Rocag posted a hypothetical in another thread that I thought was interesting and I wanted to build on it and give it its own thread. Hopefully I haven't taken too many liberties in rephrasing his question. . . .

The basic premise of the hypothetical situation is that there is a God. God created us, loves us, wishes to know us and for us to know Him. God sent his son to teach us. God sets objective standards for morality and wishes for us to follow these standards. BUT, there is no afterlife. Whatever our purpose is and whatever we are supposed to do with our lives is for the glory of God in a manner in which we cannot understand. Our purpose is for God and it our purpose is temporary. As Rocag asked in the other thread: "Would that [God's] laws no longer be worth adhering to?

In my mind, this God is as close to the Christian God as possible - minus the afterlife. I recognize that this is a big difference and that it affects things, not the least of which is the nature of Jesus's sacrifice for our salvation. But, this is still a God that defines goodness and who loves us more than we could ever comprehend.

Who are we to reject objective cosmic moral goodness? Who are we to engage in the self idolizing practice of rejecting God's law for our own opinions and feelings?

I don't know many Christians who would say that they only reason they worship God is because they want a reward. And so, if the afterlife is not the motivation, then it should not be difficult to imagine worshipping this hypothetical God. This hypothetical God is 'good', He loves us, He wants what is best for us, He is worthy, and we owe Him our existence. But, as a consequence of this hypothetical reality, when we die. . . we die. And the grand sum cosmic total of our lives devoted to an all powerful God (who needs nothing from us since He's all powerful) is nothing. The value of our lives devoted to a God, without an afterlife for us, is meaningless. Our lives are meaningless outside of whatever God possibly gets from our worship.

And so, my temptation with this hypothetical is to point out that the religious persons who state that with atheism, life is meaningless, are possibly admitting that the potential for eternal reward is what gives their life meaning and the reason why they worship. It is the driving motivation.

---

Interestingly, I think this hypothetical might be able to be pointed toward atheists as well. If you (speaking to my atheists now) were to discover that a God does exist, that this God is TRUTH, and that this God is the moral standard, and that there is no afterlife, would it change you? Would you reject Truths you know to be correct in favor or your own personal truths if there were no consequences?

I'm abstaining giving my response for now, because I'm still mulling it over. . . .

This basic hypothetical is the actual view of the Sadducees.

So it's not far fetched at all

Based on this hypothetical I think it would mean humans would be a different kind of creature. I think no matter your purpose, you're better/happier working toward that end than not. Fulfilling your purpose would be worthwhile no matter what by definition.

The in-thread response to that hypothetical was basically that the Christian God is required by his nature to preserve his believers for eternity, a conclusion I don't think I agree with. I'm fairly certain that if that's what the Bible taught Christians would easily be able to come up with justifications for how the absence of an afterlife is consistent with God's nature.

Aggrad's mention of the Sadducees is accurate. But even in modern Judaism teachings on the afterlife are not nearly as important as they are in Christianity.

As for the question on Kurt's question for atheists about whether we would listen to one if it were confirmed to exist, I guess I'm not sure. It depends on the nature of that god and its relation to humanity. Is it really the ultimate judge on what is moral and not? Is something moral because they say it is or do they say it moral because it is independent of them? I think I'd have lots of questions I'd want answered before I make any major decisions.

Aggrad08 said:

---

This basic hypothetical is the actual view of the Sadducees.

So it's not far fetched at all

---

True. The Sadducees didn't believe in the afterlife. And that made them sad, you see?


Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I think the question can only be asked when considering a modern view of Heaven. Be a good person, get to go live on a cloud type of pop-Heaven. I don't have time right now to go into detail on how this misses the mark now, but I can expand later:

1. We were made TO BE WITH God. Adam and Eve in the garden.
2. We lost communion with God.
3. We are still made to be with Him. So how do we return to Him?


The moral law is an extension of this relationship with God. It only exists because He is the moral agent and He wants us to be with Him. If He did not care for us to join Him (what Catholics would call the Beatific vision), then what we do on this earth really wouldn't matter at all. To remove the "afterlife" is to throw a wrench in the whole equation to begin with, because the afterlife is perfect communion with His will that we strive for here on earth, although we fail in one way or another. It's a sort of square circle. At least from the Christian perspective.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Rocag posted a hypothetical in another thread that I thought was interesting and I wanted to build on it and give it its own thread. Hopefully I haven't taken too many liberties in rephrasing his question. . . .

The basic premise of the hypothetical situation is that there is a God. God created us, loves us, wishes to know us and for us to know Him. God sent his son to teach us. God sets objective standards for morality and wishes for us to follow these standards. BUT, there is no afterlife. Whatever our purpose is and whatever we are supposed to do with our lives is for the glory of God in a manner in which we cannot understand. Our purpose is for God and it our purpose is temporary. As Rocag asked in the other thread: "Would that [God's] laws no longer be worth adhering to?

In my mind, this God is as close to the Christian God as possible - minus the afterlife. I recognize that this is a big difference and that it affects things, not the least of which is the nature of Jesus's sacrifice for our salvation. But, this is still a God that defines goodness and who loves us more than we could ever comprehend.

Who are we to reject objective cosmic moral goodness? Who are we to engage in the self idolizing practice of rejecting God's law for our own opinions and feelings?

I don't know many Christians who would say that they only reason they worship God is because they want a reward. And so, if the afterlife is not the motivation, then it should not be difficult to imagine worshipping this hypothetical God. This hypothetical God is 'good', He loves us, He wants what is best for us, He is worthy, and we owe Him our existence. But, as a consequence of this hypothetical reality, when we die. . . we die. And the grand sum cosmic total of our lives devoted to an all powerful God (who needs nothing from us since He's all powerful) is nothing. The value of our lives devoted to a God, without an afterlife for us, is meaningless. Our lives are meaningless outside of whatever God possibly gets from our worship.

And so, my temptation with this hypothetical is to point out that the religious persons who state that with atheism, life is meaningless, are possibly admitting that the potential for eternal reward is what gives their life meaning and the reason why they worship. It is the driving motivation.

.

---

I took more time to try and consider the hypothetical as best as I could after giving you my reasoning for why I think the question doesn't work in my first post. Here is the best I can give you.

I'm not aware of any religion or faith that doesn't have some sort of promise in return for belief. Pagan worship was offered for worldly gain, or avoidance of worldly pain. Success at war, fertility, rain, safe passage across the sea, etc.

Eastern mysticism promises an inner peace if you follow their precepts. Some promise a better, reincarnated life if you behave well.

If we want to agree with some posters that the Sadducees rejected an afterlife, keeping the commandments was still the manner in which their earthly success was attained.

The Pharisees, despite believing in the afterlife and Messiah, were still looking for worldly gain if they followed the God's commandments.

So be it an afterlife or a good earthly life, if we want to consider rewards versus punishments as a consequence for adherence to a faith, any faith qualifies. Even conscientious atheism provides a vision (although I credit this view for not promising) of as close to utopia as we can get. If we follow the premise of human flourishing as the highest good, the world can finally be a happy place. "The most good for the most people" finally reaching it's pinnacle... but only if you behave.

*To really stretch this, even nihilistic hedonism is offering worldly happiness in return for the belief that everything we do on this earth is utterly meaningless. Get what you can while you can is a worldview that offers "happiness" to people who eschew any and all morals*

I think asking about objective morality without an afterlife misses the point. It's better to ask about a God that offers objective moral law while not offering a "reward" of any kind for following it. And as ramblin pointed out, this view will still leaves the empty hole everyone feels when confronted with the natural evils of death and disease. Here I can only offer my opinion: a god who creates us with natural and final death, yet obliges us to do his will during our time here on earth would be worth ignoring. But so is the society/government that asks us to follow their version of morality. This is my one life to live. Why should I listen to anyone, mortal or immortal, if they are proposing that I sacrifice my personal happiness for their vision.

Let's say I have better looks, better physical abilities, superior intelligence and more money than the average person. Let's say I'm the perfect 10 (for the record, I'm not). Whether it be a human moral code or a divine one, I see no reason not to get mine in this life outside of threat of punishment. And I am very confident in saying this, because we don't have to go back too far in history to see that this is the human condition. Pillage and reave the weak. Now we have stronger governments to prevent this behavior, but this is still a reward system. I am "rewarded" with not going to prison, or worse. And even if I'm "rewarded" with some warm fuzzies, isn't the common atheist line something like, "religious people give to charity because it makes them feel good"? Or something like, "there is no truly selfless act"? If there is no objective reason to do good, why should one care if their selfish actions harm society? Why should the happiness of one be restricted by the happiness of the majority? Even if my selfishness brings about the end of humanity, what does it matter, since humanity was either created, or naturally came into existence, with the inevitable destination of annihilation?

This is why I believe the Christian teaching is truly unique. It's not about be "rewarded" or "punished". Yes, there is some language in the Bible that can be taken this way without a historical deep dive of what the first Christian believed. But, should that deep dive be done, it's clear that the Christian life is about doing what we were created to do. Fulfilling our purpose. When we do what we were created to do, our "reward" is the fulfillment of our purpose: eternity with our creator. And when we choose to abandon the path we were created for, we receive our "punishment": eternity apart for our true end. You can say He, "loves us more than we could ever comprehend", but this falls flat. If my wife or child died tomorrow, I would love them forever. I can't touch them, hear them, etc. But even if the afterlife is a farce, my consciousness would hold on to them for the rest of my life. Nothing but dementia (or worse) could take that love from me. What husband or father who truly loves his wife and kids voluntarily lets them vanish from memory?

The one difference between God and me is that I can't sustain their consciousness to have an active, loving relationship forever, but He can. If we say God "loves us more than we could ever comprehend", it's because it's truly beyond our comprehension. The idea of letting one of His children cease to exist, when He and He alone is capable of maintaining their existence, and calling that love is a contradiction. If He wants to know us, and us to know Him, and He loves this relationship, how could He banish it from existence? Now, if a human can love so much that they would wish to die rather live a life without their spouse or child, and God loves us far more than that (beyond our comprehension), I don't see any way your hypothetical works in practice. it reinforces the difference in world views, in my opinion. Maybe the calvanistic/reformed view of God could fit this mold, but that's a whole other topic.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Rocag posted a hypothetical in another thread that I thought was interesting and I wanted to build on it and give it its own thread. Hopefully I haven't taken too many liberties in rephrasing his question. . . .

The basic premise of the hypothetical situation is that there is a God. God created us, loves us, wishes to know us and for us to know Him. God sent his son to teach us. God sets objective standards for morality and wishes for us to follow these standards. BUT, there is no afterlife. Whatever our purpose is and whatever we are supposed to do with our lives is for the glory of God in a manner in which we cannot understand. Our purpose is for God and it our purpose is temporary. As Rocag asked in the other thread: "Would that [God's] laws no longer be worth adhering to?

In my mind, this God is as close to the Christian God as possible - minus the afterlife. I recognize that this is a big difference and that it affects things, not the least of which is the nature of Jesus's sacrifice for our salvation. But, this is still a God that defines goodness and who loves us more than we could ever comprehend.

Who are we to reject objective cosmic moral goodness? Who are we to engage in the self idolizing practice of rejecting God's law for our own opinions and feelings?

I don't know many Christians who would say that they only reason they worship God is because they want a reward. And so, if the afterlife is not the motivation, then it should not be difficult to imagine worshipping this hypothetical God. This hypothetical God is 'good', He loves us, He wants what is best for us, He is worthy, and we owe Him our existence. But, as a consequence of this hypothetical reality, when we die. . . we die. And the grand sum cosmic total of our lives devoted to an all powerful God (who needs nothing from us since He's all powerful) is nothing. The value of our lives devoted to a God, without an afterlife for us, is meaningless. Our lives are meaningless outside of whatever God possibly gets from our worship.

And so, my temptation with this hypothetical is to point out that the religious persons who state that with atheism, life is meaningless, are possibly admitting that the potential for eternal reward is what gives their life meaning and the reason why they worship. It is the driving motivation.

---

Interestingly, I think this hypothetical might be able to be pointed toward atheists as well. If you (speaking to my atheists now) were to discover that a God does exist, that this God is TRUTH, and that this God is the moral standard, and that there is no afterlife, would it change you? Would you reject Truths you know to be correct in favor or your own personal truths if there were no consequences?

I'm abstaining giving my response for now, because I'm still mulling it over. . . .

---

Jesus talked far more about how to live this life than heaven or hell. He repeatedly talked about the Kingdom of God being here now. In this life.

The pre occupation with heaven and hell, especially in the Western church, stems from fear based theology like "Sinners in the hands of an angry God".

I think a good point has been made in this thread that when people argue "Existence without god is pointless" what they typically end up arguing is much closer to "Existence is pointless if it ever ends". Those are two pretty different things. My point of view all along is that we can find meaning in a limited existence without god, so of course I would agree that a limited existence with god can also provide meaning and value.

Upon further consideration I believe my answer is that I'm not interested in worshiping power. Just being a deity, even one that enabled my existence, doesn't in my mind mean I should just willingly hand over all sense of agency or thought. There has to be a reason to listen to that being beyond the power they hold.

Rocag said:

---

I think a good point has been made in this thread that when people argue "Existence without god is pointless" what they typically end up arguing is much closer to "Existence is pointless if it ever ends". Those are two pretty different things. My point of view all along is that we can find meaning in a limited existence without god, so of course I would agree that a limited existence with god can also provide meaning and value.

Upon further consideration I believe my answer is that I'm not interested in worshiping power. Just being a deity, even one that enabled my existence, doesn't in my mind mean I should just willingly hand over all sense of agency or thought. There has to be a reason to listen to that being beyond the power they hold.

---

Idk if anyone is arguing existence would be pointless if there is no afterlife. Both you and the believer assume there is some purpose on this planet. You would say that purpose is internally derived, where we would say that it's externally prescribed. Since yours is internally derived, you must also allow others to come to their own internal conclusion that life without God is truly pointless. Life without the external, eternal and objective purpose is objectiveless by definition. There is no goal of existence outside of what we decide is the goal. This worldview is incapable of decisively concluding whether or not humanity's existence is a good or bad thing. Existence is just a thing.

The external prescription view can answer that definitively. And it's not the afterlife that inherently creates meaning. God creates the meaning, and the afterlife is just a quality of the universe He created. If He gave us no afterlife, there would still be meaning in our existence. It just doesn't sound like a very appealing meaning.

I do agree with your second paragraph though. You shouldn't worship something just because it is powerful. There are numerous sects of Christianity taking their position from Calvin that might lead you to believe this is the proposition. The real Christian proposition is that you are made to be in communion with Him. Worship is an outflowing from that knowledge. All the answers to human loneliness, suffering, confusion etc lie in understanding we are separated from our rightly ordered state. Once we realize we do have an externally created, objective purpose, our pursuit of the purpose is a sort of worship itself.

I agree with this central point, theodicy is almost impossible without the afterlife.

That's why afterlife is no stranger in religion. We know we can't make it all right in this life, it's too obvious. And we know no one comes back from the other side to tell us if anything is there.

Rocag said:

---

I think a good point has been made in this thread that when people argue "Existence without god is pointless" what they typically end up arguing is much closer to "Existence is pointless if it ever ends". Those are two pretty different things. My point of view all along is that we can find meaning in a limited existence without god, so of course I would agree that a limited existence with god can also provide meaning and value.

Upon further consideration I believe my answer is that I'm not interested in worshiping power. Just being a deity, even one that enabled my existence, doesn't in my mind mean I should just willingly hand over all sense of agency or thought. There has to be a reason to listen to that being beyond the power they hold.

---

I think you stated that first bit more clearly than I did, thank you. I agree that a limited experience with God, but no afterlife, does not necessarily equate to meaninglessness. Ideas of the afterlife and ultimate justice are often used to justify the argument that atheism is meaningless because it lacks those elements. Part of my motivation with this thread was to work toward an argument that just as a finite-timed reality with a God is not meaningless, neither is a finite-timed reality without God.

Your second paragraph aligns with my gut instinct. But, I admit there is a part of me that is uneasy about that position. If truth is important to me, than objective moral truths ought to matter to me, right?

---

Also, not ignoring anyone else's responses. Just busy. I appreciate the thought that has gone into them.

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus talked far more about how to live this life than heaven or hell. He repeatedly talked about the Kingdom of God being here now. In this life.

---

Completely agree. But, he did talk about it enough to where its hard to ignore. Surely, the son of God would not causally toss out ideas of eternal torture or eternal paradise and expect it not to raise a few eyebrows.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus talked far more about how to live this life than heaven or hell. He repeatedly talked about the Kingdom of God being here now. In this life.

---

Completely agree. But, he did talk about it enough to where its hard to ignore. Surely, the son of God would not causally toss out ideas of eternal torture or eternal paradise and expect it not to raise a few eyebrows.

---

To my knowledge there is only one verse about eternal punishment, Matthew 25 46. And that has not been translated accurately in my opinion. Everything else is about destruction, perishing, or eternal fire.
Paul never mentioned hell.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

On the other hand, God's morals don't make any sense without the backdrop of eternity. Good people suffer, evil people prosper, babies get cancer, and children kill each other in wars. This is all horrific and wrong. The whole of Ecclesiastes is an essay on the topic of how unfair and wrong the world is. All of that wrongness only starts to make any kind of sense when put up against an infinity. How could temporary pain, suffering, misfortune, and unfairness have any significance compared to an eternity of goodness? Without eternity the morality of God, the one we see in the world all around us, becomes a cruel joke

---

I don't really disagree with any of this. However, it is difficult for me to not see this, at least in part, as potentially just an emotional argument for God.

Maybe there is no ultimate justice and no dilution of pain and suffering via an eternity of peace. We'd all like for that not to be the case. And I think that is why I'm skeptical of it. It feels like something that someone can believe simply because they really really really want it to be true. That doesn't make it false of course. . . . .

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus talked far more about how to live this life than heaven or hell. He repeatedly talked about the Kingdom of God being here now. In this life.

---

Completely agree. But, he did talk about it enough to where its hard to ignore. Surely, the son of God would not causally toss out ideas of eternal torture or eternal paradise and expect it not to raise a few eyebrows.

---

To my knowledge there is only one verse about eternal punishment, Matthew 25 46. And that has not been translated accurately in my opinion. Everything else is about destruction, perishing, or eternal fire.
Paul never mentioned hell.

---

Fair enough. Would you say that references to heaven exist more frequently?

You would have very little work to do to convince me that some Christians throughout history have taken a few parts of the Bible and created mountains of unsubstantiated teachings about Hell. But, it seems to me to be clear that Jesus does enough to suggest some eternal existence. And I might argue that he does enough to connect the state of the eternal existence to the decisions we make in life. Its something hard to ignore, in my opnion.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

On the other hand, God's morals don't make any sense without the backdrop of eternity. Good people suffer, evil people prosper, babies get cancer, and children kill each other in wars. This is all horrific and wrong. The whole of Ecclesiastes is an essay on the topic of how unfair and wrong the world is. All of that wrongness only starts to make any kind of sense when put up against an infinity. How could temporary pain, suffering, misfortune, and unfairness have any significance compared to an eternity of goodness? Without eternity the morality of God, the one we see in the world all around us, becomes a cruel joke

---

I don't really disagree with any of this. However, it is difficult for me to not see this, at least in part, as potentially just an emotional argument for God.

Maybe there is no ultimate justice and no dilution of pain and suffering via an eternity of peace. We'd all like for that not to be the case. And I think that is why I'm skeptical of it. It feels like something that someone can believe simply because they really really really want it to be true. That doesn't make it false of course. . . . .

---

Not sure why you had to put "however" in that first statement? Without definitive proof, what makes an emotional argument weaker than a logical one? When choosing between logically consistent possibilities without evidence, emotion is pretty much all that's left.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus talked far more about how to live this life than heaven or hell. He repeatedly talked about the Kingdom of God being here now. In this life.

---

Completely agree. But, he did talk about it enough to where its hard to ignore. Surely, the son of God would not causally toss out ideas of eternal torture or eternal paradise and expect it not to raise a few eyebrows.

---

To my knowledge there is only one verse about eternal punishment, Matthew 25 46. And that has not been translated accurately in my opinion. Everything else is about destruction, perishing, or eternal fire.
Paul never mentioned hell.

---

Fair enough. Would you say that references to heaven exist more frequently?

You would have very little work to do to convince me that some Christians throughout history have taken a few parts of the Bible and created mountains of unsubstantiated teachings about Hell. But, it seems to me to be clear that Jesus does enough to suggest some eternal existence. And I might argue that he does enough to connect the state of the eternal existence to the decisions we make in life. It's something hard to ignore, in my opnion.

---

Jesus defeated death when He was resurrected. All people will be in an intermediate state until Jesus returns for the Final Judgement. All people will be resurrected. Believers are judged, not on salvation which is assured by grace through faith, but by their actions in this life.

Non believers are judged at the Great White throne judgement on what they did in this life. There is punishment as they are not covered by the blood of Jesus as believers are. Then the question becomes what this punishment consists of and what is the duration.

Is it ECT hell for simple unbelief? Even if no knowledge of Jesus? Is it annihilationism? Or is it corrective chastening over a limited period of time (which is more true to the original Greek in my opinion).

It is fascinating that in the parable of the sheep and goats (which is about nations and not individuals), the criteria for eternal destinations is based upon good works. Visiting the prisoners, feeding the hungry, providing food and shelter, etc. No mention of a "Sinner's prayer", a public profession of faith, altar call, etc. It is all about works.

I believe God is just, full of mercy, and is love. So I rest in that assurance.

And He created everyone of us. Knew us before we were born. Before Creation. And He loves everyone of us and desires to save all men as is clear in Scripture.

While I don't subscribe to the theory of the hypothetical, it is entertaining and I'm happy to join into the discussion.

My thoughts on the hypothetical situation take me in several directions, none of which are all that cohesive with one another, so I will share them separately.

Without an afterlife, I feel like the family unit becomes even more important on earth, and followers of the Lord work extremely hard to develop our decedents' love and relationship with God, so they receive favor during their time on earth. While you die and cease to exist, to some degree you live on through your decedents, so now you are really invested in their relationship with God as well. Expanding on this thought a bit more, I feel like the relationship dynamic with God really changes without Jesus and the promise of an eternal life. This ("earthly only") God can love you, which is undoubtedly important, but he can't really save you, so he is reduced to more of a super concierge that can make your life amazing on earth, but nothing more than that. So with that in mind, I shift more to empire building for my family, where we love and find favor with the Lord, so we have the nicest house, best toys, etc. What else does he really offer us? The bible teaches how God knows us, loves us and wants a relationship with us. Since he is eternal, the relationship element really suffers if we are limited to our time on earth under the hypothetical.

My second thought is, the hypothetical does not suggest there is not an afterlife or a realm where God lives, it just suggests that humankind does not have Jesus as a savior offering the promise of an afterlife like Christian Faith in Western society. I wonder if that would result in some level of fanaticism in Lovers/Followers of God attempting to live completely without sin, in an effort to persuade God to choose them for eternal life and not allow them to cease to exist beyond 75 / 80 years. Enoch and Elijah are taken directly to Heaven, and I wonder if that rare occasion becomes something many obsess over during the course of their lives in this hypothetical situation. It strikes me as an unhealthy obsession that would impact many.

Lastly, I feel like the sense of dread and despair would be unbearable for many older people to live with, knowing they will simply turn into worm food as their life ends. I could see a counter argument being the pressure is off, in this hypothetical world, but I would argue the pressure to survive would be very intense, and the psychology of that survival may paralyze large percentages of our population.

I don't desire to live in this hypothetical world.