Who goes to hell - as far as those pious Bible Christians are concerned?

[GrandizerII]

At work.


But you did post;

".... But considering that most of the world is theistic I'd say he's succeeding....."

Which, to my reading comprehension, suggests the interpretation of "Because a lot of people believe, therefore..."

Again, I'm happy to be corrected upon your actual meaning in relation to what you're typing.

Cheers.

But why did you read that as me giving an argument for God's existence when I never said that I was offering such an argument?

Perhaps it will help if I go back and show you why I said what I said and what it actually means:

I don't think God actually cares that much whether people are convinced or not

Note that here I'm saying that I don't think God actually cares *that much* whether people are convinced that he exists. The *not that much* implies that God must care to *some* degree about that. Now let's continue.

but considering that most of the world is theistic I'd say he's succeeding anyway even when it's not even his priority

So, hopefully now it's clear that I'm saying that the fact that God cares to *some* degree, however little, that people are convinced that he exists is evidenced by the fact that people are *overall* becoming convinced.

Hopefully it's clear that this is an argument for the fact that *because* God exists the fact that people are overall becoming convinced that he exists is evidence that God is succeeding at convincing people.

So, to lay it out more clearly here is what the argument is:

Premise 1: If God exists then he must to *some* degree, however small, care about whether people believe in him or not.

Premise 2: If most people in the world believe in God then God is succeeding at convincing them that he exists.

Premise 3: Most people *do* believe in God.

Conclusion: Therefore God is succeeding at convincing them that he exists.

Note that the conclusion is *not* "therefore God exists" which is why I'm *not* saying that the fact people believe in him means that he exists. In fact, my whole argument already assumes that he exists. My argument is that *if* he exists *and* he cares to some degree whether people are convinced in his existence or not *then* the fact that most people are convinced is evidence that he's succeeding at what he to some degree wants: people to believe in him. Do you see what I was saying now?

Please let me know if writing the argument out like I did above, with premises and conclusion, helped or not. If it helped then I will do it more often.

What did I miss earlier? Premise 1 seems false to me. And how does accepting this premise as true make you a deist exactly?