The Christian god sends aborted babies to hell.

This will be a rebuttal to Pro’s opening arguments. His argument can be summarized like so:1. If you sin but do not believe, you go to hell when you die.2. The unborn sin.3. The unborn do not believe.4. Therefore, the unborn go to hell when they die.You can probably already tell from my opening that I agree with Pro’s third premise, but I disagree with his second premise. Rather than repeat all my reasons for disputing the second premise, I’ll just refer the reader to my opening where I gave five arguments against the second premise, including a refutation of his defense of his second premise. I’ll defend that case against Pro’s rebuttal in the next round.In this round, I’m not going to show that the first premise is false. I just want to show that Pro’s defense of the first premise is invalid.Pro’s defense of the first premise comes from John 3:16, which says, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." The key part that I want to focus on is where it says, “whoever believes in him shall not perish.” My contention is that this statement does not support Pro’s first premise.We can see this by examining the logically equivalent statements that can be derived from “whoever believes in him shall not perish.” Any categorical statement can be rephrased into an “if-then” statement. For example, the statement, “All men are mortal,” can be restated to say, “If one is a man, then one is mortal.” They both mean the same thing. So, let’s rephrase our statement:5. Whoever believes in him shall not perish.5 means the same thing as:6. If one believes in him, then one shall not perish.Taking the contrapositive, this statement is logically equivalent to this:7. If one perishes, then one does not believe.That’s all we can do. For those not familiar with “contrapositive,” let me explain that.[4] In a modus tollens syllogism, the consequent of the first premise is denied in the second premise.[1] It looks like this:8. If P, then Q.9. Not Q.10. Therefore, Not P.Let’s assume that 8 is true. With that being the case, it follows that IF 9 is true, THEN 10 will be true. Let’s put that in a statement:11. IF not Q, THEN not P.In other words, if 8 is true, then 11 is true, and vice versa. 8 and 11 are logically equivalent statements. One is the contrapositive of the other.Now let’s get back to Pro’s argument. As we’ve seen, the key statement in John 3:16 can be stated as follows:6. If one believes in him, then one shall not perish.And. . .7. If one perishes, then one does not believe.However, Pro attempts to infer from John 3:16 that:12. If one does not believe, then one shall perish.But notice that 12 is not logically equivalent with 6 or 7. 12 does not follow from John 3:16. If Pro argues from what John 3:16 actually says, then his argument commits a logical fallacy. If he uses 6 as his first premise, then his argument commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent.[2] In a syllogism, it would look like this:6. If one believes in him, then one shall not perish.13. The unborn do not believe in him.14. Therefore, the unborn shall perish.If, instead, Pro uses 7 as his first premise, then his argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.[3] In that case, his argument would look like this:7. If one perishes, then one does not believe in him.15. The unborn do not believe in him.16. Therefore, the unborn shall perish.Pro quite clearly argues that since the unborn do not believe in Jesus, they shall perish, i.e. go to hell, when they die. Since he bases that argument on John 3:16, we can see that his argument commits a formal logical fallacy. It is invalid. Pro makes an invalid inference from John 3:16 that is not logically equivalent to what John 3:16 says. So John 3:16 does not support Pro’s first premise.ConclusionThere are three premises in Pro’s argument. I have agreed with his third premise. I have shown his second premise to be false. I have shown that his argument for his first premise is invalid. NOTES 1. http://www.philosophy-index.com...2. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...3. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...4. http://www.regentsprep.org...