Bang!!! Punk, your luck ran out. ahahhahahahahhahhahahhah

Now ask yourself a question.........say to yourself "If Hell is real, why am I not burning it it now"

Answer: It as only television, Clint didn't really shoot you, it was just me banning you, I hope your not burning in Hell.

You think your Clint Eastwood, Ray Comfort, and God. Who's next?

What's interesting is that you have a book that insists that I am burning and being swept away in a flood. The fact that these things are not actually happening doesn't cause you to question the book, but rather to say that I don't know that I am burning. No one else see's me burning either. If your's wasn't the blind faith of a fool, you would see your story book for what it is, a book of lies meant to control.

It doesn't bring you closer to God. Your book takes you further.

Bang!!! Punk, your luck ran out. ahahhahahahahhahhahahhah

Now ask yourself a question.........say to yourself "If Hell is real, why am I not burning it it now"

Answer: It as only television, Clint didn't really shoot you, it was just me banning you, I hope your not burning in Hell.

We went over this before, I refer you back to my debate titled "Pascal's Wager is always a losing bet. Pascal's Wager is a Catholic type thing in which a person believes they can earn the right to live outside of Hell. It's always a losing bet as all is lost in death and the right to live outside of Hell can never be secured by own's own efforts or the efforts of others who might hope they can win the bet.

In no way is my question aimed to inspire gambling on your eternity. God is not a gambler, if you try to gamble with God you lose no matter how you place your bets. You've lost because you can't be good enough for God by your own efforts, you'll always fall short, and in the end the bet is lost.......it's lost the moment you place the wager.

If you'll look at my debate "Pascal's Wager is Always a Losing Bet", you will see there that EVERYBODY agreed with me and most of them are atheists. If I recall, you were one of them. Playing Pascal,s Wager is always a losing bet, you need full assurance of not ending up in Hell, not odds you might think you can get in Pascal's Wager.

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Pascal sWagerisalwaysalosing_bet

Lets undue some lies first. And start fresh by building on a foundation of credibility of the text itself, and not argue through a lense of what is religion says or of what doctrines say, or through the inaccuracies held through educated studies.

Lets strip it down to its basics. And take it from there on its own merit, and on what it actually says, and not what we think it says.

Is there reasonable historical credibility?

Then from there, are there credible points to consider on it's prophetic merit?

Then from there, is there a basis of consideratin and discussion of a logical progression, and a singular purpose that suggests the possobility of Divine Inspiration?

From there is there, is there weight in it's merit as reasonable source, of unanswered questions that deserve to be answered?

Is there a sensible order?

If all these have merit, can we discuss the implications on purpose and faith? And what it all means? And if we can be convinced through merit of credibility at least in the basic natural sense?

Then is it possible to have merit in faith?

My question is, Does Judaism and Christianity have any reasonable merit for faith at all?

Or is it as silly as believing in Santa Clause?

If it has merit, how strong is that merit?

Even as a skeptic and an analytic, if there is at minimum a basis of possibility after all the details are aligned, then is there is any credibility and merit for the position of faith?

Or is it complete nonsense?

The challenge is are you willing to investigate, to at least establish a basis of truth.

To investigate you would have to be willing to invest a little time and effort, not asking you to become a scholar, just to admit accurate evidence to your evidence room inorder to weigh things in an honest measure.

Are you willing to weigh evidence to determine if there are lies or inaccuracies that you need to replace with truth?

I'd accept this challenge. As long as the argument is reasonable for inclusions of evidence.

Example: Most of the quoted philosophers hailed and studied by universities, are copies of copies of copies ..., so if we accept a copy that is 1000 years from its original source for Plato or Saccrates, then we apply the same standard to Isaiah and Moses. Thereby we can determine at minimum if they are equally credible.

Another Example: If we accept an area of study or findings that are incomplete leaving remaining unanswered questions, then we give it equal merit. Currently that is not the case in circles of the education of idiots.

I had recently posted a few documentaries that establish historical credibility. I think that we have to establish it's merit in its field as a historical document, before we debate merit on its scientific or supernatural merit.

Investigation is an investment of effort. I would be willing to investigate with effort on my part, if you would be equally willing to investigate with effort.

I just ask if you want the challenge that you dumb down science a little to my level, to a reasonable degree, because I'm not interested in investing enough time and effort for a science degree. And I will be sure not to waste your time on nonsense also.

If we can agree to apply an equal measure to unanswered questions, giving evidence an equal weight of comparison. I'd be open to have my faith challenged.

Let's see if we can be convinced of at least reasonable evidence for faith. Or if faith is based on nonsense without any merit, an uneducated belief in nonsense.

I wouldn't expect anyone to leap into my faith, without at least establishing credibility.

But to do so, you would have to be willing to challenge yourself and your facts.

My opinion, if you haven't done a true investigation at minimum, then you can't really have a credible stand or argument based on your belief founded in skepticism.

Isn't optimism and skepticism of the same quality in themselves?

Is your position of skepticism factual, if your factual evidence used in your final determination. Is truth used in your investigation of faith, or did you dismiss the need fpr facts based on the beliefs held in your skepticism?

If you don't have at least a foundation of historical credibility, then your skepticism is less credible then people who have no factual foundation at all. Less credible than simpletons who take the Bible at it's face value, accepting at minimum it's credibility in its historical aspect.

Why? Because our faith is based on accepting the Bible at its historical basic foundation as credibile. Without it's factual foundation then it truely is a myth. You can't build faith on a document that is false at its basic foundation.

The question is, is it false at its foundation? And the question is are you honest enough to challenge untruth with truth.

Or at least weigh and give an honest measure of benefit of doubt in one view as fact over another view of fact?

Concluding the Bible is a myth, based on accepting unfactual admittance of evidence, even if combined with skepticism of the supernatural, even if through a scientific lense is still building a judgment based on a falsified foundation of inaccuracies and false evidence.

Thereby I can't even factually challenge you on the possibility of an Intruder through science, because we haven't established any credibility in the first place.

^^^

Even if the person of faith is a simpleton, and they simply have not built on factual data thorough an objective investigation honestly trying to prove or discredit the Bible at it's foundation according to factual findings.

If their simpleton faith, even if unintential, is at least based on factual accurate history, then regardless of their effort of pursuit in investigation, isn't their faith then more reliable and credible then your judgement that concludes the Bible is full of myths based on inaccuracies and false evidence?

At least those in the group of simpletons have their faith based on factual documentations with credible historic value without intending to on purpose have merit.

So then, which is more credible? The Simpleton that without intending to has built their faith on credible, accurate, factual, historical content at its basic foundation ?

Or the educated Simpleton that adopted a convenient truth based on a foundation of falsified inaccuracies that are not reliable or credible?

And can even be questioned to many in educational studies, is there a purposed underlining agenda to ascent mis information in order to discredit the credibility of the Bible down to its core, even in its accurate historical content?

And why is it more important to promote and support unquestionable skepticism?

Or is more important to be factual and to educate?

At least faith of a simpleton is accidentally credible! The other is both incompetantly not credible, and purposely defensive of inaccuracies to conveniently discredit faith.

The the questions I ask of the Educated Simpleton:

Why is accuracy threatening?

Does accuracy challenge their skepticism?

Is that why they maintain inaccuracies?

So in their field of study and expertise, why be inaccurate?

Wouldn't you want accuracies as a measure of reliability?

Wouldn't new findings be met with an excitement?

If we found Martian bones, wouldn't that be exciting enough to present to the public?

And even worthwhile to adjust other facts, inorder to input the updated findings?

Why then is Biblical accuracy in just it's historical merit threatening?

These are questions a thoughtful skeptic should ask. Or does skepticism only go one direction regardless of credible evidence?

What is the purpose of historic details at their foundation?

Has there been more of an attempt to prove or disprove?

Or has there been more of an attempt to offer real facts or at least controversial facts that weigh heavy in contradiction to the studies findings?

Does truth matter?

Are facts in education true if these findings are ignored?

Does it make no difference of presentation, if the Bible is credible on its historic merit, and what is taught is not credible?

The one who builds on false inaccuracies has built a house like the idiot in the parable of the wise vs the fool building a house. One foundation is based on false information, making it no good at its very foundation, building on it is no good because it's already build on inaccuracies, so then the outcome is a foolishly built house.

False for review, because it lacks credibility at its foundation.

Then it comes down to choosing to accept lies or investigate.

If you don't investigate then how can you be an authority on its credibility as truth or myth?

Just like if you are a pretty well learned authority on evolution, does me saying it isn't so based on unfactual foundation make me not an authority to denounce your authority of factual foundations of science regarding evolution.

I can that look at facts when discussing evolution, on which you have a credible degree of facts at the core of your foundation. So then I ask in your facts of evolution can we find a Divine Intruder?

Whereas you dismiss facts of a Book based on unfactual and falsified information, and there isn't even a discussion to have beyond that because at the core foundation you accept false information, so when discussing your objection to the Divine Intruder in the study of History, your mythological falsified facts won' t allow a basic foundation of facts at minimum to build on.

So how credible is the facts you conclude against the Bible? a stance in opposition to the faith of others. Since your foundation of facts is piled up in inaccuracies and truely "myths" since they are based on untruths, isn't that what myths are?

So isn't it ironic to build a case on inaccuracies, then use inaccuracies to conclude a lack of credibilty, by which concluding what is myth?

The outcome of conclusion should at minimum be factual with accuracies to hold up at least it's foundation, especially if dismissing basic credibility of what faith is built on in the first place.

Skeptic scrutiny is not credible if you are blindly or conveniently accepting inaccuracies to dismiss accuracies, where by doing you dismiss faith by a foundation of inaccuracies.

Then let me tell you my experience of faith. Because I am an eyewitness of that. And its real, and I'm convinced.

My faith isn't based on a mental acknowledgement of a faith that I hope exists. I have become convinced of faith by both reason and experience. And in understanding I see clearly, and

in my understanding I am convinced.

I would think it silly to deny your way in the world based on Hell or judgement, especially if you are NOT convinced of God, or if Hell or Heaven exists.

That's like saying Buy a wedding dress, rent the hall, and pay the caterer, even though you don't have a Bride, or Groom, or engagement, or even dating someone yet!

Jesus said COUNT the cost! He actually wants us to be convinced of our decision to follow Him, and He wants us to go in to this relationship with Him, knowing we can pay the cost, knowing its worth it, and willing to pay the cost.

And no one does that unless their convinced. So Jesus says, I want you to be convinced, because your commitment to Me needs to be on solid ground! - wise man builds a house compared to the idiot that builds a house - both go through the storm, idiots house falls, the one who is solid is convinced and holds up through the storms.

The Rich Young Ruler WANTED to follow Jesus, He even agreed with His commandments! But Jesus says, cool you are almost there, one more thing .... the Rich Young Ruler wouldn't have worked out well, at least not making that commitment on that day, why?

Jesus didn't run after him and when the disciples were like Hey Jesus, this is bad for the saving businesd, no one will be saved if you keep that up! He taught them then, what is needed to make a child of Light, where your heart is, there is your treasure.

And He said people need to understand the cost, for some the cost may be someone, to others something, whatever you love He knows the heart ... Abraham loved Isaac, yet by his famous test, God said, do you love your Son more than Me?

And Abraham, you can imagine how distraught the scene was, and Abraham's grief leading up to that moment, God says pass! He counted the cost and was willing to pay every last penny he had serving God. Was he convinced? Or was his faith a guess?

So I never said this argument. I said count the cost, and be convinced. I showed you every reason to believe, and I added a very honest believable and relatable set of videos to satisfy your intellect. I showed you God's Word, confirming God's Word.

I think people think faith is a guess. A lucky guess! We HOPE we are right, well that's not good enough!

That's actually not what faith is at all.

Faith is being CONVINCED of things not seen!

Without faith that is CONVINCED, it is impossible to please God!

Hebrews 11

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the men of old gained approval.

3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

Romans 8:37-39

37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The question has nothing to do with Pascal's Wager. You can't keep yourself out of Hell by trying to be good or religious. The proof of that is your dying. You can't stop yourself from dying. You can only ask yourself, "If Hell is real, why am I not burning in it now?"

It seems to me that you are playing Pascal's Wager, betting your soul that there is no Hell. That's your choice, fool.

"If Hell is real, why am I not burning in it now?"

If godzilla is sitting on your doorstep, why arent you being eaten? If a tiger is hungry and your child is on the porch, shouldnt you hire someone to get rid of tigers? If the sky fell, would your roof hold?

Hell. is. not. real.

You want me to pretend it is for the sake of argument?

Keeping track of your own argument is difficult, I realise. But lets have a look at it again.

So here's the better question Clint should have suggested....ask yourself a question: "if Hell is real, why am I not burning in it now"? Do you feel lucky? Well? Do you? (I scratched "punk" off the end here in consideration of punks who can't stand the truth)

You are talking about chance. You say that we should believe in your God because there is a probability that that God is real (or else we wouldnt need luck would we?). I am saying that is a terrible argument because a 100 other religions tell us we are going to hell if we follow your God over any other. So it doesnt improve our 'luck' at all.

You follow a God because you really really want him to exist, you have said as much. That is in fact why I think Christianity is so popular - he is a nice easy God to please compared to the others. So it is YOU that is gambling as much as us. You are betting on him being real, despite the only evidence stemming from you wanting it so badly.

The question forces them to look at themselves honestly and they don't want to admit they deserve to die and burn in Hell.

The deserve to burn in hell because the big book that decided that hell exists says so.. errrrr.... incredible that you dont see some logical problem with that.

I just wrote a book. It says that you're a cock and everyone that is a cock will burn in hell. Why dont you think about that. If you were a cock, why arent you burning in hell? The question forces you to look at yourself honestly and that you don't want to admit you deserve to die and burn in Hell.