Eternal Hell Justified (part 2)

[Skreeper]

I see people talking about the evils of God, yet endorsing mass murder. I am not saying you are doing this, but I have seen it in the past.

I am more irritated by people like you who call abortion "mass murder" but don't do anything to stop it. Stop being so hypocritical...either do something that will prevent babies from being aborted or stop calling it mass murder.

And don't tell me you can't do anything. Of course you can but you too scared to actually do it.

The German jews during WW2 weren't saved by people complaining about mass murder. They were saved by people with guns putting some holes into the ones murdering jews.

 

[BigV]

I am more irritated by people like you who call abortion "mass murder" but don't do anything to stop it. Stop being so hypocritical...either do something that will prevent babies from being aborted or stop calling it mass murder.

And I'm more irritated by Christians who are very concerned about abortion, but justify eternal torture as being morally just.

What's worse, killing a baby or frying them in hell for all eternity? Guess which Christians agree with.

Also, in Christianity, abortion is perfectly fine if God orders it.

 

[createdtoworship]

I asked my boyfriend and he said that I am as much flawed as the next guy. If I had big flaws he wouldn't love me.

I think it's more important to look at your strengths rather than your weaknesses. But maybe that's just my view.

It's more important to find your worth in the person who created you. He knows your flaws all of them, and has known them for eternity past, and yet He still loves us and calls us to walk with Him. There is nothing you can ever do that will make God love you less. We can do things that drive a wedge in our relationship with God but that is it. Sin drives a wedge. But when we boast in our weakness (it keeps us humble), it also removes depression as well. Because as God blesses us as we walk more holy, we can tend to think we are doing things well. But if we self humiliate ourselves, and boast in those weaknesses it can help. Only the christian can do this. Because only the christian realizes that such a perfect love exists, that I can boast in my weakness and still be loved. But the boasting should ultimately lead to a motivated effort to correct those issues (repentance). Romans 5:7 says that He "loved us while we were yet sinners."

 

[createdtoworship]

I am more irritated by people like you who call abortion "mass murder" but don't do anything to stop it. Stop being so hypocritical...either do something that will prevent babies from being aborted or stop calling it mass murder.

And don't tell me you can't do anything. Of course you can but you too scared to actually do it.

The German jews during WW2 weren't saved by people complaining about mass murder. They were saved by people with guns putting some holes into the ones murdering jews.

I have been brainstorming about this, I typically will pass around an abortion video. So far two of my coworkers were prochoice, and converted to pro life watching the video. But I wish I could do more. I pray multiple times a week that roe vs wade gets overturned. One practical way to end abortion is to make sonograms free and mandatory for everyone doing an abortion. 90% of women once they see the baby first hand, will decide to keep it. So I pray that that happens as well. Please don't be offended by my views, I am simply very passionate that millions of babies are being killed. 2000 a day.

 

[BigV]

Please don't be offended by my views, I am simply very passionate that millions of babies are being killed. 2000 a day.

I thought Christians believed that all babies go to heaven if they die? If these babies grow up to be atheists, they will fry in Hell forever.

A baby grows up a sinner and offends a Christian God by a virtue of being a human baby.

 

[Skreeper]

It's more important to find your worth in the person who created you. He knows your flaws all of them, and has known them for eternity past, and yet He still loves us and calls us to walk with Him. There is nothing you can ever do that will make God love you less. We can do things that drive a wedge in our relationship with God but that is it. Sin drives a wedge. But when we boast in our weakness (it keeps us humble), it also removes depression as well. Because as God blesses us as we walk more holy, we can tend to think we are doing things well. But if we self humiliate ourselves, and boast in those weaknesses it can help. Only the christian can do this. Because only the christian realizes that such a perfect love exists, that I can boast in my weakness and still be loved. But the boasting should ultimately lead to a motivated effort to correct those issues (repentance). Romans 5:7 says that He "loved us while we were yet sinners."

This doesn't mean anything to me. I am an atheist, remember? I don't believe that your God exists.

What I do know is that my boyfriend is real, and his love, and that's why I trust him instead of some imaginary god.

 

[Spikey]

About hell can you prove it does not exist.[/SIZE][/FONT]

The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim. If you can't prove hell, the soul or your god exists, why should anyone waste their time worrying about it? It's like being scared of the bogey man.

 

[BigV]

It's like being scared of the bogey man.

You are absolutely right, Spikey. There is a UK Mentalist, Derren Brown who makes this point very convincingly with his fear and faith series.

During one of the videos, he gives atheists and skeptics the idea that a place is haunted, and even the skeptics start seeing faces and feeling things around them.

I believe I've already shared it, but here it goes again

 

[createdtoworship]

I thought Christians believed that all babies go to heaven if they die? If these babies grow up to be atheists, they will fry in Hell forever.

A baby grows up a sinner and offends a Christian God by a virtue of being a human baby.

I do believe they do, but they will never have eternal rewards that only come from knowing Christ. I believe, and this is just an opinion, that when we get to heaven there will be all these little fire flies flying around, and each one is a baby that was aborted. Yes they will be there, but they won't be talking with Jesus, walking, and enjoying eternity in the same way. They will be there and be grateful. But it would not be the same had they had the opportunity to "lay treasure in heaven" as the scriptures say. Babies going to heaven in general is what is called a weak theological standpoint, the point is, we really don't know. But I am of the opinion that before the age of accountability, which is different in every child, if they die they will go to heaven. But the point is, there is really only one or two verses that say that a child goes to heaven. It's not the strongest theology. I used to believe that every child was judged for their actions, and that may be true too. But ultimately if they are judged for their actions then most would fail in general. As babies come out of the womb crying and lusting for food. Granted, I have calmed down in my old age and now believe in the age of accountability again, but it could be wrong. The point is we don't know, so why risk aborting all these kids if we don't know their destiny? If it possible at least that we are fueling hell with all these aborted babies. Which would be worse than mass murder.

 

[BigV]

The point is we don't know, so why risk aborting all these kids if we don't know their destiny? If it possible at least that we are fueling hell with all these aborted babies. Which would be worse than mass murder.

Let me understand your position. Do you believe it's just for a God to send babies to hell?

 

[cvanwey]

I am posting here because I want the skeptics and atheists who don't necessarily believe in the Bible to be able to reply.

Logical case for eternal hell. Debating online over the years I see repeated questions against God, and one that I see that has not been refuted is this one: "why would God send someone to infinite hell, for finite sins?" When a skeptic asks this question they assume that they have won. Because most of the time they do win. But not this time.

I began to read your OP... And up to this point, I would like to respond.

Since you seem to want to invoke your personal positions/opinions, please allow me to do likewise.

If such a claimed God does indeed exist, and such a claimed hell does indeed exist, it stands to reason God can do whatever He wants, and send to this hell, whom ever He chooses - for any 'self fulfilling' reason. Such a conceptual God would answer to no one. Nor, would He need to justify His actions to anyone or anything. Humans can gripe or complain, but in such a case, it may be as simple as 'might makes right.'

The reason I stopped here, is because of what you stated immediately after your OP explanation in red.

You state, 'but not this time', and then, ---> [fill in your not falsifiable assertion here].

We can't do anything with that You can always claim victorious, when you present a claim, which is not falsifiable.

 

[createdtoworship]

I began to read your OP... And up to this point, I would like to respond.

Since you seem to want to invoke your personal positions/opinions, please allow me to do likewise.

If such a claimed God does indeed exist, and such a claimed hell does indeed exist, it stands to reason God can do whatever He wants, and send to this hell, whom ever He chooses - for any 'self fulfilling' reason. Such a conceptual God would answer to no one. Nor, would He need to justify His actions to anyone or anything. Humans can gripe or complain, but in such a case, it may be as simple as 'might makes right.'

The reason I stopped here, is because of what you stated immediately after your OP explanation in red.

You state, 'but not this time', and then, ---> [fill in your not falsifiable assertion here].

First of all welcome to the discussion. Secondly let me see if I can't help out here. In reading your post I do not see anything I disagree with other than "might makes right." It's not God's might that makes right, it's His nature. God is logical, caring, and Just. God cannot lie. God cannot sin, as it would be against His nature. But as far as evidence, I have no solid proof of hell. Nor do we have solid proof of 99% of scientific laws. We have evidence, yes but not proof. So I do post my opinion as that really is all there is when you don't have proof. Most of science likewise is opinion as well. So I think opinion and faith is our normal operating procedure as humans, and .5% of all facts are provable.

We can't do anything with that You can always claim victorious, when you present a claim, which is not falsifiable

.[/QUOTE]

Believing that because something cannot be falsifiable it is therefore wrong, is a false statement. Likewise saying that evidence for something should be dismissed due to a lack of falsification, is also false, as I will get into. This is a common fallacy I see all the time...

It's an Argument from Silence

lets break it down.

1. facts are true (y/n?).....the answer is yes, facts are true.
   
   
2. falsifiable means that something can be proven false if the environment was "relevantly different."
   
   
3. facts are falsifiable.
   
   
4. facts are not falsifiable

so if 1 and 2 are true, the 3 cannot be true.

because 1 and 2 invalidate 3.

summary....if facts are true, and falsifiability requires something at least hypothetically to be false, then stating facts are falsifiable is an argument from silence. and thus negated by the fact that an argument from silence is a not a supported argument but a fallacy.

in conclusion:
facts cannot be falsified, because there is no observable reason to indicate them as false (even if they can be potentially falsified), stating so is an argument from silence.

 

[cvanwey]

First of all welcome to the discussion.

Thank you

Secondly let me see if I can't help out here. In reading your post I do not see anything I disagree with other than "might makes right."

Then it would appear that you might be contradicting yourself? Please re-read what I stated, and then read the classical definition of the term 'might makes right', furnished by the Webster dictionary below

Furthermore, another reason it would be logical to conclude what I state, is because (even if) your additional assertion were true, that 'God cannot do evil' (paraphrased), if God was not at the top of the food chain, something or someone could potentially stop Him and His actions - ('right' or 'wrong')

Definition of might makes/is right
—used to say that people who have power are able to do what they want because no one can stop them

But as far as evidence, I have no solid proof of hell. Nor do we have solid proof of 99% of scientific laws. We have evidence, yes but not proof. So I do post my opinion as that really is all there is when you don't have proof. Most of science likewise is opinion as well. So I think opinion and faith is our normal operating procedure as humans, and .5% of all facts are provable.

If you wish to trek down this path, then this conversation may certainly not be productive :/ Just because we cannot 'know' something with 100% certainty, does not mean we cannot rule out certain assertions from others, with confidence.

I'll give you a quick example I've given others...

We may not 100% 'know' the actual shape of earth (i.e) was flat, then perfect sphere, now more 'egg shaped'... However, baring any further 'evidence' yet to be provided, will a conclusion ever AGAIN be concluded that the world is flat?

And yes, I've argued with 'flat earthers'. They claim 'evidence' for their argument. Thus, I guess we need to determine what constitutes as 'evidence'?

Believing that because something cannot be falsifiable it is therefore wrong, is a false statement. Likewise saying that evidence for something should be dismissed due to a lack of falsification, is also false, as I will get into. This is a common fallacy I see all the time...

It's an Argument from Silence

lets break it down.

1. facts are true (y/n?).....the answer is yes, facts are true.
   
   
2. falsifiable means that something can be proven false if the environment was "relevantly different."
   
   
3. facts are falsifiable.
   
   
4. facts are not falsifiable

so if 1 and 2 are true, the 3 cannot be true.

because 1 and 2 invalidate 3.

summary....if facts are true, and falsifiability requires something at least hypothetically to be false, then stating facts are falsifiable is an argument from silence. and thus negated by the fact that an argument from silence is a not a supported argument but a fallacy.

in conclusion:
facts cannot be falsified, because there is no observable reason to indicate them as false (even if they can be potentially falsified), stating so is an argument from silence.

I certainly don't completely 'know' the 100's of fallacies off hand. However, when I look up this one, this is what I get:

Argument from Silence

Argument from Silence

argumentum e silentio

Description: Drawing a conclusion based on the silence of the opponent, when the opponent is refusing to give evidence for any reason.

Logical Form:

Person 1 claims X is true, then remains silent.

Person 2 then concludes that X must be true.

Example #1:

Jay: Dude, where are my car keys?

Bob: (says nothing)

Jay: I KNEW you took them!

Explanation: Refusal to share evidence is not necessarily evidence for or against the argument. Bob’s silence does not mean he took the keys. Perhaps he did, or perhaps he knows who did, or perhaps he saw a Tyrannosaurus eat them, or perhaps he just felt like not answering.

Example #2:

Morris: Oh youthful spirit, you have so much to learn. I know for a fact that there are multiple dimensions that beings occupy.

Clifton: How can you possibly *know* that for a fact?

Morris: (raises one eyebrow, stares deeply into the eyes of Clifton and says nothing)

Clifton: Wow. You convinced me!

Explanation: The reason this technique works so well, is because imagined reasons are often more persuasive than real reasons. If someone wants to be convinced, this technique works like a charm. However, to the critical thinker, this will not fly. Silence is not a valid substitute for reason or evidence.

Exception: Generally speaking, absence of evidence is not evidence; however, there are many cases where the reason evidence is being held back can be seen as evidence. In the above example, prompting Bob to share a reason for his silence could result in a statement from Bob that can be used as evidence.

References:

Bernecker, S., & Pritchard, D. (2011). The Routledge Companion to Epistemology. Routledge

 

[createdtoworship]

Thank you



Then it would appear that you might be contradicting yourself? Please re-read what I stated, and then read the classical definition of the term 'might makes right', furnished by the Webster dictionary below

Furthermore, another reason it would be logical to conclude what I state, is because (even if) your additional assertion were true, that 'God cannot do evil' (paraphrased), if God was not at the top of the food chain, something or someone could potentially stop Him and His actions - ('right' or 'wrong')

So I guess if you can prove that "might makes right" then it would be a legitimate argument. Secondly quoting a dictionary on the idea of might makes right is subjective as I could simply quote another one refuting it. So only in quoting all of them and their definitions, is one able to know what the phrase actually means. At least quoting the most official ones.

Definition of might makes/is right
—used to say that people who have power are able to do what they want because no one can stop them

that may or may not be true.

If you wish to trek down this path, then this conversation may certainly not be productive :/ Just because we cannot 'know' something with 100% certainty, does not mean we cannot rule out certain assertions from others, with confidence.

I'll give you a quick example I've given others...

We may not 100% 'know' the actual shape of earth (i.e) was flat, then perfect sphere, now more 'egg shaped'... However, baring any further 'evidence' yet to be provided, will a conclusion ever AGAIN be concluded that the world is flat?

And yes, I've argued with 'flat earthers'. They claim 'evidence' for their argument. Thus, I guess we need to determine what constitutes as 'evidence'?

again have you literally flown around the earth to see that it is round? Or do you have a type of faith or trust in other external and probably subjective evidences. Granted numerous subjective evidences is compelling and has convinced me that the earth is round, it is very difficult to prove so. This is in essence what empowers flat landers in general.

I certainly don't completely 'know' the 100's of fallacies off hand. However, when I look up this one, this is what I get:

Argument from Silence

Argument from Silence

argumentum e silentio

Description: Drawing a conclusion based on the silence of the opponent, when the opponent is refusing to give evidence for any reason.

Logical Form:

Person 1 claims X is true, then remains silent.

Person 2 then concludes that X must be true.

Example #1:

Jay: Dude, where are my car keys?

Bob: (says nothing)

Jay: I KNEW you took them!

Explanation: Refusal to share evidence is not necessarily evidence for or against the argument. Bob’s silence does not mean he took the keys. Perhaps he did, or perhaps he knows who did, or perhaps he saw a Tyrannosaurus eat them, or perhaps he just felt like not answering.

Example #2:

Morris: Oh youthful spirit, you have so much to learn. I know for a fact that there are multiple dimensions that beings occupy.

Clifton: How can you possibly *know* that for a fact?

Morris: (raises one eyebrow, stares deeply into the eyes of Clifton and says nothing)

Clifton: Wow. You convinced me!

Explanation: The reason this technique works so well, is because imagined reasons are often more persuasive than real reasons. If someone wants to be convinced, this technique works like a charm. However, to the critical thinker, this will not fly. Silence is not a valid substitute for reason or evidence.

Exception: Generally speaking, absence of evidence is not evidence; however, there are many cases where the reason evidence is being held back can be seen as evidence. In the above example, prompting Bob to share a reason for his silence could result in a statement from Bob that can be used as evidence.

References:

Bernecker, S., & Pritchard, D. (2011). The Routledge Companion to Epistemology. Routledge

yes so using falsification as a reason why something is true or not, is an argument from silence, see my last post.

Thank you for this conversation and I hope that this helps explain more about the logicality of Hell.

 

[cvanwey]

So I guess if you can prove that "might makes right" then it would be a legitimate argument. Secondly quoting a dictionary on the idea of might makes right is subjective as I could simply quote another one refuting it. So only in quoting all of them and their definitions, is one able to know what the phrase actually means. At least quoting the most official ones.

I stated, in post #93, that you may be contradicting yourself. Why? You stated you agreed with what I stated, up until the term "might makes right." In post #92, you stated, and I quote:

"In reading your post I do not see anything I disagree with other than "might makes right."

I then demonstrated that my initial response pretty much mirrors the later 'definition' I provided for the phrase. Hence, you agree with the definition I provided.

And again, if we wish to venture down this path of discussion, (i.e) "we cannot prove anything", then [you] can never loose. Hence, a reason you can always claim you are 'victorious'

You might want a refresher in the term 'moving the goalposts.'

Moving the Goalposts

Moving the Goalposts


(also known as: gravity game, raising the bar, argument by demanding impossible perfection [form of])

Description: Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to concede or accept the opponent’s argument.

Logical Form:

Issue A has been raised, and adequately answered.

Issue B is then raised, and adequately answered.

.....

Issue Z is then raised, and adequately answered.

(despite all issues adequately answered, the opponent refuses to conceded or accept the argument.

Example #1:

Ken: There has to be an objective morality because otherwise terms like “right” and “wrong” would be meaningless since they have no foundation for comparison.

Rob: The terms “right” and “wrong” are based on cultural norms, which do have a subjective foundation -- one that changes as the moral sphere of the culture changes. The term “heavy” does not have an objective standard, yet we have no problem using that term in a meaningful way. In fact, very few relational terms have any kind of objective foundation.

Ken: But without an objective morality, we would all be lost morally as a race.

Rob: Many would say that we are.

Ken: But how can you say that torturing children for fun is morally acceptable in any situation?

Rob: Personally, I wouldn’t, but you are implying that anything that is not objective must necessarily be seen in all possible ways. A feather may not be seen as “heavy” to anyone, but that doesn’t mean its “lightness” is still not relative to other objects.

Ken: But God is the standard of objective morality. Prove that wrong!

Rob: That I cannot do.

Explanation: Ken starts with a statement explaining why he thinks there has to be an objective morality -- a statement based on a reasonable argument that can be pursued with reason and logic. Rob adequately answers that objection, as indicated by Ken’s move away from that objection to a new objection. This pattern continues until we arrive at an impossible request. Despite all the objections being adequately answered, at no time does Ken concede any points or abandon the argument.

Example #2: Perhaps the most classic example of this fallacy is the argument for the existence of God. Due to the understanding of nature through science, many of the arguments that used to be used for God (or gods) were abandoned, only to be replaced with new ones, usually involving questions to which science has not definitively answered yet. The move from creationism to intelligent design is a prime example. Currently the origin of life is a popular argument for God (although a classic argument from ignorance), and an area where we very well may have a scientific answer in the next decade, at which time, the “origin of life” argument will fade away and be replaced by another, thus moving the figurative goalposts farther back as our understanding of the natural world increases.

Exception: This fallacy should not be confused with an argument or set of arguments, with multiple propositions inherent in the argument. The reason for the difference between this kind of argument and the moving the goalposts fallacy, is a subtle one, but indicated by a strong initial claim (“has to be”, “must”, “required for”, etc.) that gets answered and/or what appears to be ad hoc objections that follow eventually leading to an impossible request for proof.

References:

This a logical fallacy frequently used on the Internet. No academic sources could be found.

 

[createdtoworship]

I stated, in post #93, that you may be contradicting yourself. Why? You stated you agreed with what I stated, up until the term "might makes right." In post #92, you stated, and I quote:

"In reading your post I do not see anything I disagree with other than "might makes right."

I then demonstrated that my initial response pretty much mirrors the later 'definition' I provided for the phrase. Hence, you agree with the definition I provided.

And again, if we wish to venture down this path of discussion, (i.e) "we cannot prove anything", then [you] can never loose. Hence, a reason you can always claim you are 'victorious'

You might want a refresher in the term 'moving the goalposts.'

Moving the Goalposts

Moving the Goalposts


(also known as: gravity game, raising the bar, argument by demanding impossible perfection [form of])

Description: Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to concede or accept the opponent’s argument.

Logical Form:

Issue A has been raised, and adequately answered.

Issue B is then raised, and adequately answered.

.....

Issue Z is then raised, and adequately answered.

(despite all issues adequately answered, the opponent refuses to conceded or accept the argument.

Example #1:

Ken: There has to be an objective morality because otherwise terms like “right” and “wrong” would be meaningless since they have no foundation for comparison.

Rob: The terms “right” and “wrong” are based on cultural norms, which do have a subjective foundation -- one that changes as the moral sphere of the culture changes. The term “heavy” does not have an objective standard, yet we have no problem using that term in a meaningful way. In fact, very few relational terms have any kind of objective foundation.

Ken: But without an objective morality, we would all be lost morally as a race.

Rob: Many would say that we are.

Ken: But how can you say that torturing children for fun is morally acceptable in any situation?

Rob: Personally, I wouldn’t, but you are implying that anything that is not objective must necessarily be seen in all possible ways. A feather may not be seen as “heavy” to anyone, but that doesn’t mean its “lightness” is still not relative to other objects.

Ken: But God is the standard of objective morality. Prove that wrong!

Rob: That I cannot do.

Explanation: Ken starts with a statement explaining why he thinks there has to be an objective morality -- a statement based on a reasonable argument that can be pursued with reason and logic. Rob adequately answers that objection, as indicated by Ken’s move away from that objection to a new objection. This pattern continues until we arrive at an impossible request. Despite all the objections being adequately answered, at no time does Ken concede any points or abandon the argument.

Example #2: Perhaps the most classic example of this fallacy is the argument for the existence of God. Due to the understanding of nature through science, many of the arguments that used to be used for God (or gods) were abandoned, only to be replaced with new ones, usually involving questions to which science has not definitively answered yet. The move from creationism to intelligent design is a prime example. Currently the origin of life is a popular argument for God (although a classic argument from ignorance), and an area where we very well may have a scientific answer in the next decade, at which time, the “origin of life” argument will fade away and be replaced by another, thus moving the figurative goalposts farther back as our understanding of the natural world increases.

Exception: This fallacy should not be confused with an argument or set of arguments, with multiple propositions inherent in the argument. The reason for the difference between this kind of argument and the moving the goalposts fallacy, is a subtle one, but indicated by a strong initial claim (“has to be”, “must”, “required for”, etc.) that gets answered and/or what appears to be ad hoc objections that follow eventually leading to an impossible request for proof.

References:

This a logical fallacy frequently used on the Internet. No academic sources could be found.

I don't think this conversation is for me. I don't mind debating politely, but when it gets heated I have to exit. I apologize. I can see that you are frustrated as it comes out in your words. Words reveal what is in the heart. And I can tell you don't like what I represent or believe and it comes across as bitterness. However if you wish to debate further, then please edit your last post. I won't tell you how to edit it, that is up to you. Just the fighty behaviour that is coming across I cannot entertain. We are not here to fight but politely dialogue. One tactic I like to use is to adress the post not the poster. It's hard to do and i am not sure I have followed that entirely, and for that I am sorry. I know you wish to catch me in contradiction, and I am sure that some things I say contradict, I don't pretend by all means to have perfect speech. I agreed for the most part with your post, but I was just saying that my agreeing does not make it true, it is not proof of it. Neither is your disagreeing proof of anything, it's all about evidence. And we cannot really prove anything other than mathmatical formulas. It's not about me being right, I honestly don't think we can really prove anything we believe, be it science or religion. And I have the same faith that the earth is round that I have that Jesus walked the earth. I cannot prove either one. I have not actually flown around the earth and photographed it myself. So I cannot say for an absolute fact that the earth is round, I believe from photos that it is round. But I did not take the photos and photos can be faked, all though that would be millions of faked photos, for no apparent reason. But anyway. I am not being rude, I have been banned for a month already, so I cannot debate these types of debates because they are heated. Probably because I have a fighty personality too and two of us fighting don't do well, usually one will report another, and that will probably be me getting reported. And hence the reason I have been banned. So thank you for the debate. Feel free to post around on here with other posters. And thanks again.

 

[cvanwey]

I don't think this conversation is for me. I don't mind debating politely, but when it gets heated I have to exit.

Where have I not been polite? Just curious? I'm issuing counter points to your assertions. I'm even providing examples. That's all. I think you may instead be miffed that you lack sufficient rebuttal, and wish to bow out 'gracefully'? See blow...

I apologize. I can see that you are frustrated as it comes out in your words. Words reveal what is in the heart. And I can tell you don't like what I represent or believe and it comes across as bitterness.

Again, where do I present 'bitterness'? This arena is for >current< unbelievers to challenge the believer's faith. You issued a challenge, and asserted that the 'non-believer is not going to win this time.' See below....

However if you wish to debate further, then please edit your last post. I won't tell you how to edit it, that is up to you.

Asking your opponent to edit their responses, when they are merely issuing direct counter points to what you write, appears ridiculous. Please demonstrate where I have broken the approved policies of the forum rules. See below...

Just the fighty behaviour that is coming across I cannot entertain. We are not here to fight but politely dialogue. One tactic I like to use is to adress the post not the poster. It's hard to do and i am not sure I have followed that entirely, and for that I am sorry.

Then I find two errors, on your part here...

1. You have chosen the wrong category to engage. (i.e.)
"Christian Apologetics -
A forum for non-Christians to challenge the Christian faith, and for Christians to defend their faith."

2. Disagreements in politics and religion, even under the best of circumstances, can quickly escalate.

However, I have found this conversation, thus far, quite diplomatic. But as stated from the jump, we all have opinions.

I know you wish to catch me in contradiction, and I am sure that some things I say contradict, I don't pretend by all means to have perfect speech. I agreed for the most part with your post, but I was just saying that my agreeing does not make it true, it is not proof of it. Neither is your disagreeing proof of anything, it's all about evidence. And we cannot really prove anything other than mathmatical formulas.

Yes, you did contradict yourself. And that was all I attempted to demonstrate.

And again, if you wish to issue all further responses with, 'we really can't hardly prove anything, except maybe math', then I really question your purpose here; especially in light of the fact you asserted that 'atheists aren't going to win this time?'

It's not about me being right, I honestly don't think we can really prove anything we believe, be it science or religion.

And again, if you wish to issue all further responses with, 'we really can't hardly prove anything, except maybe math', then I really question your purpose here; especially in light of the fact you asserted that 'atheists aren't going to win this time?'

And I have the same faith that the earth is round that I have that Jesus walked the earth. I cannot prove either one.

Under normal circumstance, I might want to probe here. However, you have poisoned the well so severely, what would be the point? Meaning, I can be here and give you infinite 'evidence' for a specific position, and you could still furnish the exact same response (i.e.) 'I cannot prove either one, because it's not math.'

I have been banned for a month already, so I cannot debate these types of debates because they are heated. Probably because I have a fighty personality too and two of us fighting don't do well, usually one will report another, and that will probably be me getting reported. And hence the reason I have been banned. So thank you for the debate. Feel free to post around on here with other posters. And thanks again.

LOL. I have never reported anyone here. I'm a 'big boy'. I can handle the environment. If you can't, then I suggest maybe you find another arena to 'play' within

Peace

 

[Der Alte]

Let me understand your position. Do you believe it's just for a God to send babies to hell?

Do atheists ever read the Bible they are trying to destroy?

Romans 4:15
(15) Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 5:13
(13) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.​

 

[createdtoworship]

Where have I not been polite? Just curious? I'm issuing counter points to your assertions. I'm even providing examples. That's all. I think you may instead be miffed that you lack sufficient rebuttal, and wish to bow out 'gracefully'? See blow...



Again, where do I present 'bitterness'? This arena is for >current< unbelievers to challenge the believer's faith. You issued a challenge, and asserted that the 'non-believer is not going to win this time.' See below....



Asking your opponent to edit their responses, when they are merely issuing direct counter points to what you write, appears ridiculous. Please demonstrate where I have broken the approved policies of the forum rules. See below...



Then I find two errors, on your part here...

1. You have chosen the wrong category to engage. (i.e.)
"Christian Apologetics -
A forum for non-Christians to challenge the Christian faith, and for Christians to defend their faith."

2. Disagreements in politics and religion, even under the best of circumstances, can quickly escalate.

However, I have found this conversation, thus far, quite diplomatic. But as stated from the jump, we all have opinions.



Yes, you did contradict yourself. And that was all I attempted to demonstrate.

And again, if you wish to issue all further responses with, 'we really can't hardly prove anything, except maybe math', then I really question your purpose here; especially in light of the fact you asserted that 'atheists aren't going to win this time?'



And again, if you wish to issue all further responses with, 'we really can't hardly prove anything, except maybe math', then I really question your purpose here; especially in light of the fact you asserted that 'atheists aren't going to win this time?'



Under normal circumstance, I might want to probe here. However, you have poisoned the well so severely, what would be the point? Meaning, I can be here and give you infinite 'evidence' for a specific position, and you could still furnish the exact same response (i.e.) 'I cannot prove either one, because it's not math.'



LOL. I have never reported anyone here. I'm a 'big boy'. I can handle the environment. If you can't, then I suggest maybe you find another arena to 'play' within

Peace

the fact that you are fighting with me over the fact you are fighting, should reveal something to you about the attitude of your posts. I know you don't see it in yourself, and I probably don't see the fighty nature of my own posts. It's the way your posts sound. They sound very arrogant. I know you probably didn't mean it that way, but that is part of the problem. Things flow out that we didn't mean to say, usually when are angry. And It's the way you posted the fallacy, you didn't explain it....you simply posted it as a slap in someone's face. You didn't even question as to the fact that both your definition of it, and application of it could be in error. As for myself, I never claimed to know anything as fact, and realize that everything I believe could possibly be in error. Faith is trust. I trust the Bible I trust God, I can't prove those things, but most of science cannot be proven. I have loads of evidence, but at this point in this thread that would be off topic. For the posts that you have posted I don't see that openness in your posts. So I guess a dose of humility could do you well. It is very hard to reply to someone who is not open to the possibility of correction. But if I don't see a more polite exchange, I will not be able to continue in this discussion. I seem to remember blocking you for similar problems in the past. Just be honest that you may not be correct, use humility, and realize that not everything in life is solid fact. I used to try to trap people in their posts, and hunt them down and analyze every comment for fallacy. But I realized that is because I hated them. I didn't really like them. Would I do that same tactic to my wife? If my child came to me with a question would I trap them in fallacy, or contradiction? No. So I realized I was bitter and it was coming out in my posts. And I see that as well here today. I cannot prove hell. I believe Hell by faith. Even though there is no scientific law that contradicts it, in fact many view scientific laws can work with hell. Faith is still in operation even though there is evidence, that is what I am getting at. We use faith every day, in a host of ways, in fact it's normally how our brains work. When you put your leg in front of the other, you have faith that your brain will tell those muscles to move your leg forward, you trust that will happen and you push your center of weight over that leg, even before it has reached it's destination. Every thing we do is faith.

 

[cvanwey]

the fact that you are fighting with me over the fact you are fighting, should reveal something to you about the attitude of your posts. I know you don't see it in yourself, and I probably don't see the fighty nature of my own posts. It's the way your posts sound. They sound very arrogant. I know you probably didn't mean it that way, but that is part of the problem. Things flow out that we didn't mean to say, usually when are angry. And It's the way you posted the fallacy, you didn't explain it....you simply posted it as a slap in someone's face. You didn't even question as to the fact that both your definition of it, and application of it could be in error.

Thanks for the advice and opinions. Maybe you might want to try a different 'sand box?'

I seem to remember blocking you for similar problems in the past.

I seem to remember you blocking a few, whom were non-believers, when you posted in your thread 'argument for God's existence.' Not just me. I guess we all are arrogant, and not open to suggestion

Just be honest that you may not be correct, use humility, and realize that not everything in life is solid fact.

When did I ever claim 'absolute' truth? Not even scientists can claim as such, in spite of gravitational theory, cell theory, germ theory of disease, etc etc etc....

But to attempt to equivocate faith, as perfectly equal in an unfalsifiable claim, like hell, verses scientific theory, for instance, appears to present intellectually dishonesty, if you want (my) opinion. You appear to now be attempting to muddy the waters a bit.

(i.e.) My faith in unicorns is [equal] to my faith in the use of my car brakes at the next stop light.

I used to try to trap people in their posts, and hunt them down and analyze every comment for fallacy. But I realized that is because I hated them. I didn't really like them. Would I do that same tactic to my wife? If my child came to me with a question would I trap them in fallacy, or contradiction? No. So I realized I was bitter and it was coming out in my posts.

I'm glad to hear you don't do that to your wife and kids. I never did. Nor do I pose such inquiries to my friends or co-workers outside of here. I try to only pose such theological questions/responses, which have the potential of raising discord here, in the CF arena Specifically, in the arena designed for such debate.

I cannot prove hell. I believe Hell by faith. Even though there is no scientific law that contradicts it, in fact many view scientific laws can work with hell. Faith is still in operation even though there is evidence, that is what I am getting at. We use faith every day, in a host of ways, in fact it's normally how our brains work. When you put your leg in front of the other, you have faith that your brain will tell those muscles to move your leg forward, you trust that will happen and you push your center of weight over that leg, even before it has reached it's destination. Every thing we do is faith.

???? Please see above, regarding 'faith'.