Cthulhu

So - if I understand you correctly - the fact that science doesn't yet understand what initiated the Big Bang constitutes "proof" that it was done by a wave of your God's magic wand? Are you saying that any facet of nature we have not figured out yet is proof of some invisible, omniscient deity? And who says it is your Judeo-Christian God?

Why does the "first cause" of the universe have to involve an intelligent agency? Are you saying that every cause has to have this intelligent initiator, or just the universe? If so, why just the universe and not everything else?

Lack of facts is consistent with the Bible? Well, it's good to see we agree on something.

Tell me, why does your Almighty feel the need to "mess with" anybody? Is your God a prankster? A rapscallion? A bored frat boy? What?

Cthulhu

We have free choice while we are alive because we are uncertain whether God exists, but once we die and his existence is proven to us that freedom of choice is lost? So to sum up:

ignorance=freedom

knowledge=bondage

Is that correct? Interesting. That would mean Christians are the freest people I have ever known.

Whitley Strieber correctly predicted in his book Communion that most people would have a hard time believing his account of being abducted by aliens and would object to its veracity. This apparently is a pretty good case for the truth of it.

Yep, have you?

Give me an example of "thinking wrongly".

Once you're done with that, perhaps you can tell me what I'm supposed to do when I recognize a sense of guilt.

And lastly (if I'm not imposing too much), show me hard evidence that this sense of guilt comes from Yahweh the Splendiferous and not from parental,societal conditioning or some other naturalistic cause.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
<strong>Think about this for a second:</strong>

No need to just think about it. Jack Chick has already drawn it out in loving detail at least a hundred or so times.

<strong>Some Christian </strong>

usually known as "Bob"

<strong>comes up to a person and says "The Bible says that all have sinned and face eternal death in Hell, but the good news is that God provided a way out so that you can know him and spend eternity in heaven with Him through believing in his son JC."</strong>

"But if you don't accept this free gift (you heard me, free gift!), then you'll burn in hell for all eternity. There'll be weeping and gnashing of teeth! Whether your physical body will be recreated so as to include pain receptors and teeth is unknown right now, but you will suffer for ever and ever!"

<strong>What kind of a person would tell him where to stick his gospel tract and what kind of person will listen and then pray and accept Jesus?</strong>

In the latter case, it would be someone who

1. has never heard of christianity
2. has not been raised within another culture with its own, equally valid (or valueless) religion
3. is extremely gullible, since they don't ask for evidence
4. perhaps hasn't got much self-esteem to begin with.

<strong>A person that is of a broken and contrite spirit will accept Jesus, because they already have a sense of the kind of sad state they are in.</strong>

Ah, thank you for confirming my theory on self-respect.

<strong>The Bible correctly predicts all the objections to the gospel seen throughout this forum.
I'd say that is a pretty good case for the truth of it.</strong>

Nope, that's just good psychology. If I was trying to convince people of something, I'd be sure to take the objections into account, and to affix a suitably "bad" reason to them. "You don't believe me? But that's just because you're naturally distrustful, because you have no idea of the true love and peace I bring!"

This kind of thing neatly turns the spotlight from the message (which might not otherwise stand up under evaluation) to the listeners. Don't blame the message if it fails, blame the people who wouldn't accept it. Nice try, though.

Feather

Hell, if I were God I know I'd send people to Hell randomly just for shits and giggles.

So, in answer to your question, "Why not?"

Amos

. . . but still in hell nonetheless.

Jobar

GeoTheo, Vanderzyden, RJS- firstly, I want to see if you all three agree that Hell is "separation from God". If so, I take it to mean that none of you consider omnipresence one of the characteristics of God- for if God is everywhere, then there is no 'where' that is apart from him, and therefore no possible way to be separate from him, correct?

Second- are we separate from him? (I mean, all us atheists that are addressing you- we neither hear nor see nor believe; do you consider us to be in hell at this very moment?) And if we are in hell, why are we suffering no more, and in individual cases far less, than the supposedly 'saved' among the religious? (If you say we are indeed suffering and just don't realize it, I'm going to take you severely to task.)

And thirdly- a few days ago in EoG we had a topic concerning heaven. As I recall, only Amos and luvluv, of all the theists who post here, contributed their ideas about heaven- and luvluv frankly stated that he simply did not know, that he considered heaven beyond human understanding. (Admirably direct I thought, but not really very helpful.) So I now ask you- if hell is separation, is heaven *union* with God? Just what does that mean, or imply, to you?

And just why the hell (so to speak) do Christians seem to be more willing to talk about hell than about heaven?

Bill Snedden

Ooh...aah...No.

Assuming that our intuitions regarding causality are correct (no minor assumption), logic dictates that there MUST be some entity that either does not require a cause, or contains the cause of its existence within itself. Whether this entity is the universe itself, or some universe-creating being does not appear to be demonstrable through a simple act of logic.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Amos

Good question!!!

RJS

Most Christians I know prefer to speak about heaven. Most atheists I have interacted with prefer to dwell on the cruel and unusual nature of hell - which is probably why there are so many threads in this forum on such topic.

I'll let the others answer your other questions - they are smarter and I usually agree with them. Also, my opinion includes some thoughts on the possibility of the elimination of time and space as we know it, and I would rather not get into that here.

Amos

The answer here is that we are the centre of the universe and because we live outside of ourselves that we see a first cause in the universe. It is when we as third cause unite with the first and second cause that we become the centre of the universe and can trace our ancestry all the way back to the beginning of life on earth.