Support NeoGAF

[Daemul]

You know what I think is a miracle? That youtube video has over 2 million views, has a religious theme to it and not a single comment? What is going on?

I just made a post because the emptiness was bugging me.

 

[Nocebo]

Uhoh. Semantics war incoming. I wonder how long this thread can stay open. Since it's strayed off topic as well.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

I just made a post because the emptiness was bugging me.

And yet it's not there (to anyone other than you). It has to be approved first.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

You have made a claim. You claimed that I haven't seen every potential piece of possible evidence for God's existence. Well, I have.

That was a slight mis-statement. The correct one was; it seems to be the case, based on what I have presented here, that you have not seen all the evidence, since that the very least there is a demonstrated lack of knowledge about Schellenberg and other philosophers' works. But very well, I will strike that statement and say, "very often people post old arguments that have been combated by very valid forms of philosophy. I have not seen proof that people have read all of these forms of evidence, and yet they still claim there is no or there is evidence of God."

So then, I retracted my statement, I do not know whether you have seen all the evidence. If you still claim you have, then prove you have. What is on page 24 of Schellenberg's book?

 

[Daemul]

And yet it's not there (to anyone other than you). It has to be approved first.

Yeah. It says there's 218 comments but I can't see a single on of them except my own.

 

[Siegcram]

It is not a shtick, it is a school of philosophical thought well documented and supported by dozens of great thinkers. I find it amusing that people so readily dismiss a valid form of thought. Will no one read The Wisdom to Doubt or the other great skepticism books? There is value in these books. Oh wait, I forgot this is not about learning and more about assuming we know the answer without evaluating all the arguments.

You're the one treating the premise of a god in your coat pocket as a legitimate argument.

That's not skepticism, it's just deflective stupidity. You're full of shit, as usual.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

So then, I retracted my statement, I do not know whether you have seen all the evidence. If you still claim you have, then prove you have. What is on page 24 of Schellenberg's book?

Just because I can't prove I have seen all the evidence doesn't mean someone, somewhere isn't able to prove that I have seen all the evidence.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

You're the one treating the premise of a god in your coat pocket as a legitimate argument.

That's not skepticism, it's just deflective stupidity. You're full of shit, as usual.

It is the argument of probabilities. Until something has been completely disproven or completely proven, it is both possible and not possible at the same time. Until someone can prove God is not in my pocket, they cannot prove that no God exists. For my pocket is part of this greater claim that God is no where. If you cannot prove that God is not in my pocket, or in the Himalayas for that matter, how can you prove that God is nowhere? It is the first step.

It is not up to me to find you evidence that there isn't any god, it's your belief, not mine. It's up to you to find evidence of it and present it. You can't expect to be taken seriously from a scientific viewpoint with just "Well I believe it without cause to, so that's enough".
And what do you want me to say to that exactly?

"There's no evidence of that"

"Well, there could be!"

That's useless to me. There "could" be evidence that elephants are plotting to take over the world using herrings as weapons. But I don't operate on hypothetical evidence any more than I operate on hypothetical gods.

You are starting with the conclusion and working backwards, instead of starting with the evidence and working to a conclusion, as the scientific method requires.

Again, I do not believe in God, nor do I disbelieve in God. I simply am on the fence on the issue of God. This is a valid form of thought known as Igtheism. I am asking those who claim there is no God to prove there is no God. I am not coming from the perspective of a believer, but a skeptic. Without proof, I have no reason to state there is no God. I want proof there is no God from people claiming there is one.

Just because I can't prove I have seen all the evidence doesn't mean someone, somewhere isn't able to prove that I have seen all the evidence.

Now you are thinking like a skeptic. Find me the person who has seen all the evidence and maintains your stance, and I will listen to him. That is my ultimate goal, to find that person. I want proof, not half formed opinions from antiquated philosophies.

Jesus Christ. I know that gibberish you're typing probably sounds so profound and intellectual in your head but honestly, it's just gibberish.

My claim, as an atheist, is that I Don't believe a god exists. I'm completely contented that as a species, we have an incomplete understanding of the universe and I feel no desperate compultion to fill in the holes in our knowledge with magical shit some dudes who understood less than an average child does today about the world, wrote in a book. There is absolutely no reason why "proving that that god doesn't exist" is a requirement for holding that viewpoint.

I have no problem with this stance. It is prime agnosticism. But there is a different between "not believing in God" and "disbelieving in God". My issue is not with the agnostics like yourself, but the Atheists who claim there is no God.

 

[Pyramid head]

I do not refute that there is no evidence, I merely question whether you have proof there is no evidence. You do not even have evidence that I do not have evidence of God's existence. If you cannot prove that I do not have evidence, how can you make the claim that no evidence exists? Without proof, you have no proof I do not have evidence of God

Jesus Christ. I know that gibberish you're typing probably sounds so profound and intellectual in your head but honestly, it's just gibberish.

My claim, as an atheist, is that I Don't believe a god exists. I'm completely contented that as a species, we have an incomplete understanding of the universe and I feel no desperate compultion to fill in the holes in our knowledge with magical shit some dudes who understood less than an average child does today about the world, wrote in a book. There is absolutely no reason why "proving that that god doesn't exist" is a requirement for holding that viewpoint.

 

[ElTorro]

It is the argument of probabilities. Until something has been completely disproven or completely proven, it is both possible and not possible at the same time. Until someone can prove God is not in my pocket, they cannot prove that no God exists. For my pocket is part of this greater claim that God is no where. If you cannot prove that God is not in my pocket, or in the Himalayas for that matter, how can you prove that God is nowhere? It is the first step.

Would you like to tell me three propositions of which think that they are proven?

 

[Ithil]

It is the argument of probabilities. Until something has been completely disproven or completely proven, it is both possible and not possible at the same time. Until someone can prove God is not in my pocket, they cannot prove that no God exists. For my pocket is part of this greater claim that God is no where. If you cannot prove that God is not in my pocket, or in the Himalayas for that matter, how can you prove that God is nowhere? It is the first step.



Again, I do not believe in God, nor do I disbelieve in God. I simply am on the fence on the issue of God. This is a valid form of thought known as Igtheism. I am asking those who claim there is no God to prove there is no God. I am not coming from the perspective of a believer, but a skeptic. Without proof, I have no reason to state there is no God. I want proof there is no God from people claiming there is one.

I don't give two claims the same weight just because, or some weird idea of "fairness".
Just like that "teach the controversy" stuff they do in schools where they want the "alternate religious version" of scientific concepts, and act as though it's just being fair. It's not being fair, because all of those "alternates" are not as valid as the scientific concepts and should not be treated as an equally valid argument.

The whole "well you can't disprove" argument doesn't give it any weight, in my book. I could say that about anything.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

But there is a different between "not believing in God" and "disbelieving in God".

No. Those are synonyms.

 

[Agremont]

I have no problem with this stance. It is prime agnosticism. But there is a different between "not believing in God" and "disbelieving in God". My issue is not with the agnostics like yourself, but the Atheists who claim there is no God.

No. Lacking a belief in god/gods is atheism. Agnostic atheism to be precise.

 

[Maninthemirror]

I don't really become depressed considering what else matters? Dying is not some terrible thing, it is simply going to sleep. Nothing's bad about my existence ending after a set time, as everything has an end. Besides, why would I want to end up in some "eternal heaven" as a slave to a God against homosexuality and dissent?

Yes that's true dying shouldn't be a fear. The fear in the minds of most abrahamic faith followers is they fear they were not good enough people in the light of how judgement will be passed on them. This is the fear of God essentially that in the aftwrlife which is a much larger infinite canvas than a piece of dust which is this life if you want to compare lengths , that they were good enough people to be put in heaven.

In the end that is the thing, that I see the mocking of God as the fear of God from people who say there Is no God because why else would they even go enraged or even consider talking of a God WHEN most of the followers of God believe in God and fear him and do good deeds to please God for their part in the afterlife. The objection of God is weird because either you believe in a God that you are objecting to him or you don't believe in God which begs the question that if the followers believe in the afterlifr and God, what do you care if you think our souls end at death. The objection would only be valid if you believed in a God otherwise it's a childish ploy which has no value. you only criticize something which exists for you otherwise its a useless ploy to enforce a view on those who do believe it exists. It's exactly like evangelical preachers except on the polar opposite end of the spectrum. If you do believe in a God then describe this god which you believe in as it seems to be clearly different than the God of the faithful.

It's one thing saying there is no physical proof of God that we see and one thing saying God is evil or doesn't care, the first statement is you saying you don't believe God exists and the second is saying God exists but... You cannot have it both ways, either say you believe or don't , only then your criticism has any weight of opinion to a believer

Let him who believes, believe, let him who disbelieves, disnelieve

 

[TheChocolateWar]

No it's atheism. Agnostic atheism to be precise.

That is what it has come to be called by people trying to expand the definitions without reading the basic philosophical books the ideas are based on. These phrases were not part of the original foundation of these arguments. The etymology of the word Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Agnosticism is the stance that one does not know God exists. Igtheism is the stance that all sides are ignorant as to what god is. Iterative skepticism is the constant asking of questions as to what God is.

These modern formulations of the words are not in the philosophical books that discuss these issues, and they are a perversion of the etymology of the words. Rest in piece Latin.(Word puns yeah!)

The whole "well you can't disprove" argument doesn't give it any weight, in my book. I could say that about anything.

Which is a crying shame that Skepticism has been relegated to the "not useful" category, when there are so many great philosophers who support it and so many grand arguments that have been put forward because of it. Thousands of hours of philosophical thought wasted because people find it hard.

 

[cackhyena]

...but the Atheists who claim there is no God.

Pretty sure Atheism is the lack of belief in a God.

 

[Demon Ice]

Here is a prime example of someone not even knowing the basics of skepticism. Prove to me no evidence of God exists. Prove to me you have been in every inch of this universe, talking to every single person on Earth.

The fallacy is in the claiming that there is no evidence of God, merely because you have never found any evidence of God. It is an iteration of the Gambler's Fallacy. Merely because each person you meet has not given you evidence, does not make it any more likely or less likely that the next will not have evidence.

I do not refute that there is no evidence, I merely question whether you have proof there is no evidence. You do not even have evidence that I do not have evidence of God's existence. If you cannot prove that I do not have evidence, how can you make the claim that no evidence exists? Without proof, you have no proof I do not have evidence of God

Haha, so now it's not enough to say there is no proof, I have to prove that there never will be proof, and that no proof exists anywhere in the universe? You sound like a college freshman who just passed their first philosophy class. Congratulations, you're asking for things that are physically impossible to provide and then patting yourself on the back for being clever. It's a shame that the concept of burden of proof is apparently entirely foreign to you. What a pointless response.

Hey, I think god lives in a teacup orbiting around Saturn. If you can't prove me wrong, then god lives in a teacup orbiting around Saturn. I have proof of it and you can't prove that I don't.

My, what an intellectually enlightened thing I just said.

 

[Nocebo]

Yes that's true dying shouldn't be a fear. The fear in the minds of most abrahamic faith followers is they fear they were not good enough people in the light of how judgement will be passed on them. This is the fear of God essentially that in the aftwrlife which is a much larger infinite canvas than a piece of dust which is this life if you want to compare lengths , that they were good enough people to be put in heaven.

How would you explain parents fearing the death of their young children and babies? Also what is the point of having children in the first place and having them run the risk of going to hell later in life?

 

[Chainsawkitten]

Thousands of hours of philosophical thought wasted because people find it hard.

Prove that those hours weren't useful.

 

[Siegcram]

It is the argument of probabilities. Until something has been completely disproven or completely proven, it is both possible and not possible at the same time. Until someone can prove God is not in my pocket, they cannot prove that no God exists. For my pocket is part of this greater claim that God is no where. If you cannot prove that God is not in my pocket, or in the Himalayas for that matter, how can you prove that God is nowhere? It is the first step.

You know, when your arguments are indistinguishable from those someone in kindergarten would come up with, maybe it's time to reevaluate.

"You can't say god doesn't exist, you haven't been on Mt. Everest and checked there."
Really?

 

[Ithil]

Which is a crying shame that Skepticism has been relegated to the "not useful" category, when there are so many great philosophers who support it and so many grand arguments that have been put forward because of it. Thousands of hours of philosophical thought wasted because people find it hard.

Saying "philosophers have talked about this a lot, you know" does not make you your weird argument of "well you can't disprove it and unless you can prove there's no proof ever in the universe it's not valid" any better.

In fact I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing for, here. You can say "unless it's completely proven or disprove it could be one or the other" for anything, what use is that to me?

 

[TheChocolateWar]

Haha, so now it's not enough to say there is no proof, I have to prove that there never will be proof, and that no proof exists anywhere in the universe? You sound like a college freshman who just passed their first philosophy class. Congratulations, you're asking for things that are physically impossible to provide and then patting yourself on the back for being clever. It's a shame that the concept of burden of proof is apparently entirely foreign to you. What a pointless response.

Hey, I think god lives in a teacup orbiting around Saturn. If you can't prove me wrong, then god lives in a teacup orbiting around Saturn. I have proof of it and you can't prove that I don't.

My, what an intellectually enlightened thing I just said.

Actually, I am a licensed attorney who majored in philosophy and wrote a dissertation on why Descartes was wrong and external skepticism defeats his arguments. But hey, if you want to use ad hominems be my guest.

Also, I am not claiming that God is in my pocket, or that a teacup is orbiting around the sun and God is in it. I am merely pointing out that until we know he isn't, he might still be. This argument was started in Arabic Philosophy in the Argument of Possibility and Necessity. It is basic logic; the difference between necessity and possibility; is and may be. God could possibly be in a teacup floating around Saturn. Why? Because I do not yet know God is necessarily not in a teacup floating around Saturn.

Saying "philosophers have talked about this a lot, you know" does not make you your weird argument of "well you can't disprove it and unless you can prove there's no proof ever in the universe it's not valid" any better.

In fact I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing for, here. You can say "unless it's completely proven or disprove it could be one or the other" for anything, what use is that to me?

That is not what I am saying. I am not saying you can't disprove. I am encouraging you to disprove it. I want you to disprove it. It would be great to find someone who finally could disprove it. But until I find someone who can disprove it, I will keep asking my questions. Why? Because I do not know what I do not have proof of.

 

[Agremont]

That is what it has come to be called by people trying to expand the definitions without reading the basic philosophical books the ideas are based on. These phrases were not part of the original foundation of these arguments. The etymology of the word Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Agnosticism is the stance that one does not know God exists. Igtheism is the stance that all sides are ignorant as to what god is. Iterative skepticism is the constant asking of questions as to what God is.

These modern formulations of the words are not in the philosophical books that discuss these issues, and they are a perversion of the etymology of the words. Rest in piece Latin.(Word puns yeah!)

I'm pretty sure the A denotes lack of. As in amoral meaning a lack of morals for example. But I'm a bit rusty with that.

Even if it doesn't, language changes over time and so does the meaning of words.

 

[Demon Ice]

"Be skeptical about everything."

He's the sort of person that if you claimed you ate cereal he'd demand proof that the cereal ever existed. And then if you said the cereal wasn't poisoned he'd scream "YOU CANT KNOW THAT. BE AGNOSTIC ABOUT IT."

It's entirely unproductive psuedo-intellectual wankery.

Yep. It's annoying that these discussions always devolve into people desperately trying to cram as many philosophical quotes and mannerisms into a single statement as they can in an effort to sound intellectually superior in defense of a Stone Age institution that ruins lives on a daily basis.

 

[Maninthemirror]

How would you explain parents fearing the death of their young children and babies? Also what is the point of having children in the first place and having them run the risk of going to hell later in life?

Its been said before but the purpose of life is to do good and build the moral character to be a good person, this only comes with a fulfilled life and if someone dies young you don't go to heaven as a baby as per the tradition I believe in, you grow in the presence of Prophets who build your character as you grow.

 

[elrechazado]

That is what it has come to be called by people trying to expand the definitions without reading the basic philosophical books the ideas are based on. These phrases were not part of the original foundation of these arguments. The etymology of the word Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Agnosticism is the stance that one does not know God exists. Igtheism is the stance that all sides are ignorant as to what god is. Iterative skepticism is the constant asking of questions as to what God is.

These modern formulations of the words are not in the philosophical books that discuss these issues, and they are a perversion of the etymology of the words. Rest in piece Latin.(Word puns yeah!)



Which is a crying shame that Skepticism has been relegated to the "not useful" category, when there are so many great philosophers who support it and so many grand arguments that have been put forward because of it. Thousands of hours of philosophical thought wasted because people find it hard.

I'd find your logic more compelling if you'd knock it off with the logical fallacies like appeal to authority.

 

[Siegcram]

Hey, I think god lives in a teacup orbiting around Saturn. If you can't prove me wrong, then god lives in a teacup orbiting around Saturn. I have proof of it and you can't prove that I don't.

My, what an intellectually enlightened thing I just said.

'Sup Russell.

 

[Nocebo]

Its been said before but the purpose of life is to do good and build the moral character to be a good person, this only comes with a fulfilled life and if someone dies young you don't go to heaven as a baby as per the tradition I believe in, you grow in the presence of Prophets who build your character as you grow.

Interesting. Where do you believe dead babies go?

 

[Maninthemirror]

Interesting. Where do you believe dead babies go?

As per Abrahamic faith, in the guidance of Abraham himself to be bought up to an age where their morality and concept of Good vs Bad has been built

 

[Demon Ice]

Actually, I am a licensed attorney

You might be.

who majored in philosophy and wrote a dissertation on why Descartes was wrong and external skepticism defeats his arguments.

You might have.

But hey, if you want to use ad hominems be my guest.

Oh, was that me? Somebody else may have been typing from my laptop. Prove it was me.

Look at how clever I am.

Seriously, you can't possibly expect people to take your line of "reasoning" seriously if literally all you do is go "Hm, well it MIGHT be true and even though there is not a single shred of evidence to support it now there MIGHT be evidence we haven't found yet, so it remains possible." That's not being a skeptic, that's being deliberately dense.

 

[Nocebo]

As per Abrahamic faith, in the guidance of Abraham himself to be bought up to an age where their morality and concept of Good vs Bad has been built

I'm sorry. I don't understand. This doesn't sound like a location.

 

[Demon Ice]

As per Abrahamic faith, in the guidance of Abraham himself to be bought up to an age where their morality and concept of Good vs Bad has been built

I'm reading your post and the post you quoted and I honestly can't see the connection. Are you answering his question? Your sentence doesn't make sense.

 

[DECK'ARD]

As per Abrahamic faith, in the guidance of Abraham himself to be bought up to an age where their morality and concept of Good vs Bad has been built

In heaven?

 

[Siegcram]

As per Abrahamic faith, in the guidance of Abraham himself to be bought up to an age where their morality and concept of Good vs Bad has been built

Dude you need an editor. Desperately.

 

[Demon Ice]

Dude you need an editor. Desperately.

It's not even a sentence. It's a sentence fragment.

Dude what are you trying to say

 

[Nocebo]

No need to be mean. English obviously isn't his/her first language. Mine isn't either as you can probably tell.

 

[Soriku]

Actually, I am a licensed attorney who majored in philosophy and wrote a dissertation on why Descartes was wrong and external skepticism defeats his arguments. But hey, if you want to use ad hominems be my guest.

Also, I am not claiming that God is in my pocket, or that a teacup is orbiting around the sun and God is in it. I am merely pointing out that until we know he isn't, he might still be. This argument was started in Arabic Philosophy in the Argument of Possibility and Necessity. It is basic logic; the difference between necessity and possibility; is and may be. God could possibly be in a teacup floating around Saturn. Why? Because I do not yet know God is necessarily not in a teacup floating around Saturn.



That is not what I am saying. I am not saying you can't disprove. I am encouraging you to disprove it. I want you to disprove it. It would be great to find someone who finally could disprove it. But until I find someone who can disprove it, I will keep asking my questions. Why? Because I do not know what I do not have proof of.

This why nobody ever says something like "there is no God under any circumstances, in and out of this universe, ever".

We are just confident enough there isn't one, especially the one from Abrahamic religions and whatnot, to go about our lives without giving much of a thought to the Fear of God™.

 

[elrechazado]

No need to be mean. English obviously isn't his/her first language. Mine isn't either as you can probably tell.

Non sequiturs and no true Scotsman arguments are his language.

 

[cackhyena]

No need to be mean. English obviously isn't his/her first language. Mine isn't either as you can probably tell.

Nope, this is worded pretty well. His on the other hand?

 

[Siegcram]

No need to be mean. English obviously isn't his/her first language. Mine isn't either as you can probably tell.

The English isn't the issue. I'm pretty sure that sentence doesn't answer the question in any language. I'm not asking for the world here.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Dude you need an editor. Desperately.

As per Abrahamic faith
The children
Who die
At an age before reaching adulthood
Will be taken care of by
prophet Abraham
Who will help establish their morality
And educate them on good vs bad
Before they reach heaven



Got it ? Or do you want me to explain each word. If you are going to be a grammar critic that is a pretty weak counter in a discussion lol

As per the most authentic hadith in Islam

Hadith of the Prophet when he saw in a dream a garden wherein there is a man surrounded by many children, the man was Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) and children are all children who die before the age of puberty. Commenting on this, the Companions inquired, “Including the children of polytheists?” and the Prophet (peace be upon him) replied, “Yes, including the children of polytheists.” (Al Bukhari)

And

I heard the Prophet peace be upon him saying that the children are the da`amees (small fish) of Paradise. Each of them will meet his father or his parents and take him by his cloth- or by his hand- and never stop until Allah permits both of them into Paradise" (Muslim)

Going by islamic references alone

 

[jakonovski]

Everyone's wrong. I am god. You can't prove that Chewbacca doesn't live on Endor and therefore you must acquit.

 

[Elwood Blues]

I'd probably just say whatever I had to to get in.

 

[Siegcram]

As per Abrahamic faith
The children
Who die
At an age before reaching adulthood
Will be taken care of by
prophet Abraham
Who will help establish their morality
And educate them on good vs bad
Before they reach heaven



Got it ? Or do you want me to explain each word. If you are going to be a grammar critic that is a pretty weak counter in a discussion lol

Disregarding the fact that this still doesn't answer the original question if where such an education will take place, your original sentence didn't convey half of that.

As for "got it?", can't say I do. Why babies need to learn about "good vs bad" isn't particularly clear to me. Especially if they go to heaven anyways, apparently. Maybe Abraham is just a rad teacher.

 

[cackhyena]

Everyone's wrong. I am god. You can't prove that Chewbacca doesn't live on Endor and therefore you must acquit.

As per Abrahamic faith
The children
Who die
At an age before reaching adulthood
Will be taken care of by
prophet Abraham
Who will help establish their morality
And educate them on good vs bad
Before they reach heaven

 

[Dongs Macabre]

As per Abrahamic faith
The children
Who die
At an age before reaching adulthood
Will be taken care of by
prophet Abraham
Who will help establish their morality
And educate them on good vs bad
Before they reach heaven



Got it ? Or do you want me to explain each word. If you are going to be a grammar critic that is a pretty weak counter in a discussion lol

As per the most authentic hadith in Islam




And




Going by islamic references alone

How come babies get to go to heaven, but everyone else has to pass first?

 

[TheChocolateWar]

I'd find your logic more compelling if you'd knock it off with the logical fallacies like appeal to authority.

There is a difference between argument from authority, a valid form of inductive reasonings and appeal to authority, a fallacious argument in which you merely rely on a person's non sequitur high standing in society. But I am not at all surprised that such distinctions are lost when people only pay attention to the first philosophers they hear in undergraduate. An argument in which you use an accepted source of information is valid, by the definitions of philosophy. For instance, it is fine to listen to a lawyer speak about the law, not so much a lawyer on what cake is delicious, merely because he is a generally respected figure.

Seriously, you can't possibly expect people to take your line of "reasoning" seriously if literally all you do is go "Hm, well it MIGHT be true and even though there is not a single shred of evidence to support it now there MIGHT be evidence we haven't found yet, so it remains possible." That's not being a skeptic, that's being deliberately dense.

That is the accepted definition of skepticism as I have seen it in countless philosophical books such as the Wisdom to Doubt and numerous others. But hey, maybe we should dump all the establish philosophical definitions and etymologies because people want to make up new words. I am merely pointing out very simple, well established philosophical stances; such as the argument of possibilities and necessities. If someone doesn't like the argument that something is possible until proven impossible, then they should try to argue against those fundamental precepts, instead of resulting to arguments from incredulity where they just label the arguments as "dumb" and a "waste of time".

 

[Maninthemirror]

How come babies get to go to heaven, but everyone else has to pass first?

Well obviously not straight to heaven. Children are the most innocent of humanity they have not built up the mechanism of good vs bad , morality vs immorality, right vs wrong, they still have to learn it from Abraham as per tradition before they enter heaven. It's pretty obvious.

 

[Demon Ice]

Well obviously not straight to heaven. Children are the most innocent of humanity they have not built up the mechanism of good vs bad , morality vs immorality, right vs wrong, they still have to learn it from Abraham as per tradition before they enter heaven. It's pretty obvious.

Oh, totally obvious man. Common sense.

Where does Abraham teach them good vs bad?

Also, how does he teach them? Verbally? In writing? Interpretive dance? They are babies so they obviously can't understand everything, does he raise them until they grow old enough to understand his teachings?

What happens if they reject his teachings?

I'm sure my questions are obvious but help me out a little.

 

[CornBurrito]

Again, what do you, the chocolate war, even want except to quash any possible discussion?