@Alientcp said in #42:
> So, an entity has x properties, history, experiences, etc.
> If I make a description of said entity (IE, entity has a red shirt), but said description has inaccuracies (described with a blue shirt), while the description is based on something "real", im describing something that it is not real.
>
> So, every time you interpret something in the bible, you distort the main protagonist or the events of the book.
>
> Since this has been done from version to version, by the time you arrive to whichever version you are using to further distort the main protagonist or the events, you are distorting something that doesnt nor couldnt exist already.
>
> So, there may or may not be a god or gods, but the one described in the bible does not exist. So your interpretation is like the rating in lichess. It doesnt matter.
Let me introduce to you the argument from the non-absolute nature of proof of God:
If we kenw for sure that God was real ("if the servant knew when his master was coming"), we would all be good to enter Heaven, even Hitler ("he would not have let his house be broken into"). You cannot call a man brave for not flinching when he knows that the gun they are pointing at him is a cigarette lighter. In the same way, you cannot call a person good if he does something because he knows that he will be rewarded. To have real free will, we must also have ignorance about God.
...
P.S.: The one thing my country has failed at is reading the Bible.