sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann,
"Evil is inevitable and necessary in all possible worlds."
So God created one place where there is no free will and no evil (Heaven) and another place where there is free will and evil (the physical/natural world).
This clearly indicates then, that God is both good AND EVIL.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann,
"Evil can only be isolated (and even this is only possible by ceasing free-will). That's why Hell must exist. And that's why there's no free-will in Heaven."
1. So why not just send the people who are destined for Hell to Heaven as well and just cease their free will?
If free will can be ceased as you claim then no one should be sent to Hell. Everyone, both good and bad, should be sent to Heaven and then it's just simply a matter of ceasing their free will and everything will be fine and dandy.
2. So God created one place where there is no free will and no evil (Heaven) and another place where there is free will and evil (the physical/natural world).
As I've asked before:
- Why couldn't God do similarly for the physical/natural world?
- What's the point of creating a physical/natural world where 1, 2 & 7 exist if there is another dimension in which they do not exist?
- What does God get out of having these 2 dimensions of existence which have starkly different characteristics?
- If you had the option to create a dimension in which 1, 2 & 7 do not exist versus the option
to create a dimension in which 1, 2 & 7 do exist, which option would you chose and why?
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann,
You still have not answered my questions.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann,
Now that you've told us all about free will and zero sum could you please answer my questions by providing EXPLICIT and DIRECT answers to the questions asked?
If God supposedly can design a dimension of existence (the afterlife according to you) to be free from:
1. The evidence would not show beyond all doubt that the diversity of life rested on millions of years of relentless competition, death and destruction. Life would not have been all but wiped out in mass extinctions at least five times in its history.
2. The predominant economy in the natural world would not be parasitic and predatory. The world really would show the loving qualities of its maker without having to ignore the majority of the facts.
7.Natural disasters would not kill millions of earth's inhabitants. The planet would not be designed to destroy life.
Why couldn't he do similarly for the physical/natural world?
What's the point of creating a physical/natural world where 1, 2 & 7 exist if there is another dimension in which they don't exist?
What does God get out of having these 2 dimensions of existence which have starkly different characteristics?
If you had the option to create a dimension in which 1, 2 & 7 do not exist versus the option to create a dimension in which 1, 2 & 7 do exist, which option would you chose and why?
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann,
"Our physical bodies and some features of our minds came to existence through natural laws.
Only our immortal soul was made to be an image of God."
If God supposedly can design a dimension of existence (the afterlife according to you) to be free from:
1. The evidence would not show beyond all doubt that the diversity of life rested on millions of years of relentless competition, death and destruction. Life would not have been all but wiped out in mass extinctions at least five times in its history.
2. The predominant economy in the natural world would not be parasitic and predatory. The world really would show the loving qualities of its maker without having to ignore the majority of the facts.
7.Natural disasters would not kill millions of earth's inhabitants. The planet would not be designed to destroy life.
Why couldn't he do similarly for the physical/natural world?
What's the point of creating a physical/natural world where 1, 2 & 7 exist if there is another dimension in which they don't exist?
What does God get out of having these 2 dimensions of existence which have starkly different characteristics?
If you had the option to create a dimension in which 1, 2 & 7 do not exist versus the option to create a dimension in which 1, 2 & 7 do exist, which option would you chose and why?
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann,
Since you are convinced that you should live forever just as the JWs are, the only difference being, you have switched venues from earth to heaven, then no amount of reasoning will make you see otherwise.
I'm surprised that you gave up on being a JW - apparently heaven comes with more perks?
For your sake, I do hope that you will live on after death. Be sure to let us know what the afterlife is like and about your conversations with God.
I understand. Some people just can't deal with the fact that they become nothing at death.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann,
"Catholics believe the human nature must be in soul and body forever."
Just reiterate:
- every function which you have attributed to the immaterial soul is performed by our brains.
- the functions which you have attributed to the immaterial soul are altered when one experiences brain injury or neurological disorders.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann,
If I'm wrong so oblivion is reality ironically I will never know
It's good that you are open to this possibility since, of the millions of the dead, no one has been back to tell us what the afterlife is like and about their conversations with God.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann,
"This is just your opinion about justice."
One sure way to know whether this is just my opinion about justice - try telling a court of law that it is your children who should be penalized if you should commit a crime.
Please be sure to let us know the outcome if you should ever find yourself in this situation.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Cofty,
The discussion is still going on because John_Mann can't bring himself to confront and come to terms with his mortality.
He needs something to make him feel good about death so he went from believing that he was going to live forever on a Paradise earth to believing that his soul will live on after he dies - he exchanged one venue for another: earth for heaven.
In trying to make himself feel good about death, he tenaciously tries to defend his indefensible alternate faith of Catholicism which has promised him immortality in the afterlife, which cannot be verified.
