It is better to believe in the God of the Bible than to believe in Allah

Con asks: "what is the point of all this calculating?" People have different criteria"s that can influence individual beliefs and for me "calculating" (more specific calculation to determine reasonableness & logic) is the driving factor. Calculating is for some the difference between buying a car purely because it is popular or based on efficiency versus cost. The God of the Bible says: "Come let us reason together"" (Isaiah 1:18)" and also David proclaims "taste and see that the Lord is good" (Psalm 34:8). Contrary to popular belief the God of the Bible does not demand blind faith but give an invitation to reason, comprehend and understand. Calculation requires understanding of the subject based on logic and reasonableness. If something is determined to be unreasonable it will likely be rejected. Based on this we can conclude whether something is better than something else and therefore more worthy of our devotion and commitment. Con states that language is temporal and that there are "fluctuations". Agreed, it is true but that is all we have. However, I disagree with the conclusion Con makes. The current exchange that takes place here may be based on something temporal but we can certainly understand each others position based on the "temporal". Con says there is a problem in that we are using the temporal to describe or converse about the absolute. My response is to ask: Is your statement absolutely true? If so, then we can comprehend and express absolutes through the "temporal". If not, then it is irrational to even respond to what you stated. If what you state is true are you then even sure you really mean what you wrote? And if you did, how can I be sure I understand completely what you meant when you wrote it? It seems to me that such statements then become relative and devoid of reasonability. We require absolutes to determine the difference between what is truth and a lie. I believe the Bible is clear and straight forward but by comparing what is found in the Bible with the Bible. I do not read the Bible and interpret it based on modern perception of a concept as found in society. If we keep within in the definitions as defined by the Bible we can have a clear understanding of what the intended meaning is; if not then confusion. An example of this is your explanation of John 3:16 which I will deal with when I get there. Con seems to rely on science as an argument not to believe in God and in so doing seems to think science do not have limits. The evidence for the Jesus Christ is historical. When it comes to historical proof the limitations of science becomes quite evident. Can you falsify your own existence? Can science be used to falsify my ancestor"s existence of 100 generations ago? The limitations of science become further evident when considering that people who define science usually base their definition of science on the natural. The reason therefore why "science" do not investigate God is because it is limited by human definitions and technology no less. There are people who do research in other areas to explain supernatural phenomena but it is often labelled as "unscientific" by those who cannot see past the natural. Some even go so far to commit fallacies when they proclaim "science has no bounds" and confine it only to the natural at the same time. Con objects to the interpretation of "All-Merciful" by stating it is not "by default" interpreted that way and it can also be interpreted in another way. However, the objections do not exclude my interpretation and "most (a variable concept that can include meaning to the greatest extend) merciful" or "most (a variable concept that can include meaning to the greatest extend) gracious" encompasses the same idea. The point of contention here is that Con sates: "Doesn't mean He always forgives it, but He can, if He so pleases". Allah forgives all sins but it doesn"t mean he always forgives it? In order to forgive sins you must do so always. Unforgiven sins are not "all sins" it is some "sins". If Allah can make exceptions then the "All" is proven a lie because "all" is inclusive and not conditional to allow exceptions. In contrast, the God of the Bible says that He is merciful and will have mercy on whom He pleases and never states that He is "All-Merciful". The wording in the Bible eludes these types of contradictions. Again, if it is true that Allah forgives all sins the Christian who sins must also be included, and if it is true that they are excluded then Allah is definitely not "All-merciful". I would really like to hear my esteemed opponent elaborate "This still doesn't tell us unequivocally if only Muslims get to go to Heaven". Quoting verses to support your position do not override the other verses that contradict it. You re-interpret what is written but the question here is: If what is written was not meant then why was what is meant not written? The problem here is not understanding what was written but your interpretation to ignore the contradiction. Raising the point whether a Muslim can be sure or not about whether they will be saved questions the coherency of Islamic doctrine and therefore whether it is trustworthy. The points to consider is taken from the Quran because I mentioned before that some people might interpret something differently than what is written. In this case what is written in the Quran is from Allah and therefore the final authority in matters of dispute, unless I am mistaken and the Quran is not the final authority to settle disputes. Comparing the nature of Allah with the attributes of the people of paradise creates therefore a contradiction. It is interesting that you mention that even when some die they are able to be saved after spending time in hellfire. Will this not include Christians and the Jews as well because, after all, Islam claim that the God of the Jews and Christians are actually Allah and therefore they do believe in him although they are not clear on the true meaning. Will Allah then, who is most merciful, not have mercy on the Christians and Jews in hell and save them? If only Allah through his grace can ultimately save one then it does not really matter what is written now does it? If Allah can make exceptions then he can make exceptions regarding anyone regardless of his/her believes while on earth. It therefore seems uncertain what exactly must be done and that Allah"s nature determines salvation, whether he will forgive or not. In this case, "all-merciful" again contradicts all the other conditions stated. Con states: "Everyone in whose heart there is an atom"s weight of faith will be brought out of Hell." Again, Muslims claim the God of Abraham whom the Jews and Christians serve is actually Allah. Therefore, although deceived perhaps, they do have an "atom" of faith and will therefore be brought out of hell. This reinforce the argument set out that the Christian can escape the Muslim hell because there will not be an eternal damnation. Therefore it certainly is better to be a Christian where damnation is temporal if Islam is correct as opposed to eternal hell if the God of the Bible is correct. Deut 32:22 certainly do speak of hell fire and Isa 5:14 makes it unlikely that there is some condition that can cause hell to cease. Hell is clearly defined in the NT based on the OT that is a place of torment where the fire never ends. Your profile states you are an Atheist and it seems that you use the Atheistic view of death when applied to John 3:16 that everything ends at death. In order to understand perish in light of the Bible it requires an understanding of the terms use. People who are unbelievers alive today is said to be "dead" to God and those who believe are alive to God. Their current condition, although alive, is one of a perishable state. Therefore your interpretation is a fallacy to presume that perish means things end at death because the definition of death and perish has a different meaning when defined according to the Bible because it is also applied to people alive who do not believe. Let"s evaluate the argument again, not on odds but reasonability: 1. Based on the Quran Allah is "All-Merciful" and will forgive "all sins". Therefore the Christian is included to be a partaker of this mercy even though he/she is not a practicing Muslim. 2. Getting saved depends on Allah solely, according to Con, therefore anyone can be saved because Allah can make exceptions to what is stated within Islam any time he wants to. 3. It is promised that someone with an "atom" of faith will be saved out of hell. It is claimed that the God of the Bible is Allah and therefore the Christians do have faith in Allah although they are not true practitioners of the faith. Based on the promise the atom of faith is enough to save them out of hell. 4. The Bible is clear that only Christ can save people from their sins. The Muslims do not believe this and will therefore be held accountable and be punished/rewarded accordingly. Hell is an eternal place and there is no second chance in hell. The Muslim whether right or wrong has a 50% assurance of reaching the Muslim heaven. 1. The Christian believes in Christ as Savior and is assured of Heaven when he/she dies. It does not depend on the person but on Christ who is faithful. God cannot change his mind or will make exceptions that will contradict what He said. 2. Since Allah can make exceptions to anything he said then anyone can be saved if Allah so wills. The question also naturally follows: Can one even trust what Allah? 3. If the Christian dies but was wrong and Allah is truly "All-merciful" then he/she will be pardoned of "all sins" which includes unbelief. 4. If the Christian dies but was wrong and go to the Muslim hell then there is still hope that he/she will be saved because Christians certainly believe in the God of the Bible who the Muslims claim to be Allah and therefore definitely have an "atom" of faith. Whether right or wrong the Christian is assured 100% that he/she will reach Heaven eventually regardless if it is a Muslim or Christian heaven. Based on the above calculation, I believe it is better to believe in the God of the Bible than in Allah. I would love to hear Con"s arguments about who can go to Heaven as he mentioned. I would like my honorable opponent therefore to consider the following: Is it then not obvious to you that when you consider that the blood that flows through you has and electrical current that you are composed of energy and not just some biological process? Consciousness can be measured as well by current and therefore is clearly also an energy. Does science not say energy cannot be destroyed?