Well stated and cool story. I agree that Christianity is partly deduction but also partly just God revealing himself. I also agree people cannot become Christians based on intellectual endevaor alone.

IMO God allows for more doubt than you are thinking he does.

I think that God allows for LOTS of doubt, if he exists. Probably more than YOU think he does. But there is a paradox if the God that we believe is more likely than any other, is one that doesn't allow for this doubt. It forces that hypothetical person to think that the most likely end for him is not to be saved, even though he is willing to assume the truth of this God and behave and worship accordingly.

The fact that a God would allow for such a situation to occur would be called by most people "unjust". Of course you get out of this paradox instantly if you are right about God. All I want is for Not Ready to agree with you.

(Another way out is that God intervenes. He sees that you make him a 3-2 dog against the field and that spurs him on to give you a little more evidence that turns him into 2-5.)

Me, yes. People in general, no. When people say that God is just they mean by their definition, not his. They may not have all the information, but they have to believe that if they did, they would agree about the justness. To say otherwise is nonsensical. Are you disputing that?

I might agree with this criticism as a general and hypothetical position to hold. But I don't see how you can apply it to Christianity. The OTHER criteria (trusting in Christ) require you to believe stories that are particular to Christianity and that separate it from other religions. How would you justify genuine belief and faith in the story of Christ but think the other stories, which have the same source, are less than 50% to be true? Christ himself told some of these stories, for instance the reality of Adam and Eve - so how could you trust him for salvation if you can't believe he's telling the truth about events in the Old Testament?

Having said that, I'm not aware of anything in the Bible that says if you allegorize the Genesis account of creation, for instance, but genuinely believe in and accept Christ, that you would not be saved. There are some people who at least claim they are in that camp - for instance, theistic evolutionists. I think the Catholic church is willing to allow for a broad application of mythology and figure of speech to parts of the Bible that traditionally are considered historical fact.

I have a problem with that position but I think what counts is the gospel - how one interprets other parts of the Bible are generally not critical to the salvation criteria - at least it isn't so stated in the Bible, though some Christians might say otherwise.

You have some kind of mental block as far as understanding the point I am trying to make. Even bunny understands it. I am postulating a person who thinks that that the actual story of Christ (for example) is slightly more likely to be untrue than true. He doesn't have what I think you mean by genuine belief in it. But he thinks it is more likely than each the specific individual stories put forth by other specific religions or atheism (taken seperately). Furthermore he loves that story, hopes it is true, and assumes it is true as far as his actions and worship is concerned. I think that only the nuttier Christian sects are certain that such a person has not satisfied God's requirements.

If he doesn't have genuine belief, not to mention repentance and trust, then it is mainstream theology that says he isn't saved. Nothing nutty about it.

Edit: As far as the mental block, you said he met all the OTHER criteria, which for Christianity, means genuine trust in Christ.

If Catholics believe that members of other religions can be saved than surely they must believe that this fellow can be (even though he isn't a member of any other reliligion or an atheist BECAUSE HE THINKS ALL THOSE OTHER RELIGIONS ARE MUCH LESS LIKELY THAN CHRISTIANITY).

I asked you what questions you'd ask?

Even in the short time I've been here I can see that's not true.

As for the 'no god would allow' argument, my version of that is not that it proves that there is no god but that god is so terrible that a moral person wouldn't worship it.

Ouch.

No, I'm disputing anyone's ability to describe a "no doubt" criteria as just without knowing the full picture. Sounds silly to me (obviously) but my opinion matters as little as yours.

Things like how long does it take to climb down a chimney.

So you'd focus on specifics and try to demonstrate how unlikely they are to be true. The things is Santa is magic, he can get down a chimney really fast and without getting dirty or stuck.

Next question?

Are your kids dumb?

What do you mean by 'dumb'?

Also, how is that relevant to the questions you'd ask a child if you were trying to stop them believing in Santa, you seem to have gone off at a tangent. You asked one question, I defeated it in exactly the same way a religious person might, now I'd like to hear the next question, do you have one?

Perhaps my method might actually be more effective?

Stupid. Incapable of basic reasoning. Gullible. Lacking in critical thinking skills. Fans of DS.
I was pointing out that you were neglecting my premise, (which you failed to understand initially, presumably you got it the second time around). I think kids are smart and I don't care if I talk over their heads - they'll get it or they'll think I'm boring.
You can't defeat a question. You gave an answer which a smart kid will laugh at. A dumb kid will understand why it's laughable in a few years.
How many people are there in the world?
How's it working out for you? One convert didn't you say?

I've affected plenty of people's thinking about religion, maths and armchair philosophy over the years. I don't have a goal of persuading anyone, but talking logically works just fine.

By your definition, most kids will meet at least one of those conditions and are dumb even into their teens. some never outgrow it and become dumb adults. The majority of the world's human population is dumb.

Do you have children? You're basing your entire perspective on your belief that 'kids are smart'? Not smart enough to not believe in Santa apparently.

I can and I did. The fact that you consider, on behalf of a hypothetical 'smart kid' (basing that on what?) that it's laughable doesn't change anything. Unless you can prove that Santa isn't magic and can't move up and down chimneys at high speed, even in houses that don't have them, you'll have to move on to the next question, where I'm sure the same thing will happen again.

Eventually you might consider trying to undermine the belief in Santa by pointing out the children that they only believe it because they were trained to.

7 Billionish. Again you've failed to prove to our pretend children that Santa doesn't exist. If you're coming to the point of how he can deliver all those presents in one night (even removing all the people who don't celebrate Christmas), well, he's magic isn't he.

One that I know of. Is there a point there? There may be other reasons than a failure of my logic for why I haven't 'converted' more, you may be leaping to all kinds of conclusions with very little information.

So have I. I do. Yes it does.

Sadly, this is true. There's always hope though.
Ive taught hundreds. Hardly any kids believe in Santa.
You really can't. What entails "defeat" of a question?
Real kids will laugh at your answer. They won't accept it (for long, anyhow).
I share your view that the same thing will happen. My next question might be "how does he know if you've been good?"
Yeah I might consider it. Doesn't help them think though, so I probably won't bother - they can work that out for themselves. It's a pretty simple idea.
I'm not trying to. I'm asking them questions so they can work it out for themselves.
I'm not coming to any point. I'm letting the smart kids do that while the dumb kids smile at me politely.
Nah. I'm just listening to what you post - as a general rule i think it will work well when you think you realise what point I'm making or conclusion I'm jumping to you should assume its something else.

Simply too many factors involved for this to go anywhere useful.

And what's wrong with asking them questions that will cause them to examine the origin of their beliefs? Just cut through all the 'magic' explanations by not asking questions that can be answered by them. Get to the nub of it, why they believe in the first place.

Maybe you could just explain what "defeating a question" means.

Like your earlier use of luck - I have no idea what you mean.
You can do that if you like. I don't think it provides much insight (since its obvious),
Magic explanations don't explain anything -when someone answers with "magic" they haven't actually answered anything. That's something worth teaching.

That's an irrelevance, just ignore it.

No, I don't believe it's as obvious to most people as you do. Like some of the people on this forum, most religious people get quite upset if you suggest that they only believe what they do because they were taught to and that it might not be true at all, just indoctrination.

They'd prefer to think that they believe because it's 'true'. The alternative is unpalatable and I think that's why it's such an effective tool for perpetuating religious belief.

Tell that to those who answer questions with various versions of 'god moves in mysterious ways' when they can't explain something. It's the exact same thing.

Ultimately, there isn't a question that you can put to a religious person that can't be answered that way and you can't disprove it. So don't bother, just try to get them thinking about how they got there in the first place. It might have no effect, it might cause them enough doubt that they back off a little.

*shrug* irrelevant to who?
Sure - it's a non answer. I use it myself in various places, who doesn't. It's only an error if you think mystery is the endpoint.
You don't ask questions to disprove something but to help someone see the weaknesses of their position.

No one has commented on this point. Does anyone disagreee?

I do not disagree.

I'm not going to go through another debate on who is actually saved, but Catholics may well believe that. As usual, your language is very imprecise. Do you mean he can be saved even though he remains an atheist? Or that he can be saved even though he understands the gospel and rejects it? I believe anyone "can" be saved - if they repent and accept Christ.

Seems reasonable to me.