A new understanding to an old premise

[Bad Writer]

Your assumptions are what drive your understanding of heaven and hell. So, if you have some evidence to show how you know that these places are not of this reality,

I have the words of Christ, is that enough?

I have the words of Captain James T. Kirk. Is that enough?

then perhaps the Mormons also have similar evidence to support their own doctrine that Heaven is actually a Solar System where God lives and that Hell is located on Earth.

Any 'proof' they would provide would contradict Christ's own proclaimation.

That's the funny thing here, and I'm glad you brought up this point. You see, the Mormons don't actually have any proof for this bit of doctrine. At the same time, neither do the Christians for theirs.

How do you know that your assumption is right, and that the Mormons' assumptions are wrong?

My 'assumption' is only right if one chooses to worship the God of the bible. I do not care to worship any other 'gods.' Not even the Mormon one.

Why not? The process for believing in any other gods is exactly the same. Why the Christian god and not Odin?

I did not assume anything. I ASKED how did you know you did not ask God, then proceed to give you a reason why you would not remember asking.

Why do I need proof for your claim? It's your claim, you need to back it up. You're asking for something I don't even need to give, which means you, like many of the other Christians here, don't understand the Philosophical nor the Legal definition of "Burden of Proof". Before we move on, you need to look that up.

If you're equating earth to a prison, and if, as you assert, we are put here by god, then we are condemned to this existence. If a person is in prison, then we can only assume that he/she committed some crime. "Criminal" may have been uttered by me, but it was a word unspoken by you. You just projected your own assertion onto the critic (me), and that is a fallacy of ignorance.

Maybe you should take the time to read the part you previously ignored. Your argument and mislabled fallacy falls apart there.

Instead of just telling me that I ignored something, perhaps you should enlighten me, and I'll have more reason to heed your words. Also, in light of what I said, the fallacy is not mislabled. Stop with the bullshit and the stall tactics because you have a lot here to answer to.