Hell is a place. But must it necessarily be the only place? You're still failing to answer that basic question.
Absolutely an argument can evolve. However, this was a discussion on you saying something specific was a contradiction. Basically, that A contradicts B. If you then change what A is, that's not evolving the initial discussion. It takes the discussion somewhere else, and that's fine, but I can't dispute than A does not contradict B if A is constantly changing.
My statement was regarding the concepts used, not the argument itself. Again, you are arguing based on a false equivalency, saying that atheists asking "If God exists" is equivalent to you saying "If man were eternal, then...". That would only be equivalent if the "If" being asked is already being stipulated to by the opposing side. Atheists say "If God exists" because the opposition already agrees that God exists. Nobody opposing you agrees that man is eternal (or about any of your claims regarding a hypothetical eternal man), so you can't claim that your conjecture is equivalent to the atheist "If God exists" argument.
I absolutely can, since this is an argument of a moral composition. We can start using unicorns in replace of man if you wish.
...again, based on a false equivalency between life imprisonment and eternal damnation. We've already gone over this.
Did you read what I wrote? Any logical debate requires agreement on assumptions. "If God exists" is the basic assumption for the discussion; the discussion cannot take place without that agreed-upon parameter. "If man were eternal" was not an agreed-upon assumption, so it logically cannot be the basis for any argument. This is really basic stuff, Mags. If you can't understand this, then there's no hope of rational discourse.
so why is it ok for unicorns to punish and not god? No. No, I don't think you can use unicorns in place of man and realistically be making ANY claim that any atheist ever makes or believes.
Okay I understand... But my theoretical concept, is what I believe, to be the same. A finite world and infinite would be the same, as discussed on the concept of an atheist that doesn't believe life to be infinite. The value of life is exactly the same, regardless if it is finite or infinite
I stand corrected I stand corrected, we are below angles while in this life. I get the opposing point of view, I just find it contrary to every basic belief. I do not think we are meant to understand some things on this plane, and to be a man and blame God I find beyond arrogant. How can God not be perfect?
This statement--"A finite world and infinite would be the same" is a claim without a basis. The rules of logic dictate that in order to use any concept as a valid basis for an argument, then it either has to be agreed upon by both sides, or it has to be supported by arguments stemming from agreed-upon assumptions. You cannot rationally argue from the basis of "A finite world and infinite would be the same" unless you first support that claim. Because it is completely speculative (since a world with infinitely-living humans does not exist), you cannot logically support that claim.
The Atheist and conscious eternity is incompatible for the mass reasoning. But this same argument was used for Catholicism, whom believes that through purgatory, one eventually reaches Heaven. And since we are using our God as reference than the same applies. So the question had the same results in a Hitchens debate to a Catholic Bishop. And I would bet your left nut, they would still believe God is evil for punishing, even if it was finite.
I agree with you--which is why I told RR7 that to try to hold God to any standard is laughable. That minimization of God is essentially the basis for most atheists arguments against Him.
As I replied above. A Catholic believes hell is temporary, and through purgatory, man will be cleansed and eventually be with God. So now both punishments are the same. They are both finite. So then let's rephrase the question. Is God evil for punishing man for disobedience, by sending man to hell for let's say hypothetically for a 1,000 years, then being cleansed and reach Heaven?
Which was why I said your claim of contradiction was false; the two halves of your claim didn't match, and the adjustment necessary to make them match was incompatible with that portion of your claim. It just doesn't work the way you framed it. That might be a different argument, but not the one I'm undertaking, and not one I've seen any in here make. In fact, I would venture to say that most atheists would be much more accepting of a theology that permitted bodily non-believers to earn their way to salvation once confronted with the undeniable reality of God. But then again, that would be conjecture on my part, and I have no interest in engaging in such.
And as I said on the other thread, I believe that God has paid the ultimate price, so that man does not need works to reach Heaven. And that "Lake of Fire" is the cleansing portion of the non-believer to be washed by fire so that they can reach Heaven.
Doh!!!!!!!!! That's the start of the argument! Did you not read that RR7 actually admitted this?!?!?!
