None of that is in any way a response to anything I asked about.
Yes, through faith. Exactly what I said. Now if you want to parse the difference between “gift” and “reward”, go to it. But you have freely used both in this connection. So if there were nothing to overcome, there would still be a reward for faith, right? So much for your initial claim.
None of which you answer. You just obfuscate, contradict yourself, and wander around at random.
Then what’s the need for refinement through suffering while we’re living? And is this refinement after we die accomplished through suffering? So there is suffering in heaven, or are you talking about purgatory?
We could go into justifications for punishment, but I fear it would strain you.
Why would he want that?
Yes, he was showing there’s a problem by first assuming there’s a problem. That’s circular. What is this tacit assumption Lewis refers to? Why would we have to borrow from the supernatural position?
Was that an attempt at humor?
No, that’s not what “hearsay” means, and I think you’re confusing me with someone else there. Yes, I have examined a few of those coins, though more of his successors’. More important is the distinction between claims of fact and opinion. Only the former can be evidence. Of course any claim of fact can be false, but the more independent claims, the better the evidence. But a bunch of opinions, even a big bunch, aren’t evidence.
Yes you do. You were using various stated opinions as evidence that you were correct.
This seems a fundamental disagreement. If you just keep repeating this claim, there will be no progress.
Not one.
You really have to start understanding words. The motivation is the cause for somebody saying something.
Perhaps we do, but we would be better advised to avoid such biases and consider what people say on its own merits. Do you know what an ad hominem fallacy is?
Sure. You said God wants us to depend on him. But why? Sounds needy to me. Or did you mean to say something else?
You are confused. It’s the statements of the delirious person that are illogical, contrary to Chesterton.
You really should try harder to say what you mean. But you’re still confused, and you contradict yourself. If it’s possible though very unlikely for natural selection to assemble a conscious mind, that means the mind must be a physical thing, composed of the interactions of atoms, which you deny. So if we’re talking about a brain, not a soul, why couldn’t (probably) natural selection do it?
But why? Wouldn’t a rational creator make a rational optical system? And why is it a good thing that our perceptions can deceive us? Would it be a good thing if you were a paraplegic? You’d need even more help then.
Hell is another irrelevant digression, and I will resist the temptation to discuss its absurdities and implications. Why would God create a world that’s not the best possible?
Nobody says your thoughts are a puppet show; that’s not a consequence of a physical process.
So nothing causes your soul to have those thoughts? That means your thoughts are uncaused. Why should we believe that uncaused thoughts have any basis in reality?
You are descending into the homunculus theory, with homunculi all the way down.
Well, it must be true, then. Right?
It’s called delusional thinking because it’s delusional, and it’s thinking of a sort. My most recent experience is with you. Delusional and devoid of logic. And there’s your insane person shouting “Snake!”; was he being logical then?
No, we reject the conclusions when we see the conclusions are irrational. We don’t have to consider the causes.
Anecdote is not the singular of data. The real question would be to compare the proportion of recoveries subsequent to prayer with the proportion not subsequent to prayer. My prediction would be no significant difference. One problem is that you can explain both recovery: God answered prayer — and non-recovery: God chose not to answer.
Sorry, no. But should I pray to Ganesh, Buddha, or someone else? How should I choose?