it seems well "silly" that any god if their is one floating around somewhere could be comprehended by man and if their is one i would feel he, she, it or other, would rather watch the grass grow than man destroy itself from the inside out or from the outside in, it all depends on how you see it
Nelson didn't answer the question of what if he is wrong. Sure we may have spent time believing a God that doesnt exist, but 1 side has to be wrong. So if that is you Mr Nelson, does the thought of hell bother you at all..if you know what the Bible says about it?
the question is meaningless Caleb. i might as well ask you how wet water feels. that's what i was pointing out.
but since you asked, if i'm wrong, i'll face the consequences while demanding an explanation for why your loving god refused to make his existence plain during my life like he did for so many people in biblical times.
i notice that you didn't address a single one of my points though. interesting. what if you're wrong Caleb? what if you've chosen the wrong god or the wrong sect of Christianity and so you find yourself in the hell of another of the thousands of gods? do you mean to suggest that, in light of the supposed penalty for being wrong, i should adopt the cover your ass style belief implicit in the "what if you're wrong" question? do you really respect your god that much that you believe he'd fall for that? do you really find him that vain that he would rather that style of belief over honest skepticism in the face of the lack of all evidence?
To further bolster Nelson's point #1 in his prior refutation, see this video (shorter version in TA video bucket) where Neil degrasse Tyson enumerates the lessons of history where "god stops further investigations".
There are bad consequences for theism, they are measurable. Pascal's logic is invalid.