The cost was enormous, eh? Seems to me that the cost God allegedly paid was considerably less -- infinitely less, indeed -- than the cost every single non-saved human being is going to be paying, and God (more or less by definition) is much better able to pay that cost. However, never mind that; I don't think anything much depends on how much it "cost" God to do whatever he did; actions don't become more meritorious just because you make them needlessly painful.
Once again, it appears that standing up to scrutiny means avoiding the difficult questions. Billions of people are suffering eternal torment. It seems that God could avoid this, at least for most of them, by providing better information more clearly. So why doesn't he? Oh, um, well, I don't know, it's all a mystery, but that's OK because there are also *other* problematic questions with similarly unknown answers, like "why does God leave his world in such a mess even though he supposedly cares for its inhabitants and can do anything he wants?". (Obviously a belief is better supported when it has two fatal objections than when it has only one.)
But, apparently, God has "provided enough answers that we can be sure he exists, is loving, and is worthy of our worship". That seems to me rather like saying "I know my spouse is openly sleeping with a dozen other people, insults me in front of my friends, and only talks to me once a year. But I've got ample reasons for believing that s/he loves me beyond description and is perfectly faithful to me." Or "I know my new theory of physics appears to predict that the planets will fall into the sun instead of orbiting it, and that protons decay with a half-life of one nanosecond, and that there's no such thing as light. But it gives enough good answers that I'm sure it's correct."
Could you provide at least a brief sketch of what these answers are that God has provided and how they outweigh the obvious facts of (e.g.) living in a world full of evil and, according to you, billions of people suffering eternal torment?
no subject
Once again, it appears that standing up to scrutiny means avoiding the difficult questions. Billions of people are suffering eternal torment. It seems that God could avoid this, at least for most of them, by providing better information more clearly. So why doesn't he? Oh, um, well, I don't know, it's all a mystery, but that's OK because there are also *other* problematic questions with similarly unknown answers, like "why does God leave his world in such a mess even though he supposedly cares for its inhabitants and can do anything he wants?". (Obviously a belief is better supported when it has two fatal objections than when it has only one.)
But, apparently, God has "provided enough answers that we can be sure he exists, is loving, and is worthy of our worship". That seems to me rather like saying "I know my spouse is openly sleeping with a dozen other people, insults me in front of my friends, and only talks to me once a year. But I've got ample reasons for believing that s/he loves me beyond description and is perfectly faithful to me." Or "I know my new theory of physics appears to predict that the planets will fall into the sun instead of orbiting it, and that protons decay with a half-life of one nanosecond, and that there's no such thing as light. But it gives enough good answers that I'm sure it's correct."
Could you provide at least a brief sketch of what these answers are that God has provided and how they outweigh the obvious facts of (e.g.) living in a world full of evil and, according to you, billions of people suffering eternal torment?