Alright. Now, with that in mind, here are some significant differences between your atheists/incarceration theists/damnation equivalency: Duration-life imprisonment is finite; when the person dies, it ends. Damnation is eternal; it never ends. The fact that the atheist views life imprisonment as the entirety of remaining existence does not negate the fact that there is a point of finality that does not exist with eternity in hell. Purpose--life imprisonment is intended to protect the remainder of the populace from the presence of the offender. Damnation is not intended to protect anyone from the sinner. Opportunities--Despite life incarceration, an offender has opportunity to better oneself, and even contribute to society. I think it is safe to say that the same is unavailable to the residents of Hades. Based on the above, I would refute your claim of contradiction, because the basis for your claim of contradiction is clearly a false equivalency.
I disagree with hell protecting heaven from sinners. Do you believe that Sin and Heaven can co-exist? And on the same concept, if man did live eternal without God, life in prison would equal the same punishment
Actually it does... Because we are being theoretical here. You don't believe in God, yet we are using him theoretically. So theoretically, if we lived eternal; man would definitely put man behind bars for eternity.
Actually, Psalm 8:5 and Hebrews 2:7 say that man was made lower than the angels, not above. For the atheist, recall that the discussion here is not whether or not God exists, but whether God would be responsible for anyone's eventual condemnation if God exists. I hear what you're saying about man choosing his fate. We all have the ability to turn to God, and His invisible attributes have been made visible through His creation such that all are without excuse (Rom 1:20). But you also have to understand the opposing perspective that we would not need salvation if we hadn't been created to need salvation.
By the same token, must there necessarily be no other option between heaven and A LAKE OF FIRE AND ETERNAL SUFFERING AND WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH? Could God not have chosen to keep the sinful souls out of heaven without subjecting them never-ending torment?
but that completely alters the original claim. As Platypus pointed out with his end of life versus eternity. So now the punishment is different than the original contradiction.
That's conjecture. Life imprisonment is based on the concept of finite existence. You can't reliably claim what incarceration would involve if man were eternal.
Well I have an entire thread on why I don't believe God is sending anyone to Hell. That's an entirely different thread. But I am using the "Hell Fire And Brimestone" Christian Belief though
Then that's weird, because Atheists use an argument in conjecture then. They don't believe in God, but would happily use the concept of God existing to debate. The rules can change for them?
Completely different, because atheists are using concepts presented by others, rather than generating their own.
You can change the rules and have that debate for sure. It just doesn't fit into your contradiction claim. You can argue hypothetical bible god versus current man, or, can argue hypothetical eternal man without god versus hypothetical bible god. It's just, they're two different things. Moving the goal line in the middle of the debate doesn't add to the debate.
Understood. But your implication was that said Hell Fire protects heaven from sinners, because heaven can't abide sin. The underlying assumption behind that implication is that those are the only possibilities. I'm questioning that underlying assumption. Care to address that?
No the argument is on a theoretical punishment to an atheist. Both qualify... One is man doing the punishment and the other God. Both punished man are eternal theoretically because it would make no difference to man to send someone to an eternal prison or a natural one
Hell is a place for Sin and the Devil. And Heaven must be free from sin because it is perfect. So in order to keep Heaven perfect, there must be a place for Sin.
wrong. He's stating that atheists are taking the concept of god as presented to them. So in your contradiction thought, concept of god versus reality. Atheists aren't creating god in that scenario, or altering(intentionall anyways) what he says or does. But you are changing man to living eternally.
As a logical thinker, then anything is possible. That's why you are agnostic. Changing the rules to fit your argument is not only an atheist tool. We are debating a concept, not reality right?
But you're changing the concept to try to better fit your conclusion. Which, again, makes it an entirely different discussion.
An argument can absolutely evolve can't it? This is a theoretical argument. As some atheists like to use the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Unicorns as examples. I do believe that you are thinking too much on the reality.
