by jimwalton » Fri Nov 18, 2022 6:37 pm
> This is a false equivalence though
I don't think it's false equivalence, though you are correct that Satan's evidence for God is solid, whereby the evidence for God in our world is only "quite strong." That doesn't make the equivalency false, it just makes his lack of repentance more culpable. That's why he will suffer a greater punishment. All will be held accountable for what they knew and what they did with it.
> Many of them including myself would worship him if they found the evidence more convincing
I've heard this many times, but I find it disingenuous. I've had many hundreds of conversations with atheists who often finally admit that even if the evidence were convincing, they wouldn't become theists.
I've said to atheists, "Suppose God appeared to you—I mean, really appeared, and you KNEW it was God. And suppose He did a miracle for you of your request, whatever it was, and proved it to you that it was a miracle and it was real. And suppose He confirmed His reality to you in undeniable terms. Would you believe it?" Almost all say, "Nah, I would think I was hallucinating or having a wacko dream." But, I counter, suppose you KNEW it was real? They say, "I still wouldn't believe it."
> I mean yeah, but I would think after the first 10,000 years or so of torture even the most prideful person would think of repenting.
We don't know the exact nature of hell, but the obstinance of the mind in refusing to admit a case other than what he or she already believes is profound. I have found that evidence is not what persuades. People see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe. Even after 10K years of "torture," if they wouldn't admit God and turn to God before it, they won't turn to God 10K years later. It's the nature of the rebellious, closed mind.
> This is a false equivalence though
I don't think it's false equivalence, though you are correct that Satan's evidence for God is solid, whereby the evidence for God in our world is only "quite strong." That doesn't make the equivalency false, it just makes his lack of repentance more culpable. That's why he will suffer a greater punishment. All will be held accountable for what they knew and what they did with it.
> Many of them including myself would worship him if they found the evidence more convincing
I've heard this many times, but I find it disingenuous. I've had many hundreds of conversations with atheists who often finally admit that even if the evidence were convincing, they wouldn't become theists.
I've said to atheists, "Suppose God appeared to you—I mean, really appeared, and you KNEW it was God. And suppose He did a miracle for you of your request, whatever it was, and proved it to you that it was a miracle and it was real. And suppose He confirmed His reality to you in undeniable terms. Would you believe it?" Almost all say, "Nah, I would think I was hallucinating or having a wacko dream." But, I counter, suppose you KNEW it was real? They say, "I still wouldn't believe it."
> I mean yeah, but I would think after the first 10,000 years or so of torture even the most prideful person would think of repenting.
We don't know the exact nature of hell, but the obstinance of the mind in refusing to admit a case other than what he or she already believes is profound. I have found that evidence is not what persuades. People see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe. Even after 10K years of "torture," if they wouldn't admit God and turn to God before it, they won't turn to God 10K years later. It's the nature of the rebellious, closed mind.