Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Barefoot Bree · 02-10-2006, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Again you are incorrect. The parent is not "acting upon the child's fears". The parent is acting to calm an unreasonable fear that has no basis in fact. The motivation is not the same. The parent does not investigate the closet because he/she believes the child actually might be correct. So my statement stands:

Absurd. Uncertainty about boogeymen does not exist merely because a 4 year old child had a bad dream.

NO uncertainty here. None.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

That’s what I said, stated differently. There is uncertainty in the mind of the child and the parent addresses that uncertainty.

The difference, and it's a huge one, is that the parent is "addressing the uncertainty" by proving that the boogeyman does not exist, while your suggested approach to the "uncertainty" of eternal torment is to pretend - ok, "believe" - that it does, and take action to avoid it.

If the parent were to take your approach, then they would be encouraging the child to sleep only on their left side with their heads under the pillow and their feet on top of their teddy bear in order to ensure the boogeyman didn't get them. (Or whatever it is that scares the boogeyman away.) Not simply searching the closet and coming up empty.

By the same token, we have addressed any "uncertainty" in our own minds by proving to our own satisfaction that the threat is nonexistent.

rhutchin · 02-11-2006, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Sauron
Again you are incorrect. The parent is not "acting upon the child's fears". The parent is acting to calm an unreasonable fear that has no basis in fact. The motivation is not the same. The parent does not investigate the closet because he/she believes the child actually might be correct. So my statement stands:

Absurd. Uncertainty about boogeymen does not exist merely because a 4 year old child had a bad dream.

NO uncertainty here. None.

rhutchin
That’s what I said, stated differently. There is uncertainty in the mind of the child and the parent addresses that uncertainty.

Barefoot Bree
The difference, and it's a huge one, is that the parent is "addressing the uncertainty" by proving that the boogeyman does not exist, while your suggested approach to the "uncertainty" of eternal torment is to pretend - ok, "believe" - that it does, and take action to avoid it.

If the parent were to take your approach, then they would be encouraging the child to sleep only on their left side with their heads under the pillow and their feet on top of their teddy bear in order to ensure the boogeyman didn't get them. (Or whatever it is that scares the boogeyman away.) Not simply searching the closet and coming up empty.

By the same token, we have addressed any "uncertainty" in our own minds by proving to our own satisfaction that the threat is nonexistent.

I don't see that much of a difference. The child thinks that a boogeyman is in the closet, so the parent takes the child and says, "Let's do something about it." The parent takes the child to the closet to look through the closet.

In the same manner, as I see it, a person, like the child, is incertain about eternal torment, so Pascal, like the parent, says, "Let's do something about it." In this case, we cannot prove whether eternal torment is real or not (the basis for the uncertainty), so Pascal proposes a methodology, the Wager, that the person can use to deal with his uncertainty.

If you have addressed any "uncertainty" in your own mind by proving to your own satisfaction that the threat is nonexistent, that is fine. You firmly believe that you have nothing to fear. You assume the risk of having chosen incorrectly, just as I have done in choosng to believe in God, and someone else does by choosing to believe in Allah, Odin, the Mageth god, etc.

rhutchin · 02-11-2006, 04:44 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Evidence does not have to be true. The jury decides if it is true.

Sauron
Incorrect. You need to establish the bona fides of whatever proof you offer. The jury decides if the case you are building using that proof is believable or not.

This is analogous to a theory in science. In order to pull together a theory in science (or a case before the jury), you need to demonstrate that the various data points you are relying upon to weave your tale are true and accurate. If your foundational claims are not true, then your final assumptions will be flawed as well. So it is up to you to demonstrate that to the court.

And by the way: science is a more appropriate framework to judge the bible claims with anyhow, since we use the scientific framework when judging other texts from antiquity. And since the rules of evidence vary by state, jurisdiction, country, etc. there is less room for ambiguity or "wiggle" on the part of christians.

You say, “Incorrect,�? but then you say, “The jury decides if the case you are building using that proof is believable or not.�? If the jury determines the evidence to be true, then it would decide that the case is believable. The jury decides whether it will believe the evidence (my point, which you are not disputing, despite your seeming objection). I see no problem in the rest of your comment.

Quote:

rhutchin
The witness merely provides information that he believes to be true and this is evidence that the jury considers. The Biblical writers provide evidence that they believe is true (usually because they were eyewitnesses to that which they recorded).

Sauron
1. In point of fact, you need to establish that they were eyewitnesses. You have not done so.

2. Moreover, you have not even defined who these "witnesses" are. In a courtroom, if you call John Jones to the stand to have him testify about a murder, the first step is to validate the identity of the witness. You have not done that either.

It is the claim of the Biblical writers that they were eyewitnesses. The jury determines whether to accept that claim.

The eyewitness are identified by themselves or by or by others.

Quote:

rhutchin
The appearance of contradiction does not negate information as evidence, but it can negate the usefulness of the evidence. The Bible may appear to have contradictions in the face of insufficient information.

Sauron
1. The contradictions are real, not apparent. As such, you need to reconcile them before you can introduce the proof into the court. If you tried to present a claim that John Jones killed someone in Chicago, but then your witness said he was in Los Angeles at the same time, you wouldn't be allowed to present the evidence until you got the problem straightened out.

2. If you think that insufficient information exists, then fill in the gaps for us. But claiming that there is missing information, without proof that such information does exist, is simply wishful thinking. "Your honor, I can't explain the apparent contradiction, but really, truly, honest injun - I know it's out there. Please grant me my request." Not bloodly likely.

.

Real vs apparent seems to an individual opinion. Insufficient information refers the insufficient research done by an individual. The information is all there in the Bible. Sometimes, it can be like a Rubic’s cube and difficult to solve. No one ever said the Bible was easy to understand although there are parts that even a child can understand.

Quote:

rhutchin
Jesus is alleged to have been born in 7 BC. Augustus seems to be famous for conducting censuses, one of which occurred around 7 BC and is recorded in the gospels and another that occurred around 8 AD that is recorded in historical sources other than the Bible.

Sauron
The problem is that doesn't work. There was no census at 7 BCE
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...us.html#census

Your citation seems to argue that some 14-year cycle doesn’t work so Luke did not know what he was talking about (So what?) or that Luke did not know what he was talking about because the infidels can’t figure it out (So, they are not the brightest in the world.). The conclusion offered is that there isn’t enough historical information to prove that Luke knew what he was talking about, so that is sufficient to prove that Luke did not know what he was talking about. Laughable research at best.

rhutchin · 02-11-2006, 05:13 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Extreme examples do not negate the methodology a person would follow in developing a risk management plan as part of the overall Project Management Plan.

Sauron
Wrong again. What did I tell you about making up things about topics you don't understand?

What the extreme example does is show you the parallels to your own heaven/hell scenario. I have no more evidence for Pizza Aliens from Galaxy 9 than you do for your own heaven/hell scenario. And without such evidence, both of them will be rejected as risks. They are figments of the imagination, until such time as actual evidence is brought forth to support them. Vague musings without supporting evidence don't deserve any consideration at all. Vague musings written down in a book also don't qualify, since they are merely the written form of the same internal musings that used to be in someone's head.

Evidence. The only thing that matters. And you don't have any.

Regardless, the Bible provides the accounts of many men over many centuries and this constitutes evidence. It is also more than exists for Pizza Aliens from Galaxy 9 showing that you are confused in your argument. Despite your protestations, the evidence is there unless one is intentionally blind.

Quote:

rhutchin
Extreme situations, like you describe, can be easily dealt with and dismissed.

Sauron
The problem for you is that the same reasons we dismiss extreme scenarios like the Pizza Aliens also apply to your heaven/hell scenario.

Only if you ignore the evidence or pretend that there is none. You can do poor research if you want.

Quote:

rhutchin
Given your comments, my guess is that you do not prepare a risk management plan in your project management plan. If you worked for the government, that would explain it. Do you?

Sauron
As usual, you guess incorrectly on both counts. I do prepare risk management plans; I work for an engineering firm. And no, I do not work for the government.

The bottom line here is that you guessed about something you had no experience dealing with, and are now unwilling to admit that you goofed. In this thread, there have been several occasions when you have simply been incorrect - no shades of debate or wishy-washy relativism, just flat out wrong. But your ego cannot seem to accept that fact. Well, it's just happened again, with the project management assumptions that you made here.

I just take the information that you provide and draw a conclusion. From your comments, one would never conclude that you do risk assessments. Do we believe your personal testimony? Sounds no more believable than the argument for Pizza Aliens.

Quote:

Sauron
Again you are incorrect. The parent is not "acting upon the child's fears". The parent is acting to calm an unreasonable fear that has no basis in fact. The motivation is not the same. The parent does not investigate the closet because he/she believes the child actually might be correct. So my statement stands:

Absurd. Uncertainty about boogeymen does not exist merely because a 4 year old child had a bad dream.

NO uncertainty here. None.

rhutchin
That’s what I said, stated differently. There is uncertainty in the mind of the child and the parent addresses that uncertainty.

Sauron
You're ducking and weaving. That is not what my original scenario was. I said that the mere fact that a child has a nightmare does not alter the certainty that boogeymen do not exist. And by like extension, just because you say "uncertainty exists" about something, that does not mean that it actually exists. To repeat:

Uncertainty about boogeymen does not exist merely because a 4 year old child had a bad dream.

The parent calmed an unreasonable fear that was not based in facts or evidence. Fears not based in facts or evidence are irrational, by definition. If that is what you call "uncertainty", then your heaven/hell scenario probably fits in quite well.

The parent calmed an unreasonable fear that was real to the child. You apparently don’t understand the scenario. Perspective is established by the child and not the parent. You need to look through the eyes of the child to understand the scenario.

Quote:

rhutchin
In like manner, the Wager addresses…

Sauron
The problem is that uncertainty does not exist just because the wager says it does. Just like the child above, uncertainty does not exist just because he/she has a nightmare about boogeymen.

Sauron again shows that he does not even understand the Wager. The Wager does not tell the person that uncertainty exists. It is the person who says that he is uncertain about eternal torment, and the Wager is then offered as a means to deal with that uncertainty.

Sauron then embellishes his confusion by saying, “…uncertainty does not exist just because he/she has a nightmare about boogeymen,�? when that is exactly what has happened -- “a nightmare about boogeymen creates fear (uncertainty) in the mind of the child.�? And you claim to do risk analysis??

Quote:

Sauron
However, uncertainty does not exist merely because someone scratches "there is an invisible tiger" on the back of a napkin. So the basis for your information is no more reliable than my chicken-scratching on the back of a napkin.

rhutchin
Almost anything can give rise to uncertainty.

Sauron
Well, no - not really true. What gives rise to actual uncertainty about the facts of a situation is new evidence or contradictory evidence. Irrational fears - by definition, those fears not based in evidence -- are not proof of uncertainty. They are proof of irrationality.

Surely you jest. But you are correct to appeal to “actual�? uncertainty as you have obviously determined that ducking and weaving is the only thing that can save your argument.

Quote:

rhutchin
Incomplete information is a source of uncertainty. Unverified rumors can create uncertainty. Even your chicken scratching on a napkin can create uncertainty in the minds of some people. I have heard of people who can be indecisive for less reason that that.

Sauron
So? Some people become nervous or indecisive as a result of reading their horoscopes; we aren't talking about what particular irrational fears make a person nervous. We're talking about whether or not uncertainty, in the sense of being unsure about the facts of a situation, can be changed merely because someone conjures up a hypothetical scenario in their mind. It cannot.

The fact that people can be made indecisive by silly things like fortune-telling, bad dreams, or a lunatic claiming to have seen martians does not really mean that uncertainty exists in any universal sense. It merely means that irrational behavior is more commonplace that people like to admit.

Correct -- irrational behavior is more commonplace that people like to admit. You are not saying anything different than me. The only difference is that I seem to understand what I am talking about and the jury is still trying to figure out what you know.

Johnny Skeptic · 02-11-2006, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Extreme situations, like you describe, can be easily dealt with and dismissed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

The problem for you is that the same reasons we dismiss extreme scenarios like the Pizza Aliens also apply to your heaven/hell scenario.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Only if you ignore the evidence or pretend that there is none. You can do poor research if you want.

But if God is evil, and if he is omnipotent and omnipresent, he would be able to duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible. The odds are no better than 50/50 that God will send believers to heaven and not to hell. Just because the Bible says that God is good does not make it so.

Why do you rule out a reasonable possibility that God is amoral? There is good evidence for this possibility. Exodus 4:1 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by JS

While Jesus could not possibly have had anything whatsoever to lose by clearly revealing his supposedly supernatural powers to everyone, people who were not previously convinced by his words alone would have had much to gain if he had done so. That way, no one who rejected Jesus could have done so based upon claiming that supernatural powers do not exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I like the argument. If God wanted everyone to have a fair chance to escape hell, I guess he might do what you suggest. From what I can tell, God will only make a special effort to save the elect. The rest have all the information they need to decide if they want to escape hell and they get nothing more.

But a loving and fair God would make a special effort to save everyone. True love could never do anything less. Regarding "The rest have all the information they need to decide if they want to escape hell and they get nothing more," since some of the rest during Jesus' time supposedly got more information, and some of them rejected it, then it is only fair that all of the rest get more information. If you discovered a cure cancer, you would want to share it with everyone who had cancer.

Considering the claims of the numerous miracle healings performed by Jesus, the feeding of the 5,000, the feeding of the 4,000, the 3,000 people who became Christians after hearing teachings by Peter, the entire town that became Christians after hearing teachings by Peter and John, Matthew 4:24, which says "And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them," and 1st Corinthians 15:6, which says "After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep," Acts 14:3 doesn't make any sense. The verse reads "Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands." In order to make my point more clear, the New International Version translates the verse as "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders."

If all of the claims that I mentioned actually happened, and if the Holy Spirit had come to the church, why were further confirmations (further information) needed?

rhutchin · 02-11-2006, 11:43 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Extreme situations, like you describe, can be easily dealt with and dismissed.

Sauron
The problem for you is that the same reasons we dismiss extreme scenarios like the Pizza Aliens also apply to your heaven/hell scenario.

rhutchin
Only if you ignore the evidence or pretend that there is none. You can do poor research if you want.

Johnny Skeptic
But if God is evil,…

Why do you rule out a reasonable possibility that God is amoral?...

I am willing for you to present your evidence for an evil god and let people decide for themselves.

Quote:

Johnny Skeptic
While Jesus could not possibly have had anything whatsoever to lose by clearly revealing his supposedly supernatural powers to everyone, people who were not previously convinced by his words alone would have had much to gain if he had done so. That way, no one who rejected Jesus could have done so based upon claiming that supernatural powers do not exist.

rhutchin
I like the argument. If God wanted everyone to have a fair chance to escape hell, I guess he might do what you suggest. From what I can tell, God will only make a special effort to save the elect. The rest have all the information they need to decide if they want to escape hell and they get nothing more.

Johnny Skeptic
But a loving and fair God would make a special effort to save everyone.

Guess God is not fair. Loving, Yes. Just, Yes. Fair, No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If all of the claims that I mentioned actually happened, and if the Holy Spirit had come to the church, why were further confirmations (further information) needed?

The best I can figure is that it was done for your benefit. When you stand before God and say that you never believed it, then God can ask you, “Would it be fair for me to give you preference over those who did believe?�? Of course, you will answer, “Certainly not.�? Then you can add, “Of course, you never did have to be fair.�?

Johnny Skeptic · 02-11-2006, 02:29 PM

Message to rhutchin: A loving God would give everyone an equal opportunity to know about him. True love could never do anything less. John 3:16 says that God so loved the WORLD.........., not just the elect.

You say that you are interested in evidence, but you are only interested in evidence that appeals to your own self interest. Consider the following hypothetical scenario: The New Testament depicts an evil being who claims to be God who says that he plans to send everyone to hell. He demostrates what many people believe are supernatural powers, and the eyewitnesses mentioned are ten times the number of eyewitnesses that are mentioned in the New Testament. In addition, a good deal of the eyewitnesses live in many different parts of the world, not just exclusively in the Middle East. The evil being leaves the earth and never returns through to today, 2006. Out of your own self-interest, surely you would hope that the evil being would not be able to carry out his promise to send everyone to hell, and you would still be a Christian because you would assume that you wouldn't have anything to lose by staying a Christian, and possibly a lot to gain.

You ask skeptics to produce evidence that God is evil, but it is not my position that God is evil, only that he might be evil. You have asserted that God is good, but you haven't provided any credible evidence that such is the case. There is no logic that states that all assertions are true until proven untrue. I have told you before that if God is evil, and if he is omnipotent and omniscient, he could easily duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible.

You have said that God is who the Bible says he is, but if the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, you most certainly would not believe that God is who the Bible says he is.

Hedshaker · 02-11-2006, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Guess God is not fair. Loving, Yes. Just, Yes. Fair, No.

And yet, in all your hundreds of posts here, you still haven't demonstarted that God actually exists outside of your presuppositions. Yet still you continue defining and ascribing atributes to this thing you call God.

What a strange world you live in rhutchin, you simply have to believe it and it is so. If reality were truly that simple we could all define it as we wished and shazam..... there it is.

If I didn't revere truth and interlectual honesty so much I could almost sympathise with you.

But, alas, I do. And I cannot.

rhutchin · 02-11-2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

rhutchin
Since you have concluded that the information contained in the Bible would not survive a challenge, you must have gone through the legal requirements to develop your argument for a challenge. Are you willing to provide that argument?

Sauron
You seem to have the burden of proof reversed. You need to develop the argument in favor of admitting your evidence. I do not have to create a counter-argument. You are the one arguing before the court, trying to convince it of the alleged truth of something. So when you present your "proofs", you need to have all the problems, kinks and discrepancies worked out before you arrive.

When you do this work, then we'll have something to discuss. But until you do, you are no better than the wandering vagabond who walks into a court and claims to have seen a giant pink rabbit. I've seen far, far better debaters with more experience on the topics at hand unable to survive the scrutiny of their submissions. So if you think you can do better, then be my guest.

In this matter, either lawyer (plaintiff or defendant) may propose to submit evidence (the Bible) to support the claim of eternal torment. The other lawyer may challenge the submission of that evidence. The judge asks that lawyer to support his challenge. The burden rests with the lawyer challenging the evidence to support his challenge. It is only if the challenge has merit that the burden of proof shifts to the other lawyer. You have the right to challenge and the initial burden of proof is support that challenge.

Quote:

rhutchin
Since the case before us directly concerns that which the Bible says, the material from the Bible is relevant and material (else they would be no case being argued).

Sauron
Incorrect.

The question is not about what the bible says. The question is whether or not the statements are accurate or not.

I know what the Iliad and the Odyssey say. That is an entirely different question than whether the Iliad and Odyssey are accurate or not.

If such obvious distinctions apparently fly over your head, how do you expect to support your case here?

Moreover, relevancy is connected to the question of whether the proof offered to the court is connected to, and actually substantiates, whatever claim is being argued. I can present proof that I paid my electric bill last month. But if I'm trying to argue that the world is only 6,000 years old, then the question arises: how in the world does your electric bill relate to the age of the earth? Why does an electric bill support an argument like that? The problem with christians is that they offer A in support of B. But they never succeed in connecting A to B in any chain of relevancy.

OK. I see no reason why you can’t challenge the evidence being introduced and be given the opportunity to support your challenge. Go for it.

Quote:

rhutchin
You might argue that the evidence is hearsay (the witnesses report what Jesus said) but there are exceptions that would allow for a witness to express the words Jesus spoke. Hear is the Hearsay Rule from dictionary.law.com--

Sauron
None of which apply here. The "proofs" offered in the bible are worse than hearsay. At least with hearsay, we have the second-hand witness in the courtroom, and we can ask him/her questions about what they claim to have heard. With the bible, we cannot even do that. Indeed, the bible doesn't even rise to the standard of hearsay. The bible is 5th or 6th hand, with unknown authors in many cases, and makes claims about what someone else allegedly said or did.

And by the way: the hearsay rule is hardly your friend, either.
http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/litigation/evidence12.html

Since the issue is whether Jesus spoke of eternal torment, your citation makes the witness of the gospels valid evidence.

Quote:

rhutchin
XII. THE RULE AGAINST HEARSAY.

The rule against hearsay is simply stated, sometimes confusing to apply, and riddled with exceptions. Evid. Code § 1200(b); Fed. Rules Evid. 802. You all know it. Hearsay evidence is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing in question and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated. Evid. Code § 1200(a); Fed. Rules Evid. 801(c). A statement can be in words or conduct that is intended by the actor as a substitute for words. Evid. Code § 225. The first step in any analysis of possible hearsay is the determination of whether the statement being offered is in fact hearsay. If the statement is not hearsay, the analysis ends. If the statement is hearsay, step two is a determination of whether the hearsay statement fits into one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Sauron
Arguing your case based upon exceptions in the hearsay law only shows how capricious the hearsay law is. It varies from state to state, jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If that is the best case you can make for the bible -- a scavenger hunt for the appropriate exception to the hearsay rule -- then you don't have much of a case in the first place.

Hearsay appears to be your best bet to get the judge to refuse the Biblical evidence but a poor bet.

Quote:

rhutchin
Your last resort is to technicalities which you don't explain but merely assert to exist.

Sauron
Now you've resorted to lying; I did explain them. Let me refresh your deliberately omissive memory:

3. Plus, notice the term "other technicalities". If someone tried to claim in a court of law that they saw dancing leprechauns or an invisible tiger, do you think that testimony might be excluded from evidence based upon "technicalities"? Yeah, I think you do know that it would be. Those same kind of technicalities also prevent the bible claims from being considered evidence.

Yep, not much here -- your opinion and your opinion is not basis for rejection of the Biblical evidence.

You need more than your personal opinion. Try getting some facts to back it up (as opposed to parroted opinions from likeminded compatriots).

Quote:

rhutchin
Some explanation is needed to justify a ruling by the judge that the evidence is inadmissable. The judge will not through out evidence just because the opposing attorney doesn't like it or doesn't believe it.

Sauron
1. lack of supporting evidence
2. availability of contradictory evidence

Exactly what the judge would say to you in rejecting your petition to suppress.

rhutchin · 02-11-2006, 03:02 PM

Quote:

rhutchin
Guess God is not fair. Loving, Yes. Just, Yes. Fair, No.

OrbitV2
And yet, in all your hundreds of posts here, you still haven't demonstarted that God actually exists outside of your presuppositions. Yet still you continue defining and ascribing atributes to this thing you call God.

Some people insist on imposing their views of what God should be rather than reading the Bible to find out what the Bible actually says. So, I am just correcting the record. God can be described in the Bible without you having to believe that which it says. You merely assume the risk of making a wrong decision.

02-11-2006, 02:29 PM	#1527
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Pascal's Wager started as The Resurrection is irrelevant Message to rhutchin: A loving God would give everyone an equal opportunity to know about him. True love could never do anything less. John 3:16 says that God so loved the WORLD.........., not just the elect. You say that you are interested in evidence, but you are only interested in evidence that appeals to your own self interest. Consider the following hypothetical scenario: The New Testament depicts an evil being who claims to be God who says that he plans to send everyone to hell. He demostrates what many people believe are supernatural powers, and the eyewitnesses mentioned are ten times the number of eyewitnesses that are mentioned in the New Testament. In addition, a good deal of the eyewitnesses live in many different parts of the world, not just exclusively in the Middle East. The evil being leaves the earth and never returns through to today, 2006. Out of your own self-interest, surely you would hope that the evil being would not be able to carry out his promise to send everyone to hell, and you would still be a Christian because you would assume that you wouldn't have anything to lose by staying a Christian, and possibly a lot to gain. You ask skeptics to produce evidence that God is evil, but it is not my position that God is evil, only that he might be evil. You have asserted that God is good, but you haven't provided any credible evidence that such is the case. There is no logic that states that all assertions are true until proven untrue. I have told you before that if God is evil, and if he is omnipotent and omniscient, he could easily duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible. You have said that God is who the Bible says he is, but if the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, you most certainly would not believe that God is who the Bible says he is.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.