them apart is rendered impossible by the lack of the concept of bad?

the concept of bad still exists, in my mind, in this world.

That doesn't make them good, rather, beneficial. That does not rely on bad, and that is, to me, what you describing.

good is beneficial, beneficial is good!

My point exactly, it would be sent to heaven for what? An eternity of nothingness? Thats not fair : /

there is no Heaven, and even if there was, why would a fetus be sent there?

Originally Posted by erinys

bad does exist, just not in that world. I'm defining good as compared to bad in this world.

I know that, but that means you cannot apply the same reasoning to your example.

nothing is inherently good. Good and bad are not objective. I can say that good is the lack of bad.

How is it the lack of bad? Why is something automatically good if it is not bad?

the concept of bad still exists, in my mind, in this world.

I am aware of that, yet your reasoning for it's existence in the world without bad was justified by your own opinions, but in this world that reasoning cannot exist because of bads non-existence.

good is beneficial, beneficial is good!

Beneficial is beneficial. Good is based on it's contrast with bad. Without bad, we cannot label something that is beneficial as good, because there is nothing that is not beneficial to compare it to. You cannot know what moving froward is like without having moved backwards at some point.

there is no Heaven, and even if there was, why would a fetus be sent there?

There is no heaven, a fetus would be sent there because that is what all of the religious people I have debated with say, and I am assuming that is their belief. There reasoning being they have not lived long enough to sin? Or something like that.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I know that, but that means you cannot apply the same reasoning to your example.

why not?

"Just because people in that world wouldn't know what good was (since everything would be good and they would have nothing to compare it to) doesn't mean that it isn't, from my perspective and in my opinion, good."

How is it the lack of bad? Why is something automatically good if it is not bad?

because I think so.

I think that it would be a good thing if there were no bad things.

I am aware of that, yet your reasoning for it's existence in the world without bad was justified by your own opinions, but in this world that reasoning cannot exist because of bads non-existence.

what?

Beneficial is beneficial. Good is based on it's contrast with bad. Without bad, we cannot label something that is beneficial as good, because there is nothing that is not beneficial to compare it to. You cannot know what moving froward is like without having moved backwards at some point.

that's not true. I can compare moving forward to not moving at all, or to moving sideways.

There is no heaven, a fetus would be sent there because that is what all of the religious people I have debated with say, and I am assuming that is their belief. There reasoning being they have not lived long enough to sin? Or something like that.

I don't know.

Originally Posted by erinys

why not?

"Just because people in that world wouldn't know what good was (since everything would be good and they would have nothing to compare it to) doesn't mean that it isn't, from my perspective and in my opinion, good."

Because your perspective is based on your own reasoning, which is based on the comparison of good and bad, hence, it is not applicable to your example because bad does not exist there.

because I think so.

I think that it would be a good thing if there were no bad things.

It would be a bad thing if there were no bad things, because then there would be no good things.

what?

See my response to the first quote in this message.

that's not true. I can compare moving forward to not moving at all, or to moving sideways.

Well, since there is no sideways to good or bad, I don't think that counts, as I was simply making an analogy. If you compare moving forward to not moving, you still do not know what it is like to move backwards. You only know forward and standstill. There is still no bad, only good and neutral. I don't think that is a comparison either, way, this depends on whether or not anything is neutral in heaven.

I don't know.

That is what that was based on, just sayin'.

Originally Posted by CookieConjurer

1. Tool read Nietzsche. And then stole his idea of the joy of tragedy.

2. Why get so fixated on death and dying? You have no idea what happens after it. You can't. No one can. All you know you have is this life right here, so take it. Pluck the day, as Horace says, for tomorrow you might die.

1. Really? I'll have to look him up. Any particular books he wrote or something?

2. I typically try not to worry. The only time I do worry is at night, when there's nothing else to occupy my mind. It's a combination of insomnia and a wandering mind. I don't choose this, trust me.


Valor and erinys, could you continue your discussion in PM or something, please? You're starting to veer off topic a bit.

Originally Posted by Neo

1. Really? I'll have to look him up. Any particular books he wrote or something?

2. I typically try not to worry. The only time I do worry is at night, when there's nothing else to occupy my mind. It's a combination of insomnia and a wandering mind. I don't choose this, trust me.


Valor and erinys, could you continue your discussion in PM or something, please? You're starting to veer off topic a bit.

I am trying to show why heaven is a not a desirable place, and worthy of fear.

...yeah, I guess you're right. Two-person debates just make me nervous due to the frequency at which they derail threads.

You say it is undesirable, but would you say that hell is better or worse?
Is it better to burn or live with the pain of a perfect society devoid of entertainment?

Although there have been accounts of people seeing visions of their dead relatives, who always said "I don't want to come back. Everything here is perfect."
One such case is known with Angus Bruch(? I don't quite know his last name, but a movie was made about him which was titled Faith Like Potatoes.) The man had his nephew and niece with him on his tractor when he hit something. His nephew fell from his friend's arm and was run over by the large tire of the tractor (this was a big John Deere tire, remember.) The boy died, and Angus and his brother were despondent. However, months later, his brother had a dream where he saw his son. He asked if the boy wanted to come back. He replied "No, Daddy. I'm waiting for you." While this could be called a mere dream and not actually given credibility, it should be noted that Angus is a man who actually raised a woman believed to be dead from a lightning strike. He worked several great miracles, and if you want to know more, look up Faith Like Potatoes. I think it's also a book.

Personally, I like the idea that we will be innocent again. That means that we will be able to do anything, since we will not understand right or wrong. God always did say that children are closest to him due to their innocence. You can only sin if you know right from wrong.

Perhaps we will change? The restoration of our innocence would mean that we would no longer be burdened with choices of right or wrong and the like.
Maybe this is God's gift to us? We lost our innocence long ago, and he returns it to us after we finish this life. Perhaps this life is to show us what it would be like without our innocence, hm?

Originally Posted by Neo

1. Really? I'll have to look him up. Any particular books he wrote or something?

2. I typically try not to worry. The only time I do worry is at night, when there's nothing else to occupy my mind. It's a combination of insomnia and a wandering mind. I don't choose this, trust me.


Valor and erinys, could you continue your discussion in PM or something, please? You're starting to veer off topic a bit.

Nietzsche was one of the great philosophers of the modern age. If you've never heard of him, chances are anything you read will change the way you look at life.

No. I'm not afraid of heaven.

Originally Posted by Avalanchemike

You guys are thinking of Heaven in human terms.

^This. Assuming that heaven exists, that would mean that God exists. And if God exists, then His methods could never be comprehended by a mortal mind, and so eternal bliss could never be understood until yo experienced it. Assuming heaven exists.

Originally Posted by Neo

1. Really? I'll have to look him up. Any particular books he wrote or something?

Thus Spake Zarathustra

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Because your perspective is based on your own reasoning, which is based on the comparison of good and bad, hence, it is not applicable to your example because bad does not exist there.

it exists here, though, from where I am making the comparison. I am looking at this world with no bad from outside, from this world, where there is bad.

It would be a bad thing if there were no bad things, because then there would be no good things.

I disagree. If there were no bad things there would be regular things, good things, and even better things.

also, you make a critical mistake. There are no bad things; therefore, it could not be a bad thing if there were no bad things. That's a contradiction. It invariably must be a good thing (or at least not a bad thing) because there are no bad things.

See my response to the first quote in this message.

see my response to your response to the first quote in this message.

Well, since there is no sideways to good or bad, I don't think that counts, as I was simply making an analogy. If you compare moving forward to not moving, you still do not know what it is like to move backwards.

but you do know what it's like to move forwards, which was the point.

You only know forward and standstill. There is still no bad, only good and neutral. I don't think that is a comparison either, way, this depends on whether or not anything is neutral in heaven.

only good and neutral, or good and better, but no bad, which was how I described my world with no bad things.

Originally Posted by erinys

it exists here, though, from where I am making the comparison. I am looking at this world with no bad from outside, from this world, where there is bad.

Alright, so why would you make the scenario of a world without bad?

I disagree. If there were no bad things there would be regular things, good things, and even better things.

But in order for the contrast that is necessary of the distinction to exist, one would then have to make distinctions between the best and just the good, this is the equivalent of what we know as good and bad, except in their world, is it good and very good. Now, while no act would be negative, the acts still gain distinction based on their value of 'good', relative to one another. This adds to my point that in order for good or bad to exist, they must exist together, the same goes for good and very good, because something cannot be very good without something good to compare it to.

also, you make a critical mistake. There are no bad things; therefore, it could not be a bad thing if there were no bad things. That's a contradiction. It invariably must be a good thing (or at least not a bad thing) because there are no bad things.

Ah, but this is only my opinion, you have expressed that you disagree, I am merely making the point that good and bad rely on one another to exist and that in a world without bad, there can be no good. To you, it is not a bad thing, to me it is. And it is only a contradiction if you believe you can truly remove one or the other from existence. I do not believe in heaven thus it is not a contradiction.

but you do know what it's like to move forwards, which was the point.

Right, and my counterpoint was someone without that experience is not capable of making that distinction.

only good and neutral, or good and better, but no bad, which was how I described my world with no bad things.

See my quote where I compare good and very good.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Alright, so why would you make the scenario of a world without bad?

to show you that good could exist without bad.

But in order for the contrast that is necessary of the distinction to exist, one would then have to make distinctions between the best and just the good, this is the equivalent of what we know as good and bad, except in their world, is it good and very good. Now, while no act would be negative, the acts still gain distinction based on their value of 'good', relative to one another.

therefore, good exists, but bad doesn't.

This adds to my point that in order for good or bad to exist, they must exist together,

no it doesn't. It shows that good can exist without bad.

the same goes for good and very good, because something cannot be very good without something good to compare it to.

exactly. You don't have to compare good to bad, you can compare good to very good.

Originally Posted by erinys

to show you that good could exist without bad.

Right, but since you used reasoning from a world with both good and bad, how can you make that comparison?

therefore, good exists, but bad doesn't.

No, therefore positive acts exist, and negative acts don't. Good is still dependent on bad.

no it doesn't. It shows that good can exist without bad.

Yes it does, it shows that these concepts we create were created on the basis of a comparison between to levels of something, be it good, bad or good and bad. My point is that the two are dependent on one another because of their founding, which is on a comparison. Again, one cannot perceive good without the existence of bad. One can logically perceive positive actions, but to deem them good requires negative actions (bad) to contrast them otherwise, all you have are positive acts, which cannot be inherently good if bad is non-existent. You are only capable of saying this because you live in a world where the contrast is readily available.

exactly. You don't have to compare good to bad, you can compare good to very good.

Right, but as I explain above, that renders them down to positive actions, because they lack the distinction and contrast to be labeled as good.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Right, but since you used reasoning from a world with both good and bad, how can you make that comparison?

why not?

No, therefore positive acts exist, and negative acts don't. Good is still dependent on bad.

positive acts are good.

Yes it does, it shows that these concepts we create were created on the basis of a comparison between to levels of something, be it good, bad or good and bad. My point is that the two are dependent on one another because of their founding, which is on a comparison. Again, one cannot perceive good without the existence of bad. One can logically perceive positive actions, but to deem them good requires negative actions (bad) to contrast them otherwise, all you have are positive acts, which cannot be inherently good if bad is non-existent. You are only capable of saying this because you live in a world where the contrast is readily available.

all you're really telling me is that a world without bad wouldn't call good "good." It's all semantics, though. Just because there wouldn't be anything called "good" in Heaven doesn't mean that Heaven isn't, by our standards, a good place.

Right, but as I explain above, that renders them down to positive actions, because they lack the distinction and contrast to be labeled as good.

what is the difference between "positive acts" and "good acts"?

I belive in god and heaven... and life in heaven.
But honestly, none of us know how we will experience heaven.
I dont. As Avalanchemanmike said, were all thinking about this
in the prospective of a mortal humen. So ease up a little. Have some faith. B )

Originally Posted by erinys

why not?

Because you are using reasoning from one world, not applicable to the other because of the difference you specified. As you are taking both into account, you form your decision as though they both exist, while in the other world, only one exists, rather, neither.

positive acts are good.

Positive does not equal good. Positive can be seen through reasoning, good cannot, as good is bad's contrast, if bad does not exist, something cannot be good, just as something cannot be very good if good doesn't exist.

all you're really telling me is that a world without bad wouldn't call good "good." It's all semantics, though. Just because there wouldn't be anything called "good" in Heaven doesn't mean that Heaven isn't, by our standards, a good place.

What I am telling you is that without contrasts how would we make the distinction? Without the contrast of bad and good, how does one know if something is actually good?

what is the difference between "positive acts" and "good acts"?

Something can be shown positive if the outcome of said event or effect is demonstrably beneficial. Good however, requires we make a distinction, and that distinction relies on bad. What we see as a good act wouldn't seem so good if there was nothing to compare it to. Just like going to an amusement park, at first you are excited because it's so different from your average lifestyle, but, say you lived there for 50 years, and experienced that rush over and over again, it would cease to be a rush because it would be commonplace. You would lack the contrast that gave you the distinction in the first place. Without your average life, the amusement park is average. Just as without bad, good ceases to be good.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Because you are using reasoning from one world, not applicable to the other because of the difference you specified. As you are taking both into account, you form your decision as though they both exist, while in the other world, only one exists, rather, neither.

I'm comparing this existing world to a world in which no bad exists. I see nothing wrong with doing that. Logic applies to any world.

Positive does not equal good. Positive can be seen through reasoning, good cannot, as good is bad's contrast, if bad does not exist, something cannot be good, just as something cannot be very good if good doesn't exist.

good things are positive, positive things are good. I've already told you why good doesn't rely on bad.

plus, couldn't you just go on to argue that positive relies on negative? It's the same argument.

What I am telling you is that without contrasts how would we make the distinction? Without the contrast of bad and good, how does one know if something is actually good?

what does it matter? Not being able to make the distinction between good and bad doesn't mean that good doesn't exist, it just means that you don't know what good is. Being color blind doesn't mean that colors you can't distinguish don't exist, it just means you can't see them. Other people from outside your perspective still can see those colors that you cannot.

either way, I would say that being able to compare good to more good or less good is good enough. Not everything is going to be the same amount of good, so there will always be a way to compare and contrast.

Something can be shown positive if the outcome of said event or effect is demonstrably beneficial. Good however, requires we make a distinction, and that distinction relies on bad. What we see as a good act wouldn't seem so good if there was nothing to compare it to. Just like going to an amusement park, at first you are excited because it's so different from your average lifestyle, but, say you lived there for 50 years, and experienced that rush over and over again, it would cease to be a rush because it would be commonplace. You would lack the contrast that gave you the distinction in the first place. Without your average life, the amusement park is average. Just as without bad, good ceases to be good.

so it becomes less positive when you get more used to it, but I still say that positive and good are synonymous. Good things are positive and beneficial, positive and beneficial things are good.

Erynis, good and bad are not "subjective" despite what your favorite dead philosopher said more than a hundred years ago. Science has for the most part proven all of us (that is all of humanity)have a similar genetic concept of morality. Amoralism is the result of corruption and being bred to think in such a fashion (like in the Middle East for example).

I'm afraid of such antiscientific concepts as subjectivism, since it can only lead us down the road toward tyranny. If everything is subjective than liberal democracy is a lie and the beautiful are the rightful benefactors of society and the ugly need to confirm to a higher standard. Remember, Hitler's philosophy was subjectivism. Ideology corrupts more than genes do.