Present Evidence. If you believe that the evidence for your god(s) is compelling, how do you explain that it is not accepted by so many otherwise reasonable people? Who in particular? Daffy is asking a hugely open-ended question knowing that no quick answer is possible, so he can pull it out of his kazoo and laugh while he thinks theists struggle with what is really a badly-formulated query. Ask this just as well: If you believe that the evidence for atheismis so compelling, Daffy, how do you explain that it is not accepted by so many otherwise reasonable people? Of course this loads the question (it is assumed that these people are indeed "reasonable," and further, that they "reasonability" extends to every part of their lives), but the point is, questions about motive can't be answered for anyone other than who we know. I really don't care about the "why" anyway, because it doesn't address actual evidences, it just does an end around from them. Why do so many people claim that the evidence for some other god(s) is compelling? Here we go again. Ask those people, not me. But keep in mind that (say) Christians, Jews and Muslims share some of the same "evidence" in terms of a base belief in God, so this is not worth a cent anyway. The obvious answer is, "Because they think they are right." Now try getting into whether they ARE right, or not. This is what Imean when I say these are dumb questions. Why doesn't it worry you that belief in your god(s) correlates so highly with parental belief in your god(s)? Gee, that's stupid. My parents believed in gravity, too. Once again, an evasion of evidential concerns for some mish-mouthed version of that classic Dumb Argument, "If you were born in Jordan, wouldn't you be a Muslim?" Well, if you were born in Cuba, Daffy, wouldn't you be a Communist? What other thesis so important and compelling (e.g. heliocentrism, evolution) defied general consensus for this long? Who cares? Since when does length of service have to do with truth? And "general consensus" of what? Theism of some brand is STILL the general consensus of the world at large and it is atheism that is the "defier" here. In how many years do you expect there will be a consensus for your position as widespread as that supporting (say) heliocentrism? (Your answer must include either include the word 'never' or a numerical year plus-or-minus a confidence range.) No need. It's already there, and it has been there since Day 1. It's atheists who need to answer this question, not me. Do you think that a reasonable person can only disagree with your conclusion if she is subject to some character flaw or demonic influence? Obviously not on the last, since as a preterist I don't believe demons are now influencing ANYONE. As for the first, who cares? Does Daffy want to have that same question thrown back at him with respect to disagreeing with atheism, so he can see just how stupid and irrelevant the question actually is?
Future Evidence. Do you think there will ever be any compelling new evidence for your god(s)? For example, will there ever be new and scientifically documented miracles by your god(s)? Maybe, but who cares? There's enough as is. If Daffy thinks not, I'll drop centuries of theistic philosophy in his nest and wait for him to finish. Will there ever be scientific confirmation of the efficacy of prayer to your god(s)? No, because prayer isn't a gumball machine. False premise. Will there ever be archeological corroboration of the miracles your holy text? Like WHAT? This is like asking if there will ever be "archaeological corroboration" of a conversation Tacitus had with Hadrian. It's another dumb question, asking for evidence in a category form (archaeology) that isn't applicable to the subject (the occurrence of a miracle). Again, Daffy no do8ubt constructs these things this way on purpose, knowing they are stupid and/or invalid, but hoping no one will notice, so he can sit back and laugh at a struggle. What made him riled is that I saw through his game.
Contrary Evidence. Could any possible evidence convert you to a different revelation-based religion, like Zoroastrianism or Sikhism? What if beans were peas? The answer is yes, but for the ones I have looked at (Mormonism, for example) it isn't there. Daffy is free to suggest some other religion, but he won't, because he isn't interested in actual testing of truth claims. Could any possible evidence convert you to atheism? (E.g., can you imagine compelling archaeological evidence that all the relevant revelation-based religions were false or fraudulent?) ALL of them? That would be some archaeological find, and we'd have to call Charles Berlitz. But the answer would be yes, it is theoretically possible that evidence could be found to disprogve a religion; but no, that would not mean we'd have to convert to atheism, as if there were no other choice (such as nominal theism, deism, or a non-revelaed religion like Confucianism). That Daffy doesn't see this shows that he hasn't got it together in the upstairs department. If yes to either, what is the minimum evidence required? For WHAT? Can we be specific here? Since we can't, I'll answer just for the home team, as Paul did in 1 Cor. 15: A dead body that belongs to Jesus.
Dwindling Hope. In the past, your god was used to explain the "gaps" caused by the absence of a naturalistic understanding of physics, astronomy, meteorology, agriculture, and physiology. Most of these gaps began closing after 1500, but by 1850, there were still no naturalistic explanations for the origin and diversity of life, the mechanism of mind, and the origin of the universe itself. By now, compelling naturalistic explanations already exist for the diversity of life and the mechanism of mind, while outlines of naturalistic explanations are being formed for the origins of life and the universe itself. They do? No, they don't. Merely having explanations doesn't mean dip. I don't get into the sciences much, but if any evolutionist out there wants to explain to me: 1) exactly what mutation-steps were involved in any serious evolutionary change -- say from a scale to a feather, if that's still current theory; 2) exactly what natural selection advantage each and every step had, I'll consider naturalistic evolution seriously. Consider a future year -- 2300, or 3300 -- in which
Prophecy. If you believe that your holy book made non-trivial prophecies that were later fulfilled, how do you explain the secular scholarly consensus that no such prophecies were actually recorded before the predicted event? It's called a presupposition to naturalism. The dating of documents as an objective practice is something Daffy will never bother with, as he refused to take up my challenge to do so. What single prophecy would you say is the one that should be most impressive to skeptics? Maybe the whole Daniel 7-9 setup, which I explain here. The "Daniel was written in the 2nd century" excuse won't even work any more with this one.
Nature of Hell. What is hell like? This is where my views have changed much since Daffy last blackened my box. See here. Here also are some of the few questions that are not "dumb". During my "eternal damnation", will I be able to remember my mortal life as well as I can now? Yes. Will I be able to remember new things that I think of while in hell? No reason why not. Will your god(s) and devil(s) torment me only by the new experiences they give me, or will they also directly manipulate my memories, personality, emotions, and free will? No reason to think so, and neither God nor devil will have anything to do with it. The "torment" will be personal shame, and will be called up by your own memories. Will I be able to keep time in any way? No reason why not. Nothing suggests we will cease to be atemporal beings in this scenario. Will I have access to any means of recording my thoughts? Maybe, but who cares? This is one of Daffy's "haircuts in heaven" questions. Will your god(s) be aware of any words or thoughts I address to them, or is this outside their omniscience? Aware, yes; will He pay attention, no. Your total loss of honor will put you outside the boundary of God's concern. Will I be able to communicate with people in heaven or other people in hell? No reason why not for hell; those in heaven would likely find your company too shameful, but we have hints from Lazarus and the rich man that this does have some possibility. Will I be able to learn of events on earth and elsewhere as they happen after my death? Yes, as indicated by passages we discuss here though how this is accomplished is unknown. Will any loved ones I have in heaven be able to remember me? Yes, based on Abraham knowing the rich man. How are they likely to feel about me and my predicament? The same way you feel about any relative who has been put in a prison for a shameful crime. It's regrettable, but the man made his choice and has to live with it. Now let's get back to business
Nature of Heaven. What is heaven like? No answer given, and none expected; we have work to do HERE, and this also in line with ancient present-orientation. During your (presumed) "life everlasting", will you be able to do the things I asked about me doing in Hell? Yes, same as above. If you are able to communicate with other citizens of heaven, will it only be if they agree to do so? Can you truly consider it paradise if the celebrities there are snubbing you? That's a hoot. No, individualism as we know it will be dead or destroyed. No snubbing, in other words. Can celebrities truly consider it paradise if they have to talk to anybody who comes over to their cloud? Any celebrity that shallow isn't going to be there in the first place; and if they are that shallow, their rewards will reflect this and they'll learn a hard lesson in humility. As the story goes of the rich guy who went to heaven, who saw that janitors, etc. got huge mansions, while he got a shack: When he asked why, his guide told him, "We did what we could with what you sent us." If you are a remarried widower, will your two wives have to share you, or will one of them have less bliss than the other? In heaven, people neither marry or are given in marriage; but God takes covenant relationships seriously. Some form of bond will remain with those we were wed to, but "sharing" won't be a problem, any more than it was in societies where polygamy is practiced honorably. If you had lifelong enmity for someone (e.g. a cruel stepmother or a father who abandoned your family to poverty), are you allowed to still refuse contact with them in heaven? How imaginiative. Daffy hasn't grasped our paradigm, that the transcendance of the heavenly life will erase such enmity. If you were mentally disabled or senile when you received life everlasting, do you get an adult's mind? Very likely, since part of the process is a perfected resurrection body. If you were an infant or child and get an adult's mind, what determines your personality? The experiential knowledge you gain in the process of getting that mind. Are some people in heaven still smarter or funnier than others, or is everyone equally intelligent and witty? There's no reason why stratification of this sort would not continue. Is there humor at all in heaven? Jesus used puns and hyperbole, so why not? Will any joke still seem funny after 100 trillion years? Not if you're as shallow as Daffy is, I guess not. Will you understand (or be able to learn) every principle of math and science? Be able to learn, yes. Will you eventually understand everything, and thus face an eternity of having nothing new to learn? No, because there will also be an eternity of possibility for new creations and interactions, to say nothing of the possibility of alternate timelines and realities. Will you know (or be able to learn) every fact of the history of you, your loved ones, humanity, and the Earth in general? Able to, yes. Will you know Earth's future, or be able to observe it as it happens? Knowing, only if revealed to us. Otherwise we remain temporal beings and "as it happens" is the rule. Will others in heaven know (or be able to learn) embarrassing things about your life? Able to, yes. Will you be able to remember any sinful pleasures of your mortal life? Yes. Will your memory of your sins be wiped clean, or will you still have shame? No shame; indeed, this is where my current views are especially relevant, as the honor of Christ displaces all shame. Will you be able to play games (like chess) with other people in heaven? No reason why not. Will you ever lose? That goes back to a stupid question form. Obviously there must be a loser in oppositional formats. Can you ever improve at such pursuits? Yes. Will you be able to take naps, and if so for what duration? Likely yes, for whatever duration you please, though the resurrection body would not need rest. Will people ever have differing opinions, interests, or hobbies? Interests and hobbies, yes; but as for opinions, only on that over which truth is not known. Will there be any possible way to create new knowledge or new art? Yes. Just pick up a brush, Daffy. What intellectual person could be happy having an omniscience withhold knowledge from her? One who enjoyed the thrill of the informational chase and wasn't a spoiled brat who demanded everything on a silver platter. What intellectual person could be happy being omniscient and having nothing left to learn? You won't be omniscient, you'll just have access to it. So concludes the part that actually had some good questions it it. The next section is another where my newer views have effect:
Justness of Hell. If, when my first 100 trillion years of torment are over, you happen to remember that a basically good person is just beginning his torture essentially because he used his divine given gift of reason, Huh? He "used his reason" but now knows that he fooled himself? So why doesn't Daffy see the contradiction? In any event, "torture" (and "torment" as so defined) isn't the experience, so the question is moot or else must be adjusted for me. I'll guess how it might be Daffitzied as we go on. will you think "right on! you and Hitler are getting what you deserved!"? With such gusto? No. More like, "Shrug. You chose as you did." Or will you then even momentarily consider that your god(s) might be less than perfectly just? Since the level of shame experienced will correspond with the seriousness of the deeds -- IOW a rapist will have more to be "ashamed of" than a jaywalker -- there's no way one can claim lack of justice on this paradigm. If after 100 trillion years of torment I were repentant and your god(s) gave me amnesty, would you really think "Boo! Burn that bastard for the eternity that he deserves!"? What if beans were peas again? But since hell isn't what Daffy thinks it is, there's no amnesty to be offered.
What if God Quit? Imagine your god(s) "saw how great man's wickedness on earth had become" [Gen 6:5] and decided to be rid of us. But instead of drowning us all in a Flood, imagine that your god(s) simply abandoned us to the uncaring universe. What if beans were peas, again. If this happened, then God is not what He said He was, and we have a 1 Cor. 15 situation. So: Imagine that your god(s) decided to leave us alone and unmolested, the way all the wicked atheists thought we were anyway. Imagine too that your god(s) had firmly decided and announced that the few not-quite-so-wicked people like you had zero hope of salvation, and that your souls would be uncreated upon your natural bodily death. What would you do? What would be your goals and values? To defend truth whatever it would be. So end Daffy's questions, and at least he was smart enough to ditch the one about haircuts. Whether he'll get any smarter in the future is an open question, but he won't as long as he's wasting time fantasizing about talking dishwashers by the year 3200.