On Hell and Forgiveness

[Silver]

I'm not limiting their evidence to personal evidence or religious experience alone.  I think their evidence is crap, but to say they have none is a distortion, in my opinion.

Convolution, got it.

[polymath257]

To be evidence  concerning a proposition (like 'God exists'), the observation has to change the probability of the proposition being true. It *isn't* simply that the observation is consistent with the proposition (if the negation is also consistent, for example). I have yet to see one piece of information that changes the probability that the statement 'God exists' is true in a positive direction. So I deny that Step 2 applies in the case you want to apply it to.

Hypothetically speaking, would God raising someone from the dead after, say, oh, I don't know, a public crucifixion qualify as a "piece of information that changes the probability that the statement 'God exists' is true in a positive direction?" Asking for a friend.

Let's change this question slightly.


Would writings about such an event many decades after that event, of uncertain authorship, from a superstitious society, used for political benefit, with differing accounts by different authors with the story growing over time, be considered enough evidence to say such an event occurred?

If the event happened in public view, was recorded with modern equipment, where the individual in question canbe shown to be dead unquestionably, and then was alive later, then there would be enough evidence to say that we need to investigate this phenomenon further to understand what happened. Would it be evidence for a deity? No.

[Angrboda]

Asking for a friend.

lol

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not limiting their evidence to personal evidence or religious experience alone.  I think their evidence is crap, but to say they have none is a distortion, in my opinion.

Convolution, got it.

Anecdote =/= evidence.  It's easy to see why a person offering the anecdote would think it does, and it's just as clear why the person listening would be justified in accepting it as anecdote, and disregarding it as evidence.

For what it's worth, I don't think that personal experiences of god are all that common - so much as the language of personal experiences (and personal relationships) is churchspeak for piety.

[polymath257]

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'?

In simple terms, it means love only exists because God exists. Being loving is inherent to God's very nature and core. And so the only reason love exists in the first place is because God exists and so it is through Him/because of Him that love exists at all. It also means there is nothing about God that is unloving. He is pure good.

I know you don't believe that, but that is why it is a hypothetical.

---

I don't know. Is God 'truth' as well as being 'love'? is there a difference (I think there is)?

Yes, He is truth.

Well, then, I would accept truth.

[Amarok]

In simple terms, it means love only exists because God exists. Being loving is inherent to God's very nature and core. And so the only reason love exists in the first place is because God exists and so it is through Him/because of Him that love exists at all. It also means there is nothing about God that is unloving. He is pure good. 

I know you don't believe that, but that is why it is a hypothetical.

To which perfectly within his right reject as it makes no sense along with the rest of the senerio.

[robvalue]

It just shows what a poorly defined word "God" is. By giving it multiple unrelated meanings, the theist can fit it to different scenarios and objections.

Need to prove it exists? No problem, definition 1 states that God is a styrofoam cup. Are you saying you don't believe in styrofoam cups?

Need to show it's not evil? No problem, definition 3 states that God is good.

Need to know why it can do a load of magic stuff? No problem, definition 7 states that it's got like loads of powers.

Need to prove it exists again? No problem, definition 12a states that it exists, therefor it exists.

[Silver]

Convolution, got it.

Anecdote =/= evidence.  It's easy to see why a person offering the anecdote would think it does, and it's just as clear why the person listening would be justified in accepting it as anecdote, and disregarding it as evidence.

For what it's worth, I don't think that personal experiences of god are all that common - so much as the language of personal experiences (and personal relationships) is churchspeak for piety.

For whom are you advocating with this?  Give me something.

[Amarok]

In simple terms, it means love only exists because God exists. Being loving is inherent to God's very nature and core. And so the only reason love exists in the first place is because God exists and so it is through Him/because of Him that love exists at all. It also means there is nothing about God that is unloving. He is pure good.

I know you don't believe that, but that is why it is a hypothetical.

---

Yes, He is truth.

Well, then, I would accept truth.

But of course truth does not mean good

[The Grand Nudger]

"It's god that apples are red"  "To deny that apples are red is to deny god".

IDK, seems wonky.