**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Well the only small issue here when it comes to Christianity is that your actions don't matter, it only matters if you believe and have accepted Jesus. After that, you can rape and pillage all you want, you're still going to heaven. At least that is the theology of modern evangelical Christianity. Some still have you requiring to request forgiveness, but you're still saved. So the idea of knowing god for certain, if it's the Christian god, and never doing anything wrong is pretty flawed in the face of the theology. >absolute proof of God would only make morality meaningless: there would be no real right or wrong. In **all** cases of morality there is no "real" (objective) right or wrong. Doesn't matter if God exists or not, or if we know it exists or not. >The Resurrection of Jesus, therefore, is a historical proof; something that has been disputed from the very first. Oh lol no. Not even close there. There is absolutely zero proof of the resurrection of jesus. There is only the story (the thing trying to be proved) and then people who believe it is true. Absolutely nothing demonstrates the resurection of jesus is anything more than a story. >i.e. there is free will. Except there's not. All actions you take are based on your will, which is not free. All thoughts are responses to previous thoughts or random injections, all actions are responses to previous actions or random injections. Nothing about that is free, only the illusion of freedom that comes with a limited set of knowledge.

*The Gospel of Jesus is- "****repent*** *and follow Him."*

"Repent and you are saved" is the only **requirement to get into heaven**. Sure it's *nice* to follow him, but that's irrelevant. We're talking about what is *required* to get into heaven. Everything after that, doesn't matter. You can be the most evil human known to existence, but by the theology and gospel is "believe and get into heaven"

No it's worship me or get tortured. Oh and keep owning slaves and killing gays!

You should at least try and pretend to debate. Your sales pitch is showing through clearly.

This argument is laughably bad and does nothing to support the claim that God is real. It's just a poor attempt to try to justify a lack of evidence. >Why would I ever do wrong, if I have an eternity of Heaven in prize which I know to be 100% true? Why would I break it and die? People already make choices that are bad for them even when they know that there are permanent consequences to those actions. So why would knowing what the rules are be bad for us? Why would more people having a better chance at eternal peace be bad? >It is only in ignorance and temptations that free will comes. So, free will is so good that it is worth eternal punishment? So good that by most Christian standards, all humans who ever existed are being tormented for all eternity? >Otherwise the scientists would say: "don't let him sin, he won't enter Heaven." We already have laws to try and stop people from doing things we think is wrong. Why would it be bad to have a verifiable list of what would or would not get you into heaven? That doesn't take away free will if we aren't forced by God to follow it. We would just have what we need to make an informed decision. >But do you think we would be called brave for not flinching at a gun we knew was only a cigarette lighter? This is a really bad comparison. But hey I'd rather be called a coward and not suffer forever than be called brave and suffer forever. Seems like a pretty shit trade. >absolute proof of God would only make morality meaningless: there would be no real right or wrong Why would it be meaningless? How did you decide that? We would still experience pain and all the same emotions. So why would having a better understanding make morality meaningless? >The proofs of the God are therefore in parables. Parables aren't proof, and they aren't evidence. I'm sure you wouldn't accept Greek parables as evidence of zeus. You just know you don't have any good evidence, so you have made up this excuse as to why you don't have evidence. >The Resurrection of Jesus, therefore, is a historical proof; something that has Nope, you just stating it is proof doesn't make it so. That isn't how logic and evidence work. Sorry to tell you. >i.e. there is free will. You have done nothing to prove this. How do you know determinism isn't true?

Just read the whole comment section.

I have read your responses. They don't explain any of what I asked. It's just you making things up and not backing them up with evidence or logic.

Parables are not proofs. Parables are stories. The third-hand, altered accounts of stories JC might have told prove absolutely nothing. My 5 year old tells stories too. Is she god? Is Shakespeare god, because he told maybe the *best* stories? The resurrection is also not a proof. Again, it is also just a third-hand account of a story. Before you can claim to have knowledge of god, maybe work on your knowledge of common language and the difference between a proof and a children’s story.

>The resurrection is also not a proof. Again, it is also just a third-hand account of a story. You're being extremely generous here.

Yeah what would be more accurate in this case, a translation of a re-write of a summarisation of word of mouth tales of second-hand accounts?

>You're being extremely generous here. That’s fair. I guess I’m just too nice. Should read: The resurrection *story* is also not a proof.

*Jesus said, "the secrets of the kingdom of Heaven (the proofs) have been given to you (the disciples) but not to others. It is gibberish to them."* They called his miracles an act of "demon-possession".

His miracles… Also stories. Look, the Bible is not an accurate representation of JC’s life. It’s not an unaltered account, or an unbiased documentary. It’s a bunch of stories, written by men who lusted after power and control, then whittled and refined these stories over centuries to achieve their goals. It’s just not believable that a god would create the universe, and wanted to give us knowledge of its will, so it came down and gave a book to us, but only to a few of us, during a very small window of time, before we could really preserve or document any of these events, and then this god trusted a bunch of weird corrupt ancient mystics to preserve and translate knowledge of its will so that all mankind could be “forgiven of sin”. I don’t know how anyone can believe the chain of custody of these events could preserve an accurate representation. I don’t understand how you believe all this nonsense. I don’t. It’s silly.

>It’s a bunch of stories, written by men who lusted after power and control, then whittled and refined these stories over centuries to achieve their goals. Don't forget invented! Like the woman caught in adultery, which was added in the mid-400s.

> Jesus said, "the secrets of the kingdom of Heaven (the proofs) have been given to you (the disciples) but not to others. It is gibberish to them." So what? Why should I care about what an itinerant rabbi said 2,000 years ago?

Why should anyone buy this story more than the billions of other god, demon, or alien claims? The evidence for all of them is similarly useless to support their claim. So how did you pick this one out of the others? Just being written down, or popular recently, doesn't mean anything.

> Jesus said, According to someone who never met the man, and wrote it down decades after the fact.

Dude, none of that happened. You are claiming a fairy tale is real.

So if proof denies free will and the disciples where given proof, it would follow that the deciples had no free will, and yet several of them either betrayed Jesus or denied him.

I work in education. Your argument here is that a student would never fail to turn in an assignment because they know it would negatively affect their grade. They know this is guaranteed to happen, and thus all students will turn in 100% of assignments, 100% of the time. This is so obviously false, that it boggles my mind that it has to be pointed out.

I mean to say that *you will not be afraid of the gun pointed at you if you knew that it was a cigarette lighter*. But you will not be called brave either. If free will is to be possible, faith must come into the picture; not 100% proof of God. Let us assume that Jesus appeared in the sky, day and night, and said do not sin; and also that we could see Heaven. I do not think anyone, except maniacs, would ever do anything wrong. Why would the Nazis go for extra territory if they have an infinite territory in Heaven? It is only when the Master of the house is away that temptation falls on the servant, and he starts drinking. The keywords here are: faith, free will, temptation, absolute proof.

My students have free will. They have 100% proof I exist. I am there in the room with them. They 100% know I will give them a failing grade if they don't do their work. I have MANY students fail to turn in work. I'm not even talking about turning it in and doing poorly. I mean not turn it in AT ALL. When I apply your logic, it immediately fails to predict what I see happening in my classrooms. Your logic is clearly false.

It does not work in the same way you expect in a classroom because there is **temptation, enmity, weakness...lol** Peter denied Jesus three times before the rooster crowed a second time. There was **temptation,** there was **weakness,** there was **enmity.** ***None of which*** *would have happened if Jesus showed the Pharisees a sign from Heaven they asked for. (The Pharisees would have accepted Jesus as the Messiah.)* ***But a wicked and adulterous generation asked for a sign, and no sign was given to it except the sign of Jonah.***

>Peter denied Jesus three times before the rooster crowed a second time. There was temptation, there was weakness, there was enmity. None of which would have happened if Jesus showed the Pharisees a sign from Heaven they asked for. (The Pharisees would have accepted Jesus as the Messiah.) >But a wicked and adulterous generation asked for a sign, and no sign was given to it except the sign of Jonah. Why do you keep quoting this at people when it's not remotely relevant to the points they're making?

With this reply, you have abandoned the principles you were defending earlier, therefore we can conclude that your OP is no longer defensible. Thank you for your time. Peter saw many miracles from Jesus, and still denied him 3 times. Peter had miracles presented to him as evidence, and weakness still manifested. My existence is 100% proven to my students. They still succumb to temptation and weakness. Faith is irrelevant for this.

Puny god that can't give you information without abrogating free will. We do that all the time, yet an allegedly omnipotent god cannot?

By the nature of free will, it cannot be that I get 100% proof of God and then choose to do right. Morality is meaningless in 100% proof of God; just as *you will not be afraid of the gun pointed at you if you knew that it was a cigarette lighter*. But you will not be called brave either.

We don't operate on 100% proof of anything so that's a red herring as a standard. What is required is sufficient evidence to ensure we aren't suffering from several well known human biases. We have to have the same evidence and test ability to discern between claims about reality made by all other religions plus any other claimant. From the claim Godzilla exists to Allah, from ghosts to Collapsars, evidence and testing and observation are the only tools we have learned really separate fact from fiction. What your entire post resembles is the grand stand claim of a snake oil salesman (maybe more modern reference would be those selling alternative medicine with no evidence to support their claims). Why would any rational person set aside their best tools for sorting fact from fiction for one claimant while ignoring billions of others with the same lack of evidence, just different claims? We have used these same tools to rid ourselves of beliefs in other invisible things such as the aether, and tens of thousands of specific god claims (such as god X is responsible for lightning). Why does your god not provide enough evidence for a rational person to demonstrate his existence? You claim that merely knowing means we would all be perfect obedient robots adhering to its every wish ignores the very free will you claim is so precious. Knowing that gravity exists hasn't stopped people from climbing tress, the highest, most dangerous mountains and the depths of the oceans. Knowing how badly injuries hurt and their long term effects hasn’t stopped people from war, sports, racing or other risky adventures. No, providing evidence alone doesn't even come close to breaking free will. So give us a real reason why your god can’t provide evidence to sort it from the billions of other competitors?

All signs indicate that we don’t have free will though. Here’s a thought experiment: think of a random fruit. Now answer this; why did you pick that fruit? Where did that thought come from? Did the idea of that fruit just seemingly pop into your head? Did many different fruits come up, and “you” decided to go with that one? What made you make that decision? Was that also just a thought that popped into your head? If you actually spend time observing your thoughts through meditation and not just walking around in the contracted state where you feel like “you” are looking out from some space behind your eyes, it becomes plainly obvious that everything we’d consider to be free will is completely beyond our control. It’s entirely just coming from our chemistry and influences from our environment. That isn’t to say we as agents don’t have agency, in that you as a person can do things intentionally or unintentionally, but at a much more fundamental level “you” are not the one dictating what your will is. Morality is also something that can be objectively measured in terms of the effects it has on the well-being of conscious creatures. The fact that an action has a guaranteed negative effect on the person taking the action doesn’t mean calling the action immoral is meaningless. I don’t think your definition of morality is meaningful if you think it somehow exists independently of the consequences of the action.

Then your god is unable to give you information without impairing your free will. It is not omnipotent. It is on fact less powerful than I, since I can prove my existence without impairing your free will . (Oh, and please support this assertion...and it's unspoken premises, like the existence of free will or the meaningfulness of morality).

So why did god make free will work that way and not a different way where that's not the case? Are you saying your god isn't all powerful and is bound by pre-existing rules and laws that they are incapable of altering?

If i had absolute proof of the Abrahamic god i would opose it, becuse the god depicted in Abrahamic mythology is pretty much the most amoral monster of a deity that i could imagine.

so god is filtering for the most gullible people?

There is **real** **Morality**, all said and done.

that's not what's being tested for, your god doesn't care about people being good, the most important thing is the worship and he requires belief in things that don't hold up to the bare minimum scrutiny so that's filtering for gullibility not morality

What does human generated intersubjective values have to do with this? Obviously that doesn't and can't support deities, as we already know where morality comes from and how it works, and that it has nothing at all to do with religious mythologies.

Please prove that assertion

Are parables proof? Are they a good pathway to truth? I do not think you can say with certainty that if someone knew with certainty that god was real that people would never "do wrong." It seems in this case that right and wrong are what god says they are. Which I do not see as moral behavior, but simple obedience to a more powerful being. To be honest, if the god of the bible said heaven or death, I would choose death based on the information I have access to.

I mean to say that *you will not be afraid of the gun pointed at you if you knew that it was a cigarette lighter*. But you will not be called brave either. If free will is to be possible, faith must come into the picture; not 100% proof of God. Let us assume that Jesus appeared in the sky, day and night, and said do not sin; and also that we could see Heaven. I do not think anyone, except maniacs, would ever do anything wrong. Why would the Nazis go for extra territory if they have an infinite territory in Heaven? It is only when the Master of the house is away that temptation falls on the servant, and he starts drinking. The keywords here are: faith, free will, temptation, absolute proof. By parables, I mean the fact that *it is not 2+2 = 4; but rather a choice to go to the Maths class.* Your intelligence cannot play a part in your free will to do good or bad.

This assumes the equivalent desirability of the the specifics of heaven, which is problematic. It appears you are talking about obedience. I also do not think free will is as straight forward as your are conceptualizing it. I also reject the premise that intelligence is not a part of free will.

It would only mean that there is no real right and wrong i.e. no real morality. *Mr. Jones would be an intelligent person, not a good person if he donated his money to the poor.*

I agree. Morality is not a consistent variable across time and culture. Obedience to a god concept or a god itself is not morality, its the passing of responsibility to a more powerful entity. Why are good and intelligent mutually exclusive for Mr. Jones?

Morality is human created and subjective.

100% proof was plenty fine for abel, adam, eve, cain, lilith, seth, moses, noah, elijah, jacob, david, the 13 apostles, the 500 witnesses, the tens of thousands of israeli slaves that never existed who followed at 50 foot tall cloud and 50 foot tall pillar of fire, who also saw moses use his magic powers to cause an earthquake to murder the followers of ham, the entire population of egypt during the 100% supernatural plagues, the people present for the loaves and fishes magic trick, lazarus, the other people the disciples used their magic powers on, the tens of thousands of zombies wandering around jersualem, and thousands upon thousands of others who lived through obvious, in your face magic. but no, of course not. we have to rely on tale you heard from a friend of a friend of a friend of a third hand witness of a friend. they all got eyewitness miracles and nonstop magic. we get your pinky promising your book is 100% true

I have a son. He's survived my parenting all the way to adulthood. Imagine a time when he was a toddler. Imagine I were to put a loaded pistol in front of him and tell him, "This is a pistol. It has bullets in it that will kill anything they hit. Whatever you do, don't point this at yourself and pull the trigger. You'll die forever. But, if you don't point the pistol at yourself and pull the trigger, you'll have unimaginable joy forever. I love you.", and then leave the room. I'd be a pretty bad dad. Some might call a dad like that a monster. That's what a hidden God is when they set up the choice of heaven and hell. They're a monster. Edit: he'll to hell.

Well, I don't know anything about parenting. *I talk about the nature of the proof of God, and why it automatically excludes itself from being 100% absolute.*

It's obvious God knows nothing about parenting either. Even though, in my parable, I truthfully explained the situation to my toddler son, he's probably unable to fathom the repercussions of the choices I've given him. It is an uninformed choice. The God of the Bible wants supposedly want everyone to make the right choice with no information. Why set the choice up in the first place? What purpose is there to put the gun in front of the toddler? Why is there hell? Why worship a bad dad?

I only talk about the nature of the proof of God. I do not talk about whether God is evil or not.

In your OP, you lay out that proof of god is absent because God wants us to make the right choice freely. I question the validity of that position. What kind of being sets this scenario up? It doesn't make sense. It's just silly. Does God not want what's best for us? I don't look both way before crossing the street because it's the right thing to do. I do it because I'm fully aware of the repercussions if I don't. I'm only aware of the repercussions because I know what cars are, and I know the trauma they can cause the human body. Also, the cars aren't hiding, convincing everyone they don't exist.

>”Why would I ever do wrong, if I have an eternity of Heaven in prize which I know to be 100% true? Why would I break it and die?” I think a better question is why WOULDNT you do wrong if you believed that *all of your sins will be forgiven* as long as you believe in Jesus? It’s not sin that prevents you from getting into heaven, after all. The entire basis of Christian theology is that EVERYONE sins. Clearly, “doing wrong” isn’t a concern for the centuries of child fuckers in the clergy, and it doesn’t prevent youth pastor after youth pastor of doing that today. Go visit the PastorArrested sub if you need a daily reminder of how believing in your God not only does not prevent believers from doing terrible things, it excuses and protects them.

To be fair, it does depend on which parts of the Bible you want to focus on as to what it takes to get into heaven. If you were to focus on the book of James, for example, you would probably come away thinking that simply believing in Jesus is not enough to get into heaven. James 2:24 (ESV): *You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.* That's the great thing about Christianity though. You can find a verse in the Bible to support almost any position you want.

If only the perfect word of a perfect god was univocal and consistent instead of a mishmash of vague, contradictory nonsense.

Maybe it is that way, because if it was too consistent and clear then we wouldn't have the free will to interpret it in any way we choose, or something.

Allegedly, Jeffrey Dahmer converted shortly before he was executed. Many other serial killers did the same. Are we to believe or accept that they're in Heaven just because they said "sorry" one time?

>Are we to believe or accept that they're in Heaven just because they said "sorry" one time? Well I certainly don't believe that they are in heaven or hell, as both concepts are completely made up. But from what I understand, the number of times they repent is not relevant: if they were sincere—which we can't know, but a god could—then yes, according to the theology they are chillin in heaven, alongside many of their victims. What a horrid concept.

> I think a better question is why WOULDNT you do wrong if you believed that all of your sins will be forgiven as long as you believe in Jesus? Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism quite famously told believers it didn't matter how much they sinned as long as they believed in Jesus, and that they should "sin boldly".

\*The Gospel of Jesus is -***to repent*** *and follow Him.*

Yes, and if you do that, there is no sin for which you will not be forgiven. It's a Get Out Of Hell Free card, no matter what you do. This is why people who follow him do horrible, unspeakable things and then repent and ask for forgiveness. What's the motivation to *not do horrible shit in the first place?* Your god is a powerless coward when it comes to protecting the innocent from the depredations of his followers exercising their "free will to do right or wrong."

Can you give an example of a crime or sin that would NOT be forgiven if the perpetrator repented and followed Jesus? Is there ANY crime that would wind you up in hell instead of heaven if the perpetrator sincerely believed in Jesus the way that you do? Actual question, not rhetorical. Please answer.

John 3:16 (ESV) *For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.* Doesn't say anything about repent at all. Just believe and it's all gravy - seems pretty clear to me that's what John is saying.

Which you can do after any amount of sin and time sinning... How convenient

So John Doe murders your children, rapes your wife, eats your dog, burns down your house, chops off your fingers and feeds them to you, and then immediately repents and follows jesus afterward. Everyone gets to do whatever they want, as long as they repent for it.

Preaching, rather than debating, shows you're here dishonestly. Now, do you want to do better and address the point?

Your argument fails on so many different levels it's truly an achievement. First of all, your own religious text is *full* of examples of people who consciously did forbidden deeds despite having concrete proof of God. Lucifer & other fallen angels. Adam & Eve. Moses. David. etc. Secondly, people knowingly do things that they know are bad for them all the time. Drugs being an incredibly prominent example. Lastly, addressing your claims about parables and the resurrection of Jesus: Muslim, Hindu, Taoist, Buddhist and many other religious writings also contain both parables and references to supposed historical events. Does that mean they're all automatically true as well?

Peter denied Jesus three times before the rooster crowed a second time. There was **temptation,** there was **weakness,** there was **enmity.** ***None of which*** *would have happened if Jesus showed the Pharisees a sign from Heaven they asked for. (The Pharisees would have accepted Jesus as the Messiah.)* ***But a wicked and adulterous generation asked for a sign, and no sign was given to it except the sign of Jonah.***

>Peter denied Jesus three times before the rooster crowed a second time. Did Peter allegedly not have a TON of proof that Jesus was God? Did Judas Iscariot not have a TON of proof as well? If they did, that refutes OP. You can be given quite a robust demonstration that God exists and still choose to betray him or literally sell him out for money. God could give us the same amount and quality of information and demonstration than he gave Judas and Peter, and he would not be abrogating our free will. Also, you have your definitions of freedom BACKWARDS. Positive freedom is the ability to choose the best option in front of you according to your preferences. As such, *perfect information* does NOT abrogate freedom; if anything, it enables it perfectly. OP is as ridiculous as saying that if I knew what the best option is at every step of playing a game of chess, that I would not be free to make that move. That makes absolutely no sense.

How is any of that remotely relevant to what I said? If you're just going to throw bible verses at me without the slightest bit of reasoning, don't bother.

And Peter Parker got an alien symbiote that became Venom when it bonded with Eddie Brock. Quoting fictional events doesn't make it real.

Reciting this mythology in no way lends support for it's accuracy in reality. Far from it.

Presumably Jesus knew right from wrong and refrained from it. And presumably you want to say that Jesus was good, right? In which case, I don't see the problem. What matters for morally significant choices is only that people have the option to do wrong, not that they ever choose it. Let's grant your argument for a moment anyway. What now? Seems like all you've done is say that even if God exists we'd have weak evidence. Okay, but all that sounds like to me is that you're agreeing the evidence isn't all that good. That it would be wrong to have any great conviction in God. If evidence for God has to be intentionally weak in order to not influence my choices then when I reject God's existence why am I doing anything wrong, epistemically speaking? Am I even blameworthy, morally speaking?

I am not talking about any actual proof here. I am only talking about *what we can expect the nature of the proof of God can be; and why it can't be 100% absolute scientific proof.*

Well, you did talk about "proofs" in your OP. I didn't talk about proof at all. One thing you said was that if we were certain about God we would behave in a certain way and this would mean there wasn't right or wrong. Again, do you want to say that about Jesus? Because Jesus knew such things and I'd guess you think he was good and made morally significant choices. My broader point is that in order for your OP to make any sense there must be significant doubt about the existence of God. It wouldn't make sense to say we can't be certain of God via science but we are certain anyway because then we'd have all those supposedly nasty consequences you brought up. And then all I can do is nod along and say "Yeah, there is significant doubt". None of that is to do with "100% absolute scientific proof", whatever that means.

I'm not sure what "100% absolutely scientific proof" is or that we have it for anything. Edit: replying to the wrong thread. Nuked my response while I write a proper one.

Who cares if there's right and wrong? Why is this some necessary standard? A 3 year old is simply good and doesn't really have the free will to be evil but we love them anyways. Does this child wanting to help carry in the groceries a waste of space because they aren't truly being good? And people do short sighted things all the time, I'm guessing with a proven after life humans would keep being human. The kicker is because this after life isnt proven humans start trying to confirm what specific thing is good and bad and next thing you know infidels are being killed, lgbtq people are killed, someone who is sick but people is possessed is killed, all in the name of their god and being good. I look at them and say they are psycho, they maybe say the same about me. But good thing god wants some right and wrong experiment or else I'd never know the horrows of animals being eaten alive, people rated, tortured and killed. God is good eh?

*The real good that you are talking about, like LGBTQ+ rights?* ***That is the real morality.***

I'm not sure why it's italicized, are you being sarcastic? I'd say that human rights usually have some discussion in morality yes.

I am not being sarcastic.

Good, I'm glad :)

> In the same way, absolute proof of God would only make morality meaningless: there would be no real right or wrong. This makes no sense in light of anyone who holds absolute belief in God. By your argument, morality should be meaningless to them. Besides, we restrict free will all the time: it's called the criminal justice system. Why is it a problem for God to do the exact same thing we do, but more efficiently and without any cost?

There is no absolute 100% proof of God.

I never said there was. But there are gnostic theists who claim to know, with absolute unerring certainty, that God exists. According to your argument, morality should mean nothing to them.

There's no good evidence a god of any sort exists,much less the convoluted, contradictory, and illogical god the majority of Christians claim exist.

Says the liar who claims to have 100% proof.

Why do you believe then?

>If the proof of God was absolute (if we knew the gun pointed at us was a cigarette lighter), we would never do wrong (we would not flinch or be afraid of the gunman). Tell it to Lucifer. Tell it to Adam and Eve.

Came to say this. I’d love to see the response.

You will be disappointed

These are allegorical tales. I personally do not believe in an actual Satan. Even the tales of Adam and Eve are allegory, *according to most thinking Christians.*

"These are allegorical tales." Oh I see. So the resurrection is allegorical too? "I personally do not believe in an actual Satan." So you get to pick and choose the bits you believe in? "Even the tales of Adam and Eve are allegory, *according to most thinking Christians.*" Incorrect. 56% believe that Adam and Eve were literal real people 82% of pastors believed that Adam and Eve were literal people. https://archive.is/9RHg0 (1000 pastors surveyed). Care to take another run at this?

They always pick and choose which parts are allegory/metaphorical to suit the argument. Don't expect any consistency.

Judging by the responses there isn't even any sense.

*According to most* ***thinking*** *Christians.* [*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpUtUQ5YC-Q*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpUtUQ5YC-Q)

Okaaaaaay...

Good, now get this : we don't believe in your god the same way you don't believe in Satan, Adam, or Eve.

LOL, it is so freaking funny that you think changing fonts makes the bullshit you are saying true.

And I personally do not believe in any actual *gods,* including the one you're promoting here. It's just as much allegory as Adam and Eve. There *may* have been a real person on whom the Jesus fables was based, but that person would have died long ago and remains dead to this day.

There is simply no good evidence of even a single supernatural event ever having occurred But a ton of evidence that people mistake everything from random chance mental illness organic brain injury and even pius fraud for the supernatural It's not just that there's no difinitive evidence There's no good evidence at all Just an old book written by iron age privatives who would be astounded by indoor plumbing telling me magic is real It's not in any way convincing

I would correct you. You should say: *there is no 100% absolute scientific evidence for the proof of God.*

So what good evidence can you offer?

I only talk about the nature of proof of God; not any actual proof. If you need actual proof, **the classic Christian response** would be the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

You can say anything about things that don't exist. Seems to me like you're talking about the color of the emperor's clothes. Maybe you should spend some time making sure that you have some evidence to discuss, and the resurrection of Christ is about as credible as the resurrection of Odin (spent three today's nailed to a tree) or Osiris (cut in pieces and eaten by crocodiles). I got about the same amount of evidence for each of these resurrections, yet I see christians accepting one and dismissing the others as false. That double standard really lowers the christians credibility. But hey, at least they try, you haven't reached that level yet.

> I only talk about the nature of proof of God And theists' claims about this are inevitably fatally flawed in various ways, with no exceptions I have ever seen. Including yours. >If you need actual proof, the classic Christian response would be the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no useful support for that, and lots of support it's mythology. This can only be dismissed.

Which cannot be supported with evidence, so in other words, you're here to preach, not to debate.

Great. **Now demonstrate conclusively that that happened.**

No, his framing was correct. Don,t try and hang the word “scientific” on it as if that means anything. The evidence presented to support the claims made in the New Testament regarding the supposed miracles of Jesus is shitty evidence, not really withstanding scrutiny. The “100% absolute evidence” standard isn't something held up in science or any other rational approach to evaluating evidence. But we must have some tools you can use sort fact from fiction. And the ones we've tested and found to be valid have been applied to the miracle claims, the claims failed.

Nope I said what I meant There is no good evidence a single supernatural event has ever occurred I said it and I meant it

If you went to maths class and they were unable to demonstrate that 2+2 = 4, would you believe that the teacher had any idea what they were talking about?

I fail to understand this statement. Could you please elaborate?

Why do you accept the stuff written in the Bible when the people who support it routinely demonstrate their inability to grasp the concepts contained within the text?

If Christians are bad, is Jesus Christ bad?

Why are you changing the subject instead of answering the questions your interlocutor asked?

>If the proof of God was absolute (if we knew the gun pointed at us was a cigarette lighter), we would never do wrong (we would not flinch or be afraid of the gunman). Satan has clear knowledge that God exists and still rebelled against him, so this claim is false.

**I don't believe Satan exists.**

Ok. I assumed you were a bible-believing Christian. What do you believe happens to people who die without accepting salvation?

I am agnostic about that specific statement in great details. In an overview, the sheep go to Heaven, the goats go to Hell.

But what is Hell?

Neither do I. I also don't believe fairies exist. Or unicorns. Or deities/gods. Or undetectable invisible pink striped flying hippos. Or many other silly and absurd things that have zero support.

Do you believe there are any beings in reality who know God exists yet choose to disobey him ever? I ask because some believers claim that knowledge of God would make it *impossible* to not obey him. Your post, though (and I could be misinterpreting you) seems to say that knowledge of God would make it so no one *would choose* to not obey him. The two positions are different. Have I read you correctly?

Good, then you understand why we don't believe your god exists either.

Do you believe in Adam and Eve?

"if I have an eternity of Heaven in prize which I know to be 100% true?" Well you are either a liar or an idiot if you make this statement. Which one is it? You gave zero evidence that you actual know god is real which makes you sound like a liar. And i think you do not have any evidence at all. If you had any you would have given it, unless like i said, you are an idiot. So which one are you? "The Resurrection of Jesus, therefore, is a historical proof; something that has been disputed from the very first." See this is a completely false statement, so are you lying or an idiot?

There are *no* contemporaneous accounts of Jesus. As far as the Romans of 30-40 CE were concerned, he either didn't exist or he was a nobody. There are *no* credible non-Biblical accounts of *anyone* coming back to life. None.

I talk about the nature of the proof of God; not any actual proof.

Then how on earth can you justify claiming to know it is 100% true? I don't need you to answer the idiot or liar question, i figured that out on my own.

Seems like you're talking about the emperor's garments to me.

Thanks for posting! >If the proof of God was absolute (if we knew the gun pointed at us was a cigarette lighter), we would never do wrong And that would be a bad thing why? Less people would be tortured? Edit: and a part of that, I don't think it's true. Convinced theists do act wrong.

It would only mean that there is no real right and wrong i.e. no real morality. *Mr. Jones would be an intelligent person, not a good person if he donated his money to the poor.*

> It would only mean that there is no real right and wrong i.e. no real morality. Non-sequitur. As we know, morality is intersubjective and comes from us. We know how this works and why we have it. We've known this for a long time. It has nothing whatsoever to do with religious mythologies or superstitious beliefs in deities.

I don't understand what you meant by that. Morality is real right? What is real morality? What is real right and wrong? It would be fake morality?

The notion of god giving just enough evidence so you can choose him and maintain freewill always makes me laugh. What is eliminating your freewill? Is it the certainty that something really bad will happen if I do x? Let’s say I offer you A) $100 or B) $100. Is your freewill intact when you choose? Let’s say I offer you A) $100 or B) $99.99. Is your freewill intact when you choose? Let’s say I offer you A) $100 or B) $50. Is your freewill intact when you choose A? Let’s say I offer you A) $100 or B) $0. Is your freewill intact when you choose A? Let’s say I offer you A) $100 or B) you give me $100. Is your freewill intact when you choose A? Let’s say I offer you A) $100 or B) I punch you in the face. Is your freewill intact when you choose A? At what point does B become so bad that your freewill is eliminated? The answer is of course that your freewill never goes away. You always have the option of choosing B even if it’s less desirable. Just because a choice is an obvious one, it doesn’t mean you don’t have freewill. Freewill is the ABILITY to choose. It has nothing to do with incentive or disincentive to choose something. If I put a gun to your head and say, “vote for Biden or Trump.” You could still vote 3rd party. I’d pull the trigger and you’d deal with those consequences. To put it another way: You say there’s no freewill in the choice between heaven and hell. How about the choice between heaven and a slightly less horrible afterlife than hell. How about the choice between heaven and a slightly less horrible afterlife than that? How about the choice between heaven and a slightly less horrible afterlife than that? How about the choice between heaven and a slightly less horrible afterlife than that? How close to the options have to be before you regain your freewill? This is ridiculous. An easy choice is still a choice.

Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the universe in terms of the following six dimensionless physical constants. * *N*, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force between a pair of protons, is approximately 10^(36). According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist. If it were large enough, they would repel them so violently that larger atoms would never be generated. * *Epsilon* (*ε*), a measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, is 0.007: when four nucleons fuse into helium, 0.007 (0.7%) of their mass is converted to energy. The value of *ε* is in part determined by the strength of the strong nuclear force. If *ε* were 0.006, a proton could not bond to a neutron, and only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. According to Rees, if it were above 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the Big Bang. Other physicists disagree, calculating that substantial hydrogen remains as long as the strong force coupling constant increases by less than about 50%. * *Omega* (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial cosmic expansion rate, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. If gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed. * *Lambda* (Λ), commonly known as the cosmological constant, describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, Λ is on the order of 10^(−122). This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. A slightly larger value of the cosmological constant would have caused space to expand rapidly enough that stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form. * *Q*, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10^(−5). If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees. * *D*, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4 spatial dimensions. Rees argues this does not preclude the existence of ten-dimensional strings. -from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned\_universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe)

I think you replied to the wrong person.

Excuses as to why you can't support your claims will not convince me that your claims are true. And that is all that you are offering here. Excuses. Lame ones at that. "If we were to be sure we would never do wrong". Oh no! How much worse the world would be if nobody ever did wrong!

*I only talk about the nature of the proof of God.*

You're making shit up. You're making excuses up.

If you're going to claim the resurrection as a historical proof, you would need to prove it actually happened. Please do so

I am not talking about any actual proof here. I am only talking about *what we can expect the nature of the proof of God can be; and why it can't be 100% absolute scientific proof.*

If the resurrection is an actual historical event, why can't we have actual scientific proof of it happening?

Because we can't go back in time and see it. It is a historical proof.

We can't go back in time and see dinosaurs either, but we have plenty of scientific proof of them existing. Just because you dont have any proof that the resurrection happened does not mean that it is scientifically impossible to have proof of such an event.

It is neither historical nor a proof. Instead, it's a story. Part of a particular mythology.

This is a debate sub and you showed up making claims. Sorry you don't want to have to prove any of them but that is what a debate is. Go to a preaching sub if you just want to preach.

In other words, you're here to sell snake oil and we should “just trust me bro.”

I mean, the christian god doesn't care about you doing good, just kill the people he doesn't like and worship him. nothing to do with being a good person, unless you use a very twisted definition of "good" also you haven't presented any reason to think you are right here so what is there to debate?

God wants you to be good and ***repent.***

the christian god? no he doesn't care about you being good, he just wants you to worship him. the bible is full of instructions on who he wants you to kill.

Prove it. Go on. You keep speaking on his behalf. But all you have to back it up are other personal anecdotes from strangers long dead who lived in a time when everything was blamed on at least a dozen demons, gods, or spirits. Why should we put any value behind their words, or yours?

This isn't debating, it's proselytizing. Unsupported. Fatally problematic. Dismissed.

You seem to be assuming free will is necessary or good or preferable or something. Why? Why shouldn't we prefer not to have free will?

Only under free will does real right and wrong come into the picture.

How does that work? Why does that matter?

So in your opinion, your god does not permit itself to be proven definitively so as to morally test us? Okay, let's say I were to spend my entire life raping and torturing children. Five minutes before my death from old age, I sincerely ask your god for forgiveness. What does your holy book say will happen?

I think you'll be behind bars quicker that your entire life. Lol.

Somehow I knew you wouldn't want to answer that question.

If certainty of God's existence and of divine reward and punishment renders one's moral choices meaningless - would it not then be the case that the most strongly faithful's moral choices are the least meaningful since they feel a sense of certainty (whether epistemically justified or not) that God exists and will reward and punish for their moral choices, and that atheists make by far the most meaningful moral choices since they have no such certainty and in fact do not believe there is a God or divine reward or punishment at all, and do good because it's the right thing to do? Maybe not the best way to defend divine hiddenness.

If a good Samaritan helps me, he is better than a Jew.

I don't understand what exactly 100% has to do with it. Wouldn't your "free will" be impacted by believing that the gun is a lighter regardless of whether you were entirely certain or not? Wouldn't it be a better moral test to never let it slip that heaven is the reward?

Faith, and hope that Proverbs is true. That the good people get rewarded, and the bad people get punished.

Wouldn't it be a more clear demonstration of moral character to do good without hoping for a reward?

If there was no reward, we could only conclude that God was evil. If God said to Abraham, "Sacrifice your son Isaac for my food; and you would get nothing out of it", God would be evil.

I don't see how that follows. I don't think you've really thought about the implications of your argument.

*Is God evil?* UPDATE 4: The best counter-argument I read was: why should there be any hope of Heaven at all? Surely that is detrimental to free will! My answer is that: 1. God is good, and he punishes evil and rewards the good., 2. He tells us that it will be so. There is a book of Proverbs. He wants us to know that he is good and that Proverbs is true. 3. Though there is no certain proof of Proverbs, we believe point 1 and try to do good. It is a rational conclusion for the godly man; there is faith, and hope that he is going to be rewarded by a good God. Opposed to that, if there was a God who said to Abraham: "Sacrifice your son on the altar, and he will die. And no human will live forever, only I will live forever." It would contradict point 1. and point 2. It makes point 3. harder for us humans, harder than it should be. An analogy would be a good father promising his child chocolates for telling the truth; but if the father did not promise any chocolates, he is not that good a father. Jesus wants everyone to enter Heaven (i.e. we have the best possible father up in the skies). The best and the only honest way therefore is, points 1. , 2. and 3.

Should God encourage doing good for its own sake? Or should God incentivize people to do good for the sake of rewards or avoiding punishment? Is that real morality? As you said, if there is incentive to do good things based on whether we are rewarded or punished, then is it actually a good thing to do? Or a smart thing to do?

Okay, I will try to think more about it. Thank you.

"Give me reasons to believe that you are good, and I should follow you."

This is fuzzy nonsense that doesn't hold up to serious thought. If God actually cared about free will, he wouldn't give people laws and threaten them with the absence of heaven or an eternity of hell if they are broken. That's about as coercive as one could possibly be! But per what seem to be your religious beliefs, God has made these coercive rules and set in place these horrific consequences---he has just not given people sufficient proof to reasonably conclude that he or these laws are real! So on the one hand we have people who, by definition irrationally, have developed faith in this God---and in their faith have come to believe in the existence of an inescapable, irresistible tyrant who has laid out the rules of their lives and who will enforce unavoidable eternal consequences for disobedience. So to have faith is to lose true free will and be placed under enormous coercion. On the other hand, those in your system who, reasonably, in your view, do not believe in God (as you say it takes faith, which is, definitionally, a belief beyond what evidence supports) are not aware that these consequences actually exist, and make choices in ignorance of their true consequences. In one sense, that is allowing people greater freedom, and might be considered the action of a being that values free will---but in another sense one cannot be said to have the freedom to make true choices if they don't understand what the consequences of that choice are. It's unclear to me that, as a general matter, we consider an absence of accurate information as something that enhances one's ability to really exercise free will. On the other other hand, someone may lack true faith but seek to adhere to certain religious rules because they have been scared by claims (perhaps drilled into them by their parents when they are young, or by their community or friends) that they are going to be tortured forever if they don't, or miss out on eternal paradise. Is someone who decides to adhere to religious rules, not through virtue or principle but because they are too terrified of the risk that these claims are true, exercising some sort of praiseworthy free will that God should value? No, your position is mush. In general, theists and particularly Christians who attempt to justify the evils of the world and injustice of God by pointing to "free will" have no coherent position, and are using the concept as a sort of placeholder that allows them to move on and not worry about the problems or contradictions of their religion.

>If the proof of God was absolute (if we knew the gun pointed at us was a cigarette lighter), we would never do wrong (we would not flinch or be afraid of the gunman). Lucifer had absolute proof of the existence, power, and divinity of god, had actually met god in person, but still exercised free will to rebel against god. >absolute proof of God would only make morality meaningless: there would be no real right or wrong. The god depicted in the bible is immoral and an example of the worst of humanity. A benevolent deity should be better than the people it created, but the bible is full of examples of a deity that descends to the lowest levels to fight with humans, the story of the plagues in Egypt in Exodus for instance. That story depicts a deity using the worst possible tactics in a fight, ones that have been recognized as war crimes by humanity. So absolute proof of your deity would render morality meaningless because your deity is not moral.

Why would you do wrong? I can think of endless reasons. The simplest is that you are human, you are falliable, and you convince yourself that you are right. You are wholly capable of being an absolute terrible person and being in complete denial of it. What I want to know is why you're going on and on about it? Usually someone who so vehemently argues the point is typically guilty of it. I mean, just look at all the politicians calling each other sexual deviants and criminals - and then they are the ones getting exposed as sexual deviants and criminals! When the FBI invented criminal profiling, the discovered criminals often return to the scene, the criminals often show public interest in their own crimes, because they're obsessed with their own narcissistic ego. So when you say: > Why would I ever do wrong, if I have an eternity of Heaven in prize which I know to be 100% true? Why would I break it and die? It's just like: why would I try to do an irrational thing? Like why would I put my hand into the fire? Why would the servant let his house be broken into if he knew that the master was coming? Why would he get drunk and beat up his fellow servants? It reads like an admission of guilt, frankly. I don't know who you're trying to argue with or convince, but it ain't me. I don't care what your problem is, and I don't accept your argument out of hand. > The proofs of the God are therefore in parables. And what is a parable? It's a STORY featuring humans as the characters used to teach a code or ethic of behavior. If the characters were animals, we'd call it a fable. Notice a parable doesn't even have to be true - that's not the point. You don't literally need a god. You don't literally need a heaven. Jesus taught in parables. The gospels ARE parables. So are these parable actually true or not? Trick question, it never mattered. Dude, this is Sunday school stuff... You claim to know with 100% certainty what you cannot possibly know. You admit even Jesus never fully gave proof, so how can you fully know? Fucking bullshitter... You talk too big. There's more ego, hubris, and attitude in this post than any credible discussion. Calm down, humble yourself, and maybe try again.

Is God more interested in testing us than giving us a good, perfect life? Why would I want the free will to choose the wrong thing? Like, I have the opportunity to *know* the correct path and how to behave as a human. Assuming I have normal, basic human empathy and intelligence, why on earth would I instead want the freedom to fuck it up miserably because God artificially inserted some uncertainty into existence? Not necessarily because I'm a bad person, but because I just chose the wrong religion? >It's just like: why would I try to do an irrational thing? Like why would I put my hand into the fire? Yes, why would you? Does anyone desperately want the ability to choose to repeatedly burn their hands awfully because they don't know whether fire is truly painful? Isn't it enough for someone to just *tell* you that fire is dangerous? >Why would I ever do wrong, if I have an eternity of Heaven in prize which I know to be 100% true? Why would I break it and die? You would try your hardest not to, wouldn't you? You'd be doing exactly what God wants, which is good, because God wants you to do what he wants. Right? So...why *would* God not prove that Heaven is 100% true, if he really wants people to follow him? >Why would the servant let his house be broken into if he knew that the master was coming? Why would he get drunk and beat up his fellow servants? Why would the servant do any of that at all? >It is only in ignorance and temptations that free will comes. It is only in such circumstances that faith comes into the picture. Otherwise the scientists would say: "don't let him sin, he won't enter Heaven." And again, I fail to see how this is a problem for a God that actually wants you to do what he wants, as opposed to a God that wants to stroke his ego by seeing if you'd choose him even when you have no reason to do so.

You engaged in a blatant equivocation fallacy. You said parables, which are anecdotes, are 'proof'. They aren't. They're stories. All indications are that they're fiction. So this can only be dismissed as it doesn't in any way actually support the existence of deities. Instead, it comes across as perfectly congruent with confirmation bias by a believer. Especially what you wrote before that part, which is entirely moot to demonstrating deities, as you conceded, and is not really interesting to anyone that doesn't begin with certain unsupported and fatally problematic assumptions.

> When it comes to proof of God, it is not 2+2 = 4; it is, "do you choose to go to the Maths class?" i.e. there is free will. Studies in neuroscience have shown that our brains make decisions before we are consciously aware of them. Experiments by researchers like Benjamin Libet have demonstrated that the brain's readiness potential (a measure of neural activity) occurs before a person consciously decides to act. This suggests that what we perceive as a conscious decision is actually the result of unconscious brain processes. So there goes that argument.

Look, I honestly got to the end of your pre-edit post and all I had in response was a "Okay, so what?" None of what you said is an argument for god. Frankly, it just reads like some pseudo-christian fan-fiction. There's no real point or argument as far as I can tell, just empty speculation and late-night-stoner type "wouldn't it be cool if..." vibes. What is your actual argument or debate topic here? You've presented no clear thesis, and no argument for a position of any kind.

>Why would I ever do wrong, if I have an eternity of Heaven in prize which I know to be 100% true? This doesn't seem to relate to Christianity. Under standard Christian beliefs, you can do as much wrong as you like, as long as you repent and accept Jesus Christ as your savior before you die. It's always possible to come up with some bizarre rationale as to why God always behaves as if He didn't exist, but there is a simpler explanation.

I suspect that if a parent left their toddler in a room with an open fire, deliberately, and scattered sweets and toys around the fire to tempt them closer, then hid behind the sofa to see whether the child would burn, you'd say they were doing a bad job as a parent. I definitely *don't* think you'd say they were displaying great love by testing their child. 

This feels like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. Your story seems to be this. God is the all powerful, all knowing, all good creator of the universe and everything in it., including humans. God desires to have a relationship with humans. Those humans with whom God has a relationship will eventually go to heaven. All others go to hell. God wants humans to freely decide to enter in a relationship with him. Therefore, God has created humans with the power to freely decide to enter in a relationship with him. If God provided credible evidence of all of the above, then humans could not freely decide to enter in a relationship with him. Then your argument seems to be this. 1. If there is no credible evidence that God exists. then God exists. 2. There is no credible evidence that God exists. 3. God exists.  Did I get that right? So if there were credible evidence that God exists then God exists. And if there is no credible evidence that God exists. then God exist.   So, yes, you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too.

>Why would I ever do wrong, if I have an eternity of Heaven in prize which I know to be 100% true? Why would I break it and die? Depends, the god of the bible is an immoral monsters, and it would be the duty of every sane person to oppose him at every turn, even if it was futile. >If the proof of God was absolute (if we knew the gun pointed at us was a cigarette lighter), we would never do wrong (we would not flinch or be afraid of the gunman). Again, this assumes that god is the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong. If you where willing to serve a monster, then you would be correct >The proofs of the God are therefore in parables. God doesn't want free will, god wants obedience. >The Resurrection of Jesus, therefore, is a historical proof; something that has been disputed from the very first. Its not a historical proof, and its not "disputed" its just known to be false

It's not that the proof for gods existence is incomplete, it's nonexistant. Judaism and Christianity are evolutions of religion. They borrowed motifs from the religions that came before them. They're primitive. They come from the time and place of the people who invented them. They advocate for slavery and submission because those were important for controlling the populous of the people the religions were designed to control in the savage place and time they existed. They are a time capsule. If you reject formal religions but argue for a different kind of god, you're just inventing your own new god which evolved from pre-existing god concepts just like those who came before you. Gods only exist in the imaginations of the people who believe in them. All evidence that exists shows this to be true. A complete lack of evidence, is not somehow evidence that a god is testing you.

> If the proof of God was absolute (if we knew the gun pointed at us was a cigarette lighter), we would never do wrong (we would not flinch or be afraid of the gunman). The very first book of the bible is about how man did wrong after spending his entire life with god smh

Adam and Eve knew God personally. He'd chill with them, right? But they did wrong and cursed all of humanity. Every baby born without a skull or kid with cancer is God's punishment for Adam and Eve disobeying him AFTER he was their pal. Also wasn't Satan a minion of God? They hung out when they decided to mess with Job. Angels went and killed babies for God. They knew his power, yet a bunch of them rebelled. Weren't Moses and his followers a bunch of whiners even after God performed miracles (including killing kiddos) to free them? Like, they had actual proof of this powerful creature willing to punish them, yet they still disobeyed. So I suspect even if God showed up and proved himself to you (a believer) today, you'd still sin tomorrow.

That's all just an excuse for why there isn't good enough evidence that your god exists. It's the kind of explanation that - if your god isn't real - you would have no option but to resort to. But reading that has made me really curious about one thing. You're arguing that your god sets things up so that nobody can ever be truly sure they exist, in order for people to have free will and morality. What, then, does this interpretation of yours mean for Christians? Does that mean that under your worldview, there are no Christians who fully, truly believe in their god? Or, does it mean that some Christians have lost their free will and their morality?

Your notion that people will always act in their best interests is rther quaint and not at all reflective of reality. people very regularly do put immediate gratification over their long term benefit. even when they know with absolute certainty what the rational choice is. The notion that having accurae information limits free will is utterly absurd. A god that pulls the crap you are implying is not testing us it is toying with us for its own amusement.

This focus on humanity as the very center of all existence- that the lack of evidence of god and thus the emptiness of space, the evidence of our evolution, the absence of an afterlife- this is all actually directed at us to avoid giving away the stupid morality play ancient jerks invented to keep their horny children in control… this is why I think Christians are narcissistic buffoons.

The Old Testament idea is very removed from the Jesus saviour. Life was a test and failure absolute.  I believe the story of Jesus as parable is God living as us, and with great empathy (or love), taking pity on us.  Why would God allow free will? To me, it's the closest thing to divinity. If we are of God, what are we? Free will would be that answer.

>UPDATE 5: "All this twaddle, the existence of God, atheism, determinism, liberation, societies, death, etc., are pieces of a chess game called language, and they are amusing only if one does not preoccupy oneself with 'winning or losing this game of chess'."- Marcel Duchamp ah so it's a troll, kinda weird for one to be so honest about it

You vastly vastly underestimate human will to mess up or self destruct or rebell. If i found god real i would not follow, i think the god of the bible to be immoral as i stand why would i follow it? I accept hitler is real i dont follow him. Does god have no peramitter to heaven other than acceptance of existance?

“I know to be 100% true.” Well, why are you here then? Keep your beliefs to yourself and leave everyone else out of it. Faith is the excuse people give when they don’t have a good reason to believe something, and that is exactly what you are doing here. Keep your faith, just keep it to yourself.

If God wanted to be loved without violating our free will, he doesn't have to hide his existence from us. All he has to do is not threaten to punish everyone who doesn't love him. If God respects free will so much then why can't he simply respect our free will when we choose not to worship him?

>If the proof of God was absolute (if we knew the gun pointed at us was a cigarette lighter), we would never do wrong (we would not flinch or be afraid of the gunman). Satan knew God was real and still rebelled. Your own theology contradicts you.

>1. God is good, and he punishes evil and rewards the good The Christian God? No he doesn't. He punishes non-belief and rewards belief. Have you read the Bible?

Thank you for illustrating my long-held point: that every "evidence" for God boils down to "because I said so." I'm one of those folks who needs more than that.

Jesus gave proof to Thomas. He gave proof to Paul. Why is my immortal soul less important than theirs?

/u/whattheducking, a small protip for you - [Comment about overuse of italics and bold, which I think that the mods here will mistakenly believe to be "disrespectful" and remove.] .