Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Heaven does not exist

Atheists will usually debate the problem of evil with theists because it is proof that God does not exist. On the flip side however, theists retain a notion of life after death and there being a reward for being good called Heaven. Of course, this is in spite of the fact that God created evil in the first place (Isaiah 45:7).

So, how will God judge our good deeds from our bad? Theists are forced to say there is some objective morality outside of humans - a standard of good and evil. This is clearly bupkis as I have repeatedly asked for theists to produce a copy of this objective morality and they have repeatedly failed. CASE considers the reason for this is simple - morality is determined by the individual and is not beamed into humans from some outside source.

But if there is no objective morality then how would God judge us? Wouldn't it be an arbitary decision from God to promote certain people into Heaven and turn others away? Of course, the clear unfai and arbitrary nature of such a decision is the reason why theists seek to establish 'objective moral' standards in the first place.

Furthermore, if Heaven were a real place within existence then surely is must border on something (in existence) that is not perfect. Thus, in order for heaven not to be contaminated by the surrounding imperfection it would have to be:-
  1. Bordered by something that is impermeable
  2. Bordered by something that causes all passing objects to become perfect.

Neither of those situations have ever been observed within our universe and furthermore, they both infringe upon the laws of thermodynamics. More importantly, in the first case - if nothing can get in - then neither can departed souls. Furthermore, in the second case by passing through the barrier, any soul would automatically be changed from what it was beforehand including sinners. So, even an evil person would be perfect in Heaven - why can't evil people go there then?

This brings us to the big problem with Heaven - free will. Free will immediately allows the person with free will to do evil acts. Thus a soul in heaven with free will could make that place imperfect by their presence. Would they then be kicked out of Heaven? or would their free will be stripped from them? Any other response would make heaven imperfect.

Another thing about Heaven that annoys me is that the Jewish faith is without any real doctrine of Heaven and yet the Christians who steal their religion do? WTF is that about? Most likely, its the evolution of the meme - a new mutation to coincide with Hell.

Finally, if Heaven did exist and there are souls there - why havent any of them returned to see us? Surely a mother's love is stronger than all the happiness in the world, why havent they come back for their kids?

There are lots of better reasons for Heaven not to exist - but there is no reason to say that it actually exist. That is, except for fear.


cl said...


i'm not an atheist, and this is my first time visiting your blog. i just had a quick question: what is the justification for your claim re: Isaiah 45:7? the reason i ask is because i'm also in a long standing debate with a few folks about this problem of evil.

CASE - now with holiness said...

The quote - in the king james bible at least - states that GOd creates evil. Theists often contend that God is omnibenevolent, but such a definition requires that every act that he does is good. If he created evil then he cannot be omnibenevolent as described.

Theists often squirm their way around this by saying that God may have morally sufficient reasons for doing the evil. However, such a situation means that GOd is not omnibenevolent - rather he practices a net benevolence.

The problem of evil doesn't rule out a vindictive GOd (such as the one in the Old testament) but it does make the new testament god proclaimed by Jesus (and evangelists) less likely to exist.

cl said...

When you say the POE makes the NT God less likely to exist, why? Is there an NT scripture that argues in favor of this omni-God?

Also, in most translations, it seems Isaiah 45:7 refers to natural disasters and earthly woes, as opposed to moral evil or sin. Does this affect your argument in any way? Do you equate natural disasters with evil? Some atheists have told me they feel anything which causes human suffering is evil. How would you respond to that?

CASE - now with holiness said...

Only if God has control of those things - which he seems to in the Bible (ie floods)

cbgb said...

Your expalnation is simplistic at best and lacks any in depth commentary. If you were a student of the Bible you would already know that the passage in Isaiah is more correctly translated into calamity not evil. Add to that God allowing distress in our lives not as an act of net benevolence but a loving act of instruction through experience. No parent would argue that in many case the best way for a child to learn something is for them to try and fail, or even suffer the consequences of a bad choice.
As far as it referring to natural disasters, it does not but even if you did accept that translation, all you must do is return to the book of Genesis and see that natural disasters, while at times are used of God to exact His perfect sense of justice, of which we only have a flawed understanding, they are actually a result of the original sin committed by Adam and Eve (Gen. 3). To further pursue your line of thought, one does not have to show tangible proof of a greater morality. Your statement that morality is up to the individual is tantamount to saying that morality is relative, but that statement is an absolute. As such you are saying that your view of relative morality is absolute. This is self defeating. And if morality were relative, then so would be your statment and no one else should be expected to accept it. Finally, if there were no higher morality that has been placed within us then there should be no reason that all societies going back to the dawn of civilization have had moral absolutes. Simply ask anyone today if Child rape is wrong. You will undoubtedly find a unanimous agreement that it is wrong and anyone who disagrees, would be considered dangerous in there thought patterns. Ultimately, science will never disprove God, it will only enhance the realities of God's existence. Science has failed for centuries to disprove Theism and will continue to do so. Even when evidence and facts are doctored, ignored, or hidden, they eventually come to light. I respect your right to state your point, but it is wrong and I hope that you will do actual unbiased detailed research so that the truth will be clear to you.