On Hell and Forgiveness

[Amarok]

It doesn't need to "make sense" to you how God can be love. It is a hypothetical. In the Hypothetical, God is love, regardless of whether that makes logical sense to you or not. Are you declining to answer?

If it makes no sense their is no reason to answer

[Catholic_Lady]

It doesn't need to "make sense" to you how God can be love. It is a hypothetical. In the Hypothetical, God is love, regardless of whether that makes logical sense to you or not. Are you declining to answer?

If I cannot make sense of the hypothetical, I cannot answer how I would respond. In what sense is 'God' the same as 'love'? it clearly isn't in any way that agrees with ordinary language.

In your scenario, I would go for truth over love, facts over fulfillment. If those happens to be a deity, so be it.

Well, obviously if God appeared before you it would be true that He exists lol. I figured that was obvious.

That is too bad you won't answer. Next time someone on here complains that theists (apart from myself) never directly answer their hypotheticals, I'll be sure to mention none of them answer mine. Double standards and all that.

[robvalue]

"It's an extra life for Jack!"

"I wonder why those other guys didn't grab that extra life?"

"Yeah, it's almost as if they didn't see it."

"Just like with the happy onion and power ups. It's like only Jack can see them."

"Weird."

(This makes more sense to me than any ideas about afterlives. Just make sure to keep grabbing extra lives and you'll be okay.)

[Silver]

Next time someone on here complains that theists (apart from myself) never directly answer their hypotheticals, I'll be sure to mention none of them answer mine. Double standards and all that.

Are atheists offering hypotheticals or reality? Suspending belief for reality is considered rational whereas suspending disbelief for fantasy is just plain crazy.

[Amarok]

That is too bad you won't answer. Next time someone on here complains that theists (apart from myself) never directly answer their hypotheticals, I'll be sure to mention none of them answer mine. Double standards and all that.

Because our hypothetical make sense and no you don 't answer them . While yours don't .So why would anyone waste energy on a nonsensical hypothetical .Thus there is no double standard .

[Angrboda]

It is not willful ignorance on part of the atheist when there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of that for which the believer is making a positive claim of existence.

That reads like a polemic. I wouldn't be so certain. There are things that are evident about the world. People can reason from some of those observations that God exists. You may believe that that specific conclusion does not follow from particular observations, but saying flat out that there is "no evidence" inverts the relationship between evidence and the conclusions one could possibly draw from the evidence. As such it is an unfounded assertion. Let me show you the difference...

Step 1: There is something evident about the world.
Step 2: Some conclusion follows from what is evident.
Step 3: What is evident supports the conclusion.

versus

Step 1: No conclusions can be drawn from something evident about the world.

You lost me, Neo. Granted he's likely exaggerating or mistaken by saying that there's no evidence, but your reply seems to only further confuse matters.

[Amarok]

Love can be and often is both evil and tyrannical.  We like to think of love like a hallmark card..forgetting the terrible things we may do out of earnest love. The hypothetical is flawed on multiple grounds.  It depends on god not being the christian god, as well as a childish understanding of love - and even in all of that, theres no obvious reason that it would change a persons opinions on the subject of gods.

Indeed the idea that love or goodness is like water is absurd

[polymath257]

If I cannot make sense of the hypothetical, I cannot answer how I would respond. In what sense is 'God' the same as 'love'? it clearly isn't in any way that agrees with ordinary language.

In your scenario, I would go for truth over love, facts over fulfillment. If those happens to be a deity, so be it.

Well, obviously if God appeared before you it would be true that He exists lol. I figured that was obvious.

That is too bad you won't answer. Next time someone on here complains that theists (apart from myself) never directly answer their hypotheticals, I'll be sure to mention none of them answer mine. Double standards and all that.

I thought I *did* answer. I said very clearly that I would go for truth over love and facts over fulfillment.

I also said that I don't understand the question well enough to give an answer. I asked for clarification and didn't get it. In what way does it make sense to say that a deity 'is love'?

[Silver]

You lost me, Neo.  Granted he's likely exaggerating or mistaken by saying that there's no evidence, but your reply seems to only further confuse matters.

I understand only part of your confusion. "Personal" evidence, after all, is not evidence for anyone except the "personal" believer alone. Others who agree with any other "personal" evidence are merely adhering to group synergy and need for acceptance. I highly doubt everyone's "personal" experience is precisely the same, but rather more akin to upbringing and childhood indoctrination.

[Catholic_Lady]

Well, obviously if God appeared before you it would be true that He exists lol. I figured that was obvious.

That is too bad you won't answer. Next time someone on here complains that theists (apart from myself) never directly answer their hypotheticals, I'll be sure to mention none of them answer mine. Double standards and all that.

I thought I *did* answer. I said very clearly that I would go for truth over love and facts over fulfillment.

I guess I need further clarification, because I'm not sure what that implies. Does this mean you would accept or reject God in the scenario I presented?