There is no defence for Christianity here. (see Bradley v. Craig, from which I selectively quote below):
Proposition 1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, just, righteous, merciful, and loving.
Proposition 2. God will torture the majority of humans eternally in hell for the sin of unbelief, whether or not they have heard Jesus' name.
These would lead one to believe god does not exist. Apologists try to reconcile this with:
Proposition 3. God has actualized a world containing an optimal balance between saved and unsaved.
Proposition 4. There is no possible world inhabited by creatures with free will in which all persons freely receive Christ.
In other words we don't know gods master plan and to save the most people he can, most of us get 'hot needles in eyes etc'.
But this is easily dismissed by:
Proposition 5. There is a possible a world which is inhabited by creatures with free will, all of whom freely receive god
Apparently god has done this before in eden, post flood earth and heaven. So god could do it, but doesn't bother to
Furthermore. Proposition 3 is flawed because as an ominpotent being, the proeprties of god described below are inconsistent
P1. A perfectly good being would not torture anyone for any period whatever, however brief.
P2. A just being wouldn't punish someone eternally for the sins committed during a brief lifetime but would proportion the punishment to the offense.
P3. A righteous being would not punish someone eternally for unavoidable lack of belief.
P4. A merciful being would not be eternally unforgiving to those who have offended it.
P5. A loving being would not bring about and perpetuate the suffering of those that it loves.
Proposition 1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, just, righteous, merciful, and loving.
Proposition 2. God will torture the majority of humans eternally in hell for the sin of unbelief, whether or not they have heard Jesus' name.
These would lead one to believe god does not exist. Apologists try to reconcile this with:
Proposition 3. God has actualized a world containing an optimal balance between saved and unsaved.
Proposition 4. There is no possible world inhabited by creatures with free will in which all persons freely receive Christ.
In other words we don't know gods master plan and to save the most people he can, most of us get 'hot needles in eyes etc'.
But this is easily dismissed by:
Proposition 5. There is a possible a world which is inhabited by creatures with free will, all of whom freely receive god
Apparently god has done this before in eden, post flood earth and heaven. So god could do it, but doesn't bother to
Furthermore. Proposition 3 is flawed because as an ominpotent being, the proeprties of god described below are inconsistent
P1. A perfectly good being would not torture anyone for any period whatever, however brief.
P2. A just being wouldn't punish someone eternally for the sins committed during a brief lifetime but would proportion the punishment to the offense.
P3. A righteous being would not punish someone eternally for unavoidable lack of belief.
P4. A merciful being would not be eternally unforgiving to those who have offended it.
P5. A loving being would not bring about and perpetuate the suffering of those that it loves.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
