by jimwalton » Wed May 08, 2019 3:02 am
> Do you say the same about people who haven't found Jesus, but might later in life? Why wouldn't the same apply to longer lives and more opportunities?
You know what kind of world we live in. An active shooter walks into a place of innocent people and kills as many as he can. A lunatic drives a car or truck into a crowd of people and kills some. Tornadoes strike and people die. No one knows which day will be his last—if there is a "later in life." No one knows. If you know what you want, do it now. Carpe Diem.
> Why wouldn't the same apply to longer lives and more opportunities?
It might, but it might make things worse. And since punishment fits the offense, knowing the trajectory of humanity, the risk of getting worse is greater than the chance of getting better.
> So then looping this instead of ending it and the person going to hell would be more merciful.
As I've explained several times, I don't think so. "if you are in a chain of endless meaningless lives where you refuse to acknowledge God no matter how many chances you are given, and you go through life after life apart from him, who's to say what is worse: An endless chain of meaningless lives separated from God where you have an opportunity to turn to Him and find life, or a time of separation from God in the afterlife, with possible opportunities to turn to Him and find life. But it may also be the case that in the afterlife you will be held to your decision. It would be better to turn to God now."
> Or you can end the discussion honestly and say "you bring up points I can't answer".
I can answer them and have. But you keep asking the same questions as if I haven't said anything, as if you are ignoring or rejecting my answers. Then don't blame me for not answering. Since you don't accept my answers, you'll have to take that up with God when you face Him.
> You haven't explained at all how my options wouldn't be better than eternal suffering.
I've explained it several times. And I've also explained that it's not necessarily eternal suffering. What I said was, "Not all Christians, you should know, believe in the traditional concept of hell and its being infinite. There are theories about reconcilationism, semi-restorationism, modified eternalism, and annihilationism, all with some kind of scriptural backing. In other words, hell isn't necessarily eternal for all who enter it. It may only be eternal for those who refuse to be reconciled."
And then I showed you the quote from C.S. Lewis twice. What do you mean I haven't explained? I have explained; you have not accepted my explanation, which is your prerogative.
> Are you going to give me another chance or not?
Every minute that goes by, you have another chance. You've had millions, and you may possibly have millions more. I don't have to give you another chance. Since you are still breathing, God has given you another chance to come to Him.
> I don't see any good evidence now, but if the evidence exists maybe I'll be able to see it later. Unless you think I am a robot incapable of seeing it, then you have to admit I'll have at least a chance.
There are plenty of both logical and scientific evidences. I'll write them briefly here so you can think about them.
Cosmological argument: The universe had a beginning. The idea of an infinite universe is absurd. Something outside of the universe had to have caused it to bang.
Ontological argument: If God doesn't exist, his existence is logically impossible. If he does exist, his existence is necessary. Since we know God is not impossible, he must be necessary.
Teleological argument: We don't know of anything that shows evidence of being purposefully designed that was not indeed purposefully designed. Many parts of the universe exhibit purpose. Therefore it's logical to assume the universe could be the product of purposeful design.
Analogical argument: Everything we humans produce for a particular purpose is designed for that purpose by someone intelligent enough to have designed it. The universe has many characteristics that seem like it was produced for a particular purpose. It's reasonable to conclude that the universe was designed by an intelligent being.
The argument of other minds: I can't prove that other minds exist, but it's logical to believe that. I can't prove what other minds are thinking, and yet it's reasonable to assume they are. The bulk of my commonsense beliefs about others minds is more probably than not on my total evidence. Using that analogy, then, belief in God is rational, being more probable than not on the total evidence.
Argument from consciousness: Genuinely nonphysical mental states exist (feelings, thoughts, emotions). The explanation for such mental states is either personal or scientific. The explanation for nonphysical mental states is not a natural scientific one, for no naturalistic explanation postulated thus far has been capable of accounting for how the mental can arise from the physical. Therefore the best explanation for now of nonphysical mental states is a personal one. If the explanation is personal, then it is theistic.
Axiological argument: Since there is evil in the world, there must also be good (or we wouldn't know evil was evil). If those words mean anything, there must be a standard by which to measure them. And if there is a standard, there must be a source for that standard. That source must be moral, objective, and personal.
Linguistic argument: Language is effective only if endowed with meaning. Meaning is non-material; it is neither energy nor matter. The essence of meaning is entirely distinct from energy and matter. Language demands a non-material source, since meaning is non-material. Language therefore demonstrates that we as humans possess non-material attributes. The most plausible source for that is an entity with mental faculties qualitatively similar to our own but vastly superior.
God makes sense of the existence of abstract entities.
God makes sense of the origin of the universe.
God makes sense of the complex order in the universe.
God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.
The resurrection of Jesus. The established facts surrounding the resurrection, and the inferences that can be made from subsidiary arguments and evidences are more plausible than alternative explanations.
The credibility of the Bible: The historical evidences, its trueness to life, its value for life, and its spiritual power.
The testimonies of other people whom I respect. It's tough to deny when you can see people change right before your eyes from one kind of person to another, qualitatively different, kind of person.
My experiences of God. I am convinced God exists wholly apart from arguments. They are properly basic beliefs, just like my belief in and experience of the external world and the existence of minds besides my own, such as yours.
The arguments against the existence of God are usually (1) the problem of evil, and (2) science. But neither of those mount any kind of argument. It's very possible to have a good and all-powerful God who allows evil, and science squares better with theism than with atheism. Usually the arguments from atheists boil down to, "I don't find the evidence for God's existence convincing enough," and yet they can offer precious little evidence in rebuttal for what they believe.
The evidences for theism are far stronger than the evidences for scientific naturalism or support of the atheistic position. These are arguments are not 100% (there are some weaknesses, so they're only about 80%), and you may be able to even point out the weaknesses. But the arguments against are close to 0%. If we are going to infer the most reasonable conclusion, theism is by far the winner.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Wed May 08, 2019 3:02 am.