In my belief "heaven" is nearness to God.. that is a state of the soul in which we are following the Will of God ...humbly biding by His Will and experiencing a state of nearness to our Creator... Remoteness from God or being alienated from God is more of a hellish condition.
Well since there is either no God, or a laissez-faire God, and a complete lack of evidence for or against either, the only possible expression of God's will would have to be found embedded in our nature--most likely our full, mortal self-awareness and the inborn morality that imparts.
Plenty of food in hell, but no water. Why Jesus said "All who come to me will never thirst".
If Jesus did say that, I'm sure he was speaking metaphorically.
The test will never end unless you pass them. I understand many choose to take the lessons over again. If one chooses to do the very same thing, how can one really expect different results? That seems to be a hard lesson for many.
There's only one test, subverting the rights of others to your own, or honoring them equally with yours. And after all of those tests, you're the only one who can judge whether you can live in the Light of Truth with what you were/are, or not.
With the infinite diversity of souls, there will always be one who can pierce the darkness with the light of truth. A soul can attempt to exist only in their created illusion world, however there will always be someone out there who will not allow you to box yourself away. Since there is eternity in which to work, it's just a matter of Time before even the darkest soul finds themselves basking in the warmth of the Light.
But when you die, if there is a Hereafter, the test is over, and you're left to face the decisions you made while you possessed your free will unfettered by the knowledge of God. Heaven is being able to live with that, otherwise the painful Truth drives you to opt for oblivion. We're our own judges, S'my considered opinion anyway. We'll see...or not.
I do not think so, evidence has no more appropriate location than in a premise. If I was trying to prove your existence then evidence that you exist is the primary premise I can possibly use. Circular logic is not evidence for God's existence it is to say that since God exists then he exists or if I appealed to scriptures that say God's revelation is true and therefor the scriptures must be true. Evidence is the premise in virtually all court cases. I do not know what you posted here maybe a definition can help:
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
No mention of evidence in the premise.
The World looks flat (evidence), therefore it is flat, because it looks flat. The reasoner begins with the evidence that "proves" the conclusion he set out to prove. The circular argument always involves some evidence, no matter how irrational or unfounded (e.g hearsay).
This was a little confusing. Can you supply a relevant example for what you stated here to clarify your meaning?
If you look for further supporting evidence for a supposition, and find some which is rational, but you dismiss it because it doesn't support your preconceived outcome, that's irrational. Ships sails go out of sight with distance, indicating a spherical Earth, but it still looks flat, so if you dismiss the new evidence, which irrational.
This is very easy. I will give just one of thousands of examples. It is easy to not only conclude the necessity of a supernatural entity but also many of that entities characterizes from either Leibnitz's or kalam's cosmological argument. If you wish to know how then please ask and I will lay it all out.
OK, I'm willing to concede that the universe/Big Bang has a cause. But there's no evidence that such a cause was either willful or natural. I personally believe that the cause was God, but that's based entirely on hope. That's the only difference between atheism and deism. I further believe that God set it up this way so that we would have unfettered free will--THE reason for the universe. Whatever this universe was created from or extruded into, appears to be a timeless ether or Quantumland, where quantum transactions are completed "immediately" without regard for distance.
It seems that if the universe is natural, that such a perfect lack of evidence for it's cause seems designed. Unfortunately, we can't use a lack of evidence as evidence.
Of your thousands of examples, could you please just present the summary, or name, of one?
This argument is not even good enough to be circular reasoning. This is just to declare the conclusion without even a hint of a premise or argument. However let me give some evidence which contradicts your declaration. I was born again when I was 27 years old. That experience is just as valid as any argument of any kind based on sensory experience. You would have to demonstrate that my personal experience is some how null and void. Good luck, and even if you do what is necessary here I could give you countless other arguments of this type and of many other types that are just as valid and relevant to justify my evidence based world view.
God could come down and prove Itself to you. What good does that do me or anyone else. And in doing so, your moral free will would be undermined since all subsequent moral decisions you made would be divinely skewed by your knowledge that God is looking over your shoulder. You might as well have died at that point.
The only purpose for the universe is to spawn sentient creatures with unfettered free will. An omnipotent God could do anything else instantly.
How on earth can you possibly know if I have the evidence for my conclusions whether I do nor not? Even if I did not have any evidence (and I actually do) you would (especially at this early stage of the discussion) you would have absolutely no way to know that. Please bring some arguments before you make unknowable and sweeping claims deny an entire category of knowledge.
No, I can't say you don't have some personal proof. But if you can't present any evidence of support for it, for me, it's pure hearsay, and I would be a fool to change my life and believe in it. Multiply yourself by 3 billion and what have I got? The same nothing, which is particularly troubling since I've been there and done that.
Your latter point about the only possible conclusions that can be drawn is unequivocally incorrect.
Anyone who follows a path based only on hearsay, is irrationally following an unreasonable path.
It is metaphysical speculation if you do not explain what it is you are suggesting justifies your conclusions. You keep declaring things are this way or that without supplying a single reason (good or bad) to consider in order to evaluate your conclusions. Basically what ever I say your respond to by saying "nuh-uh".
All I'm claiming is that there are only two possible causes for the universe that fits the evidence. You've yet to show evidence for a revealed religion that's based on anything other than hearsay, be it your own or someone else's. Your "nuh-uh" evaluation is an indication that your conversion was based on similar emotions.
