Eternal Hell Justified (part 2)

[jayem]

See our soul is spirit. Not physical. So without mass according to the theory of relativity, there is no time. So our souls are eternal by default according to known science, that is not even incorporating meta physics at that point.

Right off the bat you have a problem. You're asserting the existence of a soul. By which I assume you mean some type of non-material entity which maintains one's consciousness and personality after one's death. What "known science" supports this assertion in any way? It's fallacious to think near death experiences are such evidence. Firstly, anyone who recovered from a cardiac arrest didn't actually die. And what science has learned suggests that NDEs are natural neurophysiologic phenomena. Patients reporting NDEs, describe them in very similar terms as what people report after taking certain drugs--ketamine in particular. Ketamine is an anesthetic that produces a dissociative state. Where a patient feels his consciousness is separated from his body. It can have an antidepressant effect, and can also be hallucinogenic. Ketamine blocks NMDA (N-methyl-D-aspartate) receptors. Which facilitate neuronal transmission in various brain regions. If an NDE-like state can be induced by a drug which interferes with nerve impulses, it's not unreasonable to conclude the same effect can result from the metabolic abnormalities accompanying cardiorespiratory arrest. This doesn't discount the finding that many people are profoundly affected after having an NDE. But that's not proof of anything supernatural. NDEs are almost certainly an effect of altered neurotransmitters in a brain under physiologic stress. The SA article discusses this. And it notes that ketamine may be useful in terminal patients to relieve anxiety about impeding death.

New Clues Found in Understanding Near-Death Experiences

But back to the point of the thread: you assume, without convincing evidence, the existence of an immortal soul. You're entitled to believe that. To me, it's a product of wishful thinking. As my avatar notes, I'm a naturalist. I believe when we die, we are gone forever. Lights out--game over--hello darkness my old friend. Assuming this is true, then all this discussion of heaven and hell is quite meaningless.

 

[Yttrium]

But back to the point of the thread: you assume, without convincing evidence, the existence of an immortal soul.

We can take the existence of the soul as a hypothetical for the purposes of this thread. The purpose of the thread is to examine the OP's logic and determine if it holds up, not to determine whether Christianity is true in the first place. Given that the Bible is true, given that God and souls exist, is an eternal Hell justified?

The OP provided a lot of material to go through. I think it's enough to evaluate that on its own merits rather than also evaluating the merits of Christianity.

 

[createdtoworship]

Well, assuming an omnipotent and omniscient creator God...

Then God knew in advance how humans would turn out. So God knew that humans would be sinful and have sinful thoughts. In this case, punishing humans eternally for sins would be punishing them for something God intentionally designed into humans. Since no one is without sin, sin is not something humans can avoid. Humans can only repent for committing the sins. However, humans have a limited opportunity to repent during life, and death can happen quite unexpectedly.

I can understand punishing people for sin, while giving them an opportunity to repent. However, eternal punishment would not provide the opportunity to repent in many cases. In fact, a lack of opportunity to repent in even one case would be ridiculously unfair for the individual. Therefore I can only imagine eternal punishment for those who never repent, while always having the opportunity to repent during the punishment.

Sir there are many assumptions made here in these statements, I will focus on the pivotal one. That because sin exists, therefore God must have created it. God created free will, the ability to chose between taking the high road and taking the rude and insulting and belittling road. Which you seem to like apparently. So you will be judged for every idle word you speak against our Lord and others. I thought I would warn you. notice that you can go to a judge and say, I know I ran over a person while drunk, but I don't actually believe in the current legal system in the united states I am an anarchist. I don't believe in the rules and ways of the judicial system. However the Judge being probably even more frustrated, may tack on extra time to your sentence simply for your lack of respect. God is not like that, He is not vengeful. But my illustration is to say, if your lack of believe in the Judge and judicial system won't work in an inferior judicial system, why do you trust it to work for you in an perfect justice system? That really is the issue of your heart. But however I will address your concerns as well. Again sin is not something God creates. Sin is a lack of character. Sin is the absence of love and morality. Since it's the absence of something positive, then God would ultimately not be blamed with it's existence. God allows people to refrain from morality, only due to honoring his software he previously installed in every human soul, that of free will. God does not like that people all through the united states abort their unborn children at a rate of 2000 a day. But He does not actively stop it. Why? Because He created a free will. I don't know if you have had children. But eventually you have to let them go, and trust that the training you gave them at one point will stick and they will make wise decisions as adults. Part of this process is allowing them to fail, because in failure we tent to be keenly aware of why we failed. If someone were to somehow interrupt every hardship with a blessing, we would never learn about our mistakes. This is why repentance is required with the gospel. Yes it's free, and yes you cannot earn it through works, but God does require us to cast down the idols'we are worshiping, God's of humanism etc. And believe in the one true God. God will judge every man as to if he obeyed that inner voice that told him that God existed. See, God's existence is absurdly simple to prove. To the point, God himself calls the ones who don't believe, as "fools." But maybe someone has never mentioned this before to you, so i will here today. If you see something made, you know it had a maker. The universe was made by the bigbang, most scientists conclude. So therefore if the universe was made, it had a maker. Period. It is a very simple way of looking at things. To reject this cause and effect is to reject scientific laws of cause and affect in general, because if the universe in general, the greatest affect, has no cause, or can be causeless, then nothing else would necessarily require a cause and affect. Logic itself would fail at that point, when you threw a baseball in the air, there would necessary not be the affect that it would fall back into your mit. Most science would fail without cause and affect. So we must realize that if we see a painting, there must naturally be a painter, if we see something made there must have been a maker. The universe was made, therefore something made it.

 

[jayem]

We can take the existence of the soul as a hypothetical for the purposes of this thread. The purpose of the thread is to examine the OP's logic and determine if it holds up, not to determine whether Christianity is true in the first place. Given that the Bible is true, given that God and souls exist, is an eternal Hell justified?

The OP provided a lot of material to go through. I think it's enough to evaluate that on its own merits rather than also evaluating the merits of Christianity.

If the OP intended to discuss the moral logic of eternal punishment, then the thread should have been placed in a Christians-only forum. Where the existence of an immortal soul is a given. But the OP specifically asked for the participation of skeptics and atheists. So I’m not sure what response would be expected when the foundational premise of the discussion is rejected.

 

[jayem]

God’s existence is absurdly simple to prove. To the point, God himself calls the ones who don't believe, as "fools." But maybe someone has never mentioned this before to you, so i will here today. If you see something made, you know it had a maker. The universe was made by the bigbang, most scientists conclude. So therefore if the universe was made, it had a maker. Period. It is a very simple way of looking at things. To reject this cause and effect is to reject scientific laws of cause and affect in general, because if the universe in general, the greatest affect, has no cause, or can be causeless, then nothing else would necessarily require a cause and affect. Logic itself would fail at that point, when you threw a baseball in the air, there would necessary not be the affect that it would fall back into your mit. Most science would fail without cause and affect. So we must realize that if we see a painting, there must naturally be a painter, if we see something made there must have been a maker. The universe was made, therefore something made it.

With all due respect, that’s the argument from incredulity. You cannot imagine how the universe could have appeared by purely natural means. So there must be a supernatural cause. That’s a logical fallacy. Just because there’s no clear explanation now, doesn’t mean there never will be. None of us can dream of what we may learn in another 300 years or so. People have always attributed events that weren’t understood to supernatural entities. Things like storms, floods, diseases, earthquakes, the movement of the sun, moon, and stars, and many other things were all at one time thought to result from gods or spirits. But as our scientific understanding has progressed, we realize all of these are perfectly natural phenomena. In the entire history of knowledge, a supernatural explanation has never been proven valid for anything. So, by simple inductive reasoning, why should I believe a supernatural cause for all those things we still don’t understand?

And another point: there may be an as yet undiscovered force of nature that creates matter/energy along with it’s natural properties. But that’s not evidence for your particular god. The fact is, there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of different creation legends, invoking different gods, in human societies. This indicates to me that all of these are speculations. Other than faith—and I won’t argue with faith—there’s no reason to believe any of them are true.

 

[Yttrium]

...

Hmm. I didn't see anything in your post that addresses what I wrote. In fact, you seem to be discussing some arguments that I didn't make. Well, it's nice to see you active again, and I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving.

 

[createdtoworship]

With all due respect, that’s the argument from incredulity. You cannot imagine how the universe could have appeared by purely natural means. So there must be a supernatural cause. That’s a logical fallacy. Just because there’s no clear explanation now, doesn’t mean there never will be. None of us can dream of what we may learn in another 300 years or so. People have always attributed events that weren’t understood to supernatural entities. Things like storms, floods, diseases, earthquakes, the movement of the sun, moon, and stars, and many other things were all at one time thought to result from gods or spirits. But as our scientific understanding has progressed, we realize all of these are perfectly natural phenomena. In the entire history of knowledge, a supernatural explanation has never been proven valid for anything. So, by simple inductive reasoning, why should I believe a supernatural cause for all those things we still don’t understand?

And another point: there may be an as yet undiscovered force of nature that creates matter/energy along with it’s natural properties. But that’s not evidence for your particular god. The fact is, there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of different creation legends, invoking different gods, in human societies. This indicates to me that all of these are speculations. Other than faith—and I won’t argue with faith—there’s no reason to believe any of them are true.

so you disagree with obvious laws of cause and affect, that was my only premise was the laws of cause and affect, if you disagree with said laws, then quote scientific articles backing up your premise. But saying it's personal incredulity, is neither here nor there. I can say all sorts of things and not back them up, but I don't. So far everything I have said is either backed up by science, logic or both. So by all means please do the same.

 

[createdtoworship]

Hmm. I didn't see anything in your post that addresses what I wrote. In fact, you seem to be discussing some arguments that I didn't make. Well, it's nice to see you active again, and I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving.

well I tried. I interpreted your post the best I knew how. If nothing I said addressed anything you said, then I suppose we are done here. However if you want to try harder at this conversation and address what i posted, we can do that to.

 

[createdtoworship]

If the OP intended to discuss the moral logic of eternal punishment, then the thread should have been placed in a Christians-only forum. Where the existence of an immortal soul is a given. But the OP specifically asked for the participation of skeptics and atheists. So I’m not sure what response would be expected when the foundational premise of the discussion is rejected.

you can question whatever part of it you like by creating another thread. However whatever concerns you have to this topic I would gladly address in this thread.

 

[createdtoworship]

Right off the bat you have a problem. You're asserting the existence of a soul. By which I assume you mean some type of non-material entity which maintains one's consciousness and personality after one's death. What "known science" supports this assertion in any way? It's fallacious to think near death experiences are such evidence. Firstly, anyone who recovered from a cardiac arrest didn't actually die. And what science has learned suggests that NDEs are natural neurophysiologic phenomena. Patients reporting NDEs, describe them in very similar terms as what people report after taking certain drugs--ketamine in particular. Ketamine is an anesthetic that produces a dissociative state. Where a patient feels his consciousness is separated from his body. It can have an antidepressant effect, and can also be hallucinogenic. Ketamine blocks NMDA (N-methyl-D-aspartate) receptors. Which facilitate neuronal transmission in various brain regions. If an NDE-like state can be induced by a drug which interferes with nerve impulses, it's not unreasonable to conclude the same effect can result from the metabolic abnormalities accompanying cardiorespiratory arrest. This doesn't discount the finding that many people are profoundly affected after having an NDE. But that's not proof of anything supernatural. NDEs are almost certainly an effect of altered neurotransmitters in a brain under physiologic stress. The SA article discusses this. And it notes that ketamine may be useful in terminal patients to relieve anxiety about impeding death.

New Clues Found in Understanding Near-Death Experiences

But back to the point of the thread: you assume, without convincing evidence, the existence of an immortal soul. You're entitled to believe that. To me, it's a product of wishful thinking. As my avatar notes, I'm a naturalist. I believe when we die, we are gone forever. Lights out--game over--hello darkness my old friend. Assuming this is true, then all this discussion of heaven and hell is quite meaningless.

well I have to go to bed, but I will give you a teaser and hopefully remember to address the rest of your post, remind me if I don't. See in order to have four dimensions, one must have mass, height, width, and breadth, as well as mass within those parameters. Only then can you apply a fourth dimension of time, einsteins theory of relativity also coincides this is true. As you cannot speed up time, if there is nothing to speed up (no mass). But information itself is massless, so the software of the brain, not the power supply, or the hardware but the software, is the soul. It's the information that is stored and transmitted, our memories, our personality etc. That part is eternal. That part cannot die. Hell is described as eternal destruction, namely because souls are eternal and cannot be killed in an instance. God can do whatever he wants and can create anomalies and bring a soul into existence at a certain event, and remove it if He wanted. But that is not normally how He operates. He typically will create a soul and leave it. Then depending on how well that soul does, will depend on it's outcome. If it is to be punished or rewarded. But when our hardware fails, the software still lives, it can just be reloaded on a new, or resurrected body.

 

[jayem]

But information itself is massless, so the software of the brain, not the power supply, or the hardware but the software, is the soul. It's the information that is stored and transmitted, our memories, our personality etc. That part is eternal. That part cannot die.

Here's a request. Please give me a citation from a peer-reviewed scientific journal discussing the mechanism and manner by which information in a person's brain persists after that person's death. As you said, the information should be specific to that person, such as a first pet, memories of an influential teacher, or how s(he) met a spouse. The source can be any mainstream biology, biophysics, neuroscience, bioinformatics, or other related publication. But it must be peer-reviewed and indexed on a reputable database of scientific articles. I'll make it easy and give you one such database. If such an article exists, I'd love to read it and learn something.

Open Access Journals On-Line

 

[Yttrium]

well I tried. I interpreted your post the best I knew how. If nothing I said addressed anything you said, then I suppose we are done here. However if you want to try harder at this conversation and address what i posted, we can do that to.

I suppose I can go through your response. Let's see now, this could take a while...

Sir there are many assumptions made here in these statements, I will focus on the pivotal one. That because sin exists, therefore God must have created it.

I actually didn't make that assumption. I said that, given an omniscient and omnipotent God, God created humans knowing in advance that they would be sinful and have sinful thoughts. Because omniscience.

God created free will, the ability to chose between taking the high road and taking the rude and insulting and belittling road. Which you seem to like apparently. So you will be judged for every idle word you speak against our Lord and others. I thought I would warn you.

Thank you, I appreciate the warning.

notice that you can go to a judge and say, I know I ran over a person while drunk, but I don't actually believe in the current legal system in the united states I am an anarchist. I don't believe in the rules and ways of the judicial system. However the Judge being probably even more frustrated, may tack on extra time to your sentence simply for your lack of respect. God is not like that, He is not vengeful. But my illustration is to say, if your lack of believe in the Judge and judicial system won't work in an inferior judicial system, why do you trust it to work for you in an perfect justice system? That really is the issue of your heart.

I certainly wouldn't. That would be foolish.

But however I will address your concerns as well. Again sin is not something God creates. Sin is a lack of character. Sin is the absence of love and morality. Since it's the absence of something positive, then God would ultimately not be blamed with it's existence. God allows people to refrain from morality, only due to honoring his software he previously installed in every human soul, that of free will. God does not like that people all through the united states abort their unborn children at a rate of 2000 a day. But He does not actively stop it. Why? Because He created a free will. I don't know if you have had children. But eventually you have to let them go, and trust that the training you gave them at one point will stick and they will make wise decisions as adults. Part of this process is allowing them to fail, because in failure we tent to be keenly aware of why we failed. If someone were to somehow interrupt every hardship with a blessing, we would never learn about our mistakes. This is why repentance is required with the gospel. Yes it's free, and yes you cannot earn it through works, but God does require us to cast down the idols'we are worshiping, God's of humanism etc. And believe in the one true God. God will judge every man as to if he obeyed that inner voice that told him that God existed.

Yes, I was agreeing with you that repentance would be required. Given that God gave people free will, it would be up to humans to decide whether to repent or not. And it is reasonable to provide a punishment for those who fail to repent. (By the way, I don't have children.)

See, God's existence is absurdly simple to prove. To the point, God himself calls the ones who don't believe, as "fools." But maybe someone has never mentioned this before to you, so i will here today. If you see something made, you know it had a maker. The universe was made by the bigbang, most scientists conclude. So therefore if the universe was made, it had a maker. Period. It is a very simple way of looking at things. To reject this cause and effect is to reject scientific laws of cause and affect in general, because if the universe in general, the greatest affect, has no cause, or can be causeless, then nothing else would necessarily require a cause and affect. Logic itself would fail at that point, when you threw a baseball in the air, there would necessary not be the affect that it would fall back into your mit. Most science would fail without cause and affect. So we must realize that if we see a painting, there must naturally be a painter, if we see something made there must have been a maker. The universe was made, therefore something made it.

Yes, it's simple cause and effect. Our universe came into existence, so something must have caused it to come into existence. We can call that something God, whatever it was. That's the topic of a different (very long) thread, though.

However, the crux of my argument was that people would need the opportunity to repent. Even after death.

 

[createdtoworship]

Here's a request. Please give me a citation from a peer-reviewed scientific journal discussing the mechanism and manner by which information in a person's brain persists after that person's death. As you said, the information should be specific to that person, such as a first pet, memories of an influential teacher, or how s(he) met a spouse. The source can be any mainstream biology, biophysics, neuroscience, bioinformatics, or other related publication. But it must be peer-reviewed and indexed on a reputable database of scientific articles. I'll make it easy and give you one such database. If such an article exists, I'd love to read it and learn something.

Open Access Journals On-Line

well sir basic science dictates if something does not have dimensionality, (holds space), and does not have mass within that pass (a modification due to general relitivity), that time cannot be applied. As there is nothing to speed up or slow down with time. The soul, which is information. It's not the brain or the wires in the brain or the hardware of the brain. That is like a processor unit. The soul is the software, it's just information. Information itself is eternal, I am pretty sure some informational theorists have studied this. But I am just using accepted laws of science to prove that all information is eternal, and that would include the soul. Some day if I am really bored i will look into peer reviews of the eternality of information. But I would have to be out of this world bored. But as far as science goes everything we know about time is that is applies to mass.

 

[createdtoworship]

Well, assuming an omnipotent and omniscient creator God...

Then God knew in advance how humans would turn out. So God knew that humans would be sinful and have sinful thoughts. In this case, punishing humans eternally for sins would be punishing them for something God intentionally designed into humans. Since no one is without sin, sin is not something humans can avoid. Humans can only repent for committing the sins. However, humans have a limited opportunity to repent during life, and death can happen quite unexpectedly.

I can understand punishing people for sin, while giving them an opportunity to repent. However, eternal punishment would not provide the opportunity to repent in many cases. In fact, a lack of opportunity to repent in even one case would be ridiculously unfair for the individual. Therefore I can only imagine eternal punishment for those who never repent, while always having the opportunity to repent during the punishment.

I am trying to address your original statement again maybe I missed something. Yes God knows exactly how we will turn out. God sees the end from the beginning. God is outside of time. So yes even before He created adam and eve, He knew every single soul that would be born. He knew every hair on their head, and the rate in which they lost their hair as the got old. He knew it all. And you are absolutely correct, humans have a limited time to repent. In any judicial system we currently know of this is the case. After the judge ruling happens, at that point, repentance would be useless. And that is ok, if you know the date of your trial. And we all know that when we die that is the date of our trial. So He warns us ahead of time. I wanted to include the parable of the wicked steward:

The Faithful Servant and the Evil Servant
(Luke 12:41–48 )

Mat 24:46
“Blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing.
Mat 24:47
“Assuredly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods.
Mat 24:48
“But if that evil servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’
Mat 24:49
“and begins to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards,
Mat 24:50
“the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of,
Mat 24:51
“and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Then the passage just before this talks about when Jesus will return

No One Knows the Day or Hour

“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven,
Mat 24:37
“But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
Mat 24:38
“For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
Mat 24:39
“and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
Mat 24:40
“Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left.
Mat 24:41
“Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left.
Mat 24:42
“Watch therefore, for you do not know what hourMat 24:43
“But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into.
Mat 24:44
“Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

 

[jayem]

well sir basic science dictates if something does not have dimensionality, (holds space), and does not have mass within that pass (a modification due to general relitivity), that time cannot be applied. As there is nothing to speed up or slow down with time. The soul, which is information. It's not the brain or the wires in the brain or the hardware of the brain. That is like a processor unit. The soul is the software, it's just information. Information itself is eternal, I am pretty sure some informational theorists have studied this. But I am just using accepted laws of science to prove that all information is eternal, and that would include the soul. Some day if I am really bored i will look into peer reviews of the eternality of information. But I would have to be out of this world bored. But as far as science goes everything we know about time is that is applies to mass.

I appreciate your responding. But it’s clear we’re talking past each other, and aren’t getting anywhere. You believe in the existence of an immortal soul. To me, it’s a purely imaginary concept. (And claiming it’s in any way scientifically supported is hopelessly mistaken and beyond bizarre.) But that’s OK. We can disagree and still be cordial.

 

[createdtoworship]

I appreciate your responding. But it’s clear we’re talking past each other, and aren’t getting anywhere. You believe in the existence of an immortal soul. To me, it’s a purely imaginary concept. (And claiming it’s in any way scientifically supported is hopelessly mistaken and beyond bizarre.) But that’s OK. We can disagree and still be cordial.

well thank you! I appreciate you being nice. Also Just so you know, most of science cannot be proven, I think you know this inside. But saying something is not scientific is not really meaningful. All science does is bring evidence to support theories. they realized hundreds of years ago that they cannot prove anything. I mean even in a peer review, you have faith that the authors of the peer review are honest, you have faith that they are good people and not commiting fraud, by imagining some money making concept to try to gain financially off of it. You have faith that other peers in the review process are honest and good people not trying to decieve and have no alterior motives. There is simply a lot of faith in the scientific process to begin with. So I guess I find it more logical to believe God made the universe, than to say it made itself. And I find my faith more rational to believe information is eternal, because it has no mass to accelerate with time. But I know this goes against perhaps your world view. And that is the issue here, it's not an intellectual problem with what is said. It's a moral problem. See to say God exists, or the Bible is right is to also claim there is an authority that also says pornography is wrong, and lust over women on instagram is wrong, etc. And most people are not willing to take that next step because honesty they like their instagram and their porn. ( I am by no means saying you do these things), I am saying in general. But I fully understand your hesitations, so thank you for being polite about it. And I hope you have a wonderful holiday with your family. (you can always message me if you want, I am having a IM conversation with another skeptic as we speak).

Here is a short interview at huntington beach with a young woman about God, feel free to check it out:

 

[Yttrium]

And you are absolutely correct, humans have a limited time to repent.

Well, actually, I was saying that I have a hard time imagining a limited time to repent. Let me provide a parable.

A minister is traveling in Liaojiawan, China. He happens across an amiable old man and starts up a friendly discussion with him. It seems the man had lived a mostly honorably life, but he was poor and had long coveted his neighbors' possessions, thinking that there was nothing wrong with such thoughts.

"My friend," the missionary says, "have you heard the good word about salvation through Christ?"

"Oh," the man replies, "I have heard of Christianity, but I know very little about it."

"I have a Bible here you can read through. And I can give you the basics right now. One thing you need to know is that coveting your neighbors' things is a sin against the almighty God, a violation of one of His commandments. All you need to do is..."

"I'm sorry, but I seem to be having a heart attack right now. Would you mind... Ack."

And so the old man died, and the missionary was sorrowful that he was unable to save him in time.

 

[createdtoworship]

Well, actually, I was saying that I have a hard time imagining a limited time to repent. Let me provide a parable.

A minister is traveling in Liaojiawan, Chian. He happens across an amiable old man and starts up a friendly discussion with him. It seems the man had lived a mostly honorably life, but he was poor and had long coveted his neighbors' possessions, thinking that there was nothing wrong with such thoughts.

"My friend," the missionary says, "have you heard the good word about salvation through Christ?"

"Oh," the man replies, "I have heard of Christianity, but I know very little about it."

"I have a Bible here you can read through. And I can give you the basics right now. One thing you need to know is that coveting your neighbors' things is a sin against the almighty God, a violation of one of His commandments. All you need to do is..."

"I'm sorry, but I seem to be having a heart attack right now. Would you mind... Ack."

And so the old man died, and the missionary was sorrowful that he was unable to save him in time.

Yes sir that happens every day unfortunately. And that man will be lost That is why we have a commandment to carry forth the Gospel. But God's existence is evident from looking up at the night sky on a clear night. It's no biggy to prove God, and God will say, remember those nights backpacking in the woods where you seen me? Yet you didn't believe. And you will be judged for that. And you will in fact be Judged for every sin and thought that was wrong. Unless you repent and come to Christ. Don't let the small matters shatter your faith. There are bigger issues out there than this issue, and if you are looking for error you will surely find it. But if you want salvation, you must repent and trust in Christ. Once you die, it is too late. At that point you are judged for all your actions, which is 100% fair. So that man who died without hearing the gospel, will be judged by his actions, and he will fail. But the judgement will be fair. After all what court system wouldn't judge according to your actions? They all would, if they were just. And God is just.

 

[BigV]

If you want to continue to interact with me I would appreciate it if you would actually read the Bible and quote it and/or ask questions about what it actually says. See highlight above.
I'm not real interested in discussing distorted Atheistic beliefs what the Bible says

Well, as I said, Christians have no problems with distorting the text to help themselves out of a tight spot, as you've done with John 14:12. Jesus did not talk about just the preaching, which is a typical Christian interpretation, an admission that is the only thing that works out of that text. But Jesus said that the believer in him will do the works that he was working, and even greater works. And those works included resurrections, healing the deaf, the mute and the blind and changing water into wine! If Jesus was just a preacher, then I would concede your point. But Jesus was a miracle worker who promised miracle working powers to whoever believes in him.

I don't like distortions either, but I find Christians are distorting far more than they are willing to acknowledge. Of course, I understand their/your reasons.

 

[BigV]

So I guess I find it more logical to believe God made the universe, than to say it made itself.

How did you rule out all of the other supernatural causes for the existence of the universe? Some of those causes include a group of angels banding together, or maybe even Satan creating it?

And how did you determine that it was a single God who created the Universe not a consortium of Gods, working at times in unison, at other times in opposition to one another?