Why Earth?

[TheProcess]

All of your logic is not valid because it begins with a supposed fact--that being that the Bible is the word of God. There is not a shred of evidence that this is true. Your religion itself says that it requires "faith" to believe this.

You cannot argue by using legitimate logic if you start with a supposed fact. For example, if I say:

"Eating Wheaties will make you strong enough to lift up a car."

"You don't eat Wheaties".

Conclusion:

"You won't be able to lift up a car"

This is not valid logic. It is based on a supposed fact.

This is not valid logic because "eating Wheaties" may not be the ONLY WAY to get strong enough to lift up a car. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

Anyway, the point you are making is legit but I believe you are using the wrong terms. An argument can be logically valid, and this has nothing to do with the truth/falsity of the premises.

[TheProcess]

God does not "send" anyone to hell or heaven. If God had not provided a way for you to avoid it, you could challenge his concept of love. The fact that He loves you enough to warn you about it and point out the way to avoid speaks volumes about His love.

We live in a world with a number of different religions. Some of these religions claim to have divine revelation. In Hinduism, which claims to have revelation, there is no concept of an eternal hell but instead you have the idea of karma and rebirth. Judaism claims to possess revelation, and obviously it doesn't agree with the Christian view of salvation. Islam claims that the Quran is divine revelation, and according to the Quran if you believe Jesus is God then you will burn in hell for idolatry. If God is offering us salvation through Jesus then how would we know? How can we tell what God has said and what he hasn't said?

[sylvan3]

I am exactly working from the Law of Non-Contradiction. God cannot be perfect and imperfect at the same time. He created the world and he is perfect. The world is not perfect. He is a contradiction because perfect does not create imperfect. It's that simple. It couldn't be more clear. It is the same as raining and not raining at the same time. You are the one who is obfuscating.

What you do is go to great lengths to claim that I "don't know". You oppugn and even use condescension that is without merit.

Have a nice day.

(Yawn)

[Copper Scroll]

How can the following be logically consistent with a perfect God?

Genesis 6:6 "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

How could a perfect deity be unhappy with his creation?

He was happy with His creation, at least when He created it. But He made man free, and man freely went astray and ruined himself.

This perfect/imperfect dichotomy is causing trouble not because the idea of a perfect God is incomprehensible for us... but because the idea of perfection itself is incomprehensible for us. You say a perfect creator would not create something imperfect. Another person might say a perfect being could not exist in an imperfect world. Another person might say a perfect being cannot exist in the first place because nothing that exists is perfect. Each and every person in the world could be walking around with different concepts of what is perfect and what a perfect thing or person can or cannot be... can do or cannot do... etc. But these are all rules that admittedly imperfect beings come up with. How can an imperfect mind define perfection truly?

[sylvan3]

I am exactly working from the Law of Non-Contradiction. God cannot be perfect and imperfect at the same time. He created the world and he is perfect. The world is not perfect. He is a contradiction because perfect does not create imperfect. It's that simple. It couldn't be more clear. It is the same as raining and not raining at the same time. You are the one who is obfuscating.

What you do is go to great lengths to claim that I "don't know". You oppugn and even use condescension that is without merit.

Have a nice day.

(Yawn)

[sylvan3]

All of your logic is not valid because it begins with a supposed fact--that being that the Bible is the word of God. There is not a shred of evidence that this is true. Your religion itself says that it requires "faith" to believe this.

You cannot argue by using legitimate logic if you start with a supposed fact. For example, if I say:

"Eating Wheaties will make you strong enough to lift up a car."

"You don't eat Wheaties".

Conclusion:

"You won't be able to lift up a car"

This is not valid logic. It is based on a supposed fact.

This is not valid logic because "eating Wheaties" may not be the ONLY WAY to get strong enough to lift up a car. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

Anyway, the point you are making is legit but I believe you are using the wrong terms. An argument can be logically valid, and this has nothing to do with the truth/falsity of the premises.

Let it read:

"You won't be able to lift up a car because of eating Wheaties".

Also,

"False premises do not lead to valid conclusions".

Hopefully, that corrects some errors. If not, let me know.

Thanks.

[sylvan3]

A perfect deity who is unhappy with his creation is illogical and nonsensical. It is not faulty reasoning to make that conclusion. It is basic objectivity.

Of course it is illogical reasoning on your part and it renders your response nonsensical. Read classical atheism - it gave up this type of illogical reasoning long ago. Are you also a member of the Flat Earth Society? You need to update your repertoire mate

[Copper Scroll]

A perfect deity who is unhappy with his creation is illogical and nonsensical. It is not faulty reasoning to make that conclusion. It is basic objectivity.

He was happy with His creation, at least when He created it. But He made man free, and man freely went astray and ruined himself.

This perfect/imperfect dichotomy is causing trouble not because the idea of a perfect God is incomprehensible for us... but because the idea of perfection itself is incomprehensible for us. You say a perfect creator would not create something imperfect. Another person might say a perfect being could not exist in an imperfect world. Another person might say a perfect being cannot exist in the first place because nothing that exists is perfect. Each and every person in the world could be walking around with different concepts of what is perfect and what a perfect thing or person can or cannot be... can do or cannot do... etc. But these are all rules that admittedly imperfect beings come up with. How can an imperfect mind define perfection truly?

[sylvan3]

A perfect deity who is unhappy with his creation is illogical and nonsensical. It is not faulty reasoning to make that conclusion. It is basic objectivity.

Of course it is illogical reasoning on your part and it renders your response nonsensical. Read classical atheism - it gave up this type of illogical reasoning long ago. Are you also a member of the Flat Earth Society? You need to update your repertoire mate

[Guest shiloh357]

Your accusations are extremely applicable to you. It is you who has not provided the evidence.

We don't have the burden of proof. You are the one making the accusations. You are the one accusing the Bible of being inaccurate, or that the existence of God is delusional or some other similar remark. Yet, in your stay here, you have not demonstrated why. You have provided no evidence to back up your assertions. From a legal perspective, you are the plaintiff, and as such the burden of proof upon you. You have to prove that your charge/complaint has evidentiary merit, or it can simply be dismissed. The Bible does not have to prove itself. It is those who charge the Bible with fault and fallacies that must demonstrate that such fallacies exist.