No............ key to your argument was a subjective view of what justice and fair-mindedness was, , the use of the term veiled threat which even if we accept it as a threat and not a danger alert is in no way veiled since you know what it is. If there was a contradiction in the God of the narrative you concocted it's your contradiction.
Once again running away from most of my points - why are you so afraid to face logic (as if I didn't know)?
Look, you have a simple choice here. If you are going to claim that your god is 'good', 'just' and 'fair', then the only way those statements can have any meaning at all, is if you are referring to the way most humans regard those qualities (even though they are subjective conventions).
If that is the case, there is a contradiction with what is observed (no clear, message that is obviously from a god).
If you are going to claim that the words have some other meaning or that god is not 'good', 'just' and 'fair' (which is the logical equivalent), then we can deduce nothing about this god's actual values and cannot, for example, rely on it keeping its promises or being truthful - which makes your claim of the risks of not believing seem even more silly than they already are - because the risks of believing would be just as great.
No clear message from a god, either means that there is no god with an important message, or that if there is, it is not trustworthy.
God is or isn't
If you are not an atheist who knows that God doesn't exist then you believe that he may exist.
If you then take no steps to find out if he exists then you are taking a gamble that he isn't worth finding or that he doesn't exist and that this is somehow a neutral gamble rather than the high stakes of missing God.
Which is plane and simple idiocy, for the reasons already explained. Here we go again...
First of all there isn't one single god to consider - there are thousands of contradictory stories of very different gods, with very different 'risks' and different ways to avoid those 'risks'.
There has not been presented any sound arguments or evidence that would indicate that any of them are remotely likely to exist.
There is no methodology provided by which the claims can be objectively investigated. There are, in any case, far too many to spend much time on each in order to evaluate them, even if they all came with a sensible methodology (which none of them do).
The stories are either self-contradictory or unfalsifiable.
No sane person considers all baseless stories and assess the 'risks' associated with not believing them. For example, what steps have you taken to consider the possibility of alien mind control? Why aren't you wearing a tinfoil hat? You have also refused to consider the 'risks' associated with you having picked the wrong god.
If all that wasn't enough to dismiss the idea, we can then consider the fact that even those who claim to have taken the task of finding out if there is a god seriously, do not come to the same conclusion, they end up believing in different and contradictory gods or no gods at all. So even if we were daft enough to take your drivel seriously, it is quite obvious that there is no
reliable way to a single "truth".
The whole thing is an obvious fool's errand.
So now you can quote this entire post and put another short piece of your inane drivel after it because you don't have the courage to really think about it...
