Religion (God)

This is Part 2 of my post. Please see my previous post for Part 1.

Quote:because all other options are ludicrous,

The development of Western philosophy suggests that a firm belief in God is the "ludicrous" option (in that it is logically not justifiable). Why do you say nonbelief is ludicrous?

Quote:It is, however, not an act of faith to first See and then to Believe. God doesn't work that way. Which is why He will never pop out of the sky and say "Yo" He specifically says that he won't do that.

Unfortunately, though, his lack of will to do this simply presents us with no rational reason to believe in him, or to choose him among the countless number of Gods that have been worshipped throughout history.

Quote:2. If you believe in the Bible, why would you need evolution?

Unless you believe it literally (and thus reject modern science), a belief in evolution would be required to reconcile ones faith with the facts.

Quote:The whole point of evolution is to tell human beings that we have no intrinsic value, life is pointless, and that we are our own gods, we answer to no one.

This is not correct. Evolution tells us about the mechanisms that cause changes in species. It makes no moral statements whatsoever. If you feel like less of a person because you may have evolved from a different form, that is entirely your problem, and evolution says nothing about it.

Quote:(unfortunately it saps humankind of all purpose and hope, not such a good trade off if you ask me).

Even if this were true (and it isn't, for numerous reasons), it is also irrelevant. There are many truths that are uncomfortable or undesirable to deal with. I don't want to think that people I vote for ever do bad things. Does this mean I should endorse the statement "People I vote for never do bad things"? Of course not - just because I don't *want* to believe it doesn't mean it isn't true.
I find the statement "People do bad things to other people" to be absolutely depressing. Does this mean I should disbelieve it? Of course not - my personal revolusion toward a thing does not change its truth value.

Quote:I hope that you will draw on all your resources to give me all 'inconsistancies' that you see.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

I don't find the Bible debate to be at all relevant, since it has one massive internal flaw in it that disproves the rest: It claims moral absolutism, but moral absolutism is an absurd concept.
Furthermore, as applicable to my moral system, the Bible says many things that I consider to be extremely morally repugnant. Thus, as a source of moral guidance, it cannot be true (for me).

Quote:And to Sheltie, I reiterate, Yes, it is possible that God used evolution to create the universe, but it's not probable.

The probability that God created the universe directly or used evolution are both equally likely. Technically, if God is all knowing, then he would immediately know the path that evolution would take, and thus the end result is the same.

Quote:That's what evolution, you realize this, no?

Evolution does not at all say we are accidents. In fact, evolution is quite clear: Our existence was not random, but came about instead due to a response from the forces around us.

Quote:e have no purpose, and since we will simply deteriorate into the nothing from whence we came, we have no hope.

Again, this is entirely irrelevant to the truth value of either evolution or religion. Just because a thing is not desirable for you does not mean it is not true.
Furthermore, evolution is compatible with God: Since he would know that our form would come about, if you subscribe to divine command, then your moral system remains completely intact: He meant for us to exist (or else he would have prevented it).
If you reject the existence of God, secular ethics still nicely takes the place (indeed, it takes the place no matter what, since all ethics are ultimately relative in some manner) of God, and thus your "purpose" can still be preserved.

Quote:Simply put, we all mess up. It's not that He's punishing us in any way, but we brought this upon ourselves.

There are a couple of problems here:

1. How can Adam and Eve be held morally responsible for their behaviour if they did not have moral agency in the first place?
2. Why should suceeding generations be held responsible for their behaviour when we did not have moral agency in the first place?
3. Why does God simply and explicitly come down and tell us these things...free will is preserved since we are free to continue to say he doesn't exist.

Quote:it's nothing compared to seeing your only son die on a cross,

God created a son in order to exploit a loophole he put in a system that he created. Not only that, but with the Trinity (which is a bizarre pagan concept, I ought note) the differentiation between "God" and "Jesus" is blurry anyway.
The action simply was not required (as God can do anything), and thus the only real explanation for Jesus is that God is a sadist.

Quote:Bumpy parts of the road that God has set in place for a reason,

Why does God feel the need to interfere with our affairs so much? Why can't he just let us be? If he truely wants us to make our own decisions, he shouldn't be nudging us in any directions whatsoever.

Quote:but because I want to.

This is fine. Attempting to say "It is a true thing that God exists" is not proper, however, because ultimately your justification is:
1. Whatever I want actually is.
2. I want God.
3. Therefore, God actually is.
Which is not proper logic.

Quote:but having something to look forward to in the after life is a hell (pun intended lol) of a lot better than realizing you'll spend the remainder of your days buried six feet deep in a cemetery.

The possibility of hell does not concern you?

Quote:Perhaps out of wisdom, people realized their objections could, in fact, be reasonably answered.

We will see.

Quote:(which seems to be a consistent theme among the opposition),

The field of philosophy seems to contradict you here. The development of theology is something that was very active and, ultimately, seems to have largely resolved itself in favour of atheism. Whether you accept this or not isn't relevant, though: The mere fact that it has been so incredibly active indicates that your implication that atheists do not do research is patently false.

Quote:drop it, believing what they wanted to believe without researching and discovering for themselves.

It is a rather arrogant thing for you to make such bold generalisations, especially when I'm right here to disconfirm them.

I am an atheist because I have seen no reason at all to believe that the probability of God's existence is particularly high: I have no evidence for such. Indeed, the evidence that Santa exists is far higher (at least I recieved presents from him on Christmas). As I studied the concept more, especially in the field of ethics, the number of contradictions against him (in the typical conservative Christian form) became too large. Indeed, the divine command problem and the is-ought problem, combined with the support moral skepticism/noncognitivism/relativism, simply decreased the probability of his existence too much.

As you respond to this, though, I would also invite you to disprove the following statement: I am God. I think it is a useful exercise in demonstrating my problems with your position.

Hey, thanks for the effort Zasch! Wow, I'm impressed--now I will read and respond ;-) Haha this is going to take a while--and I should be studying for my History Final...ugh.
Maybe I should do this later...? But this is SO much more fun and stimulating =D

Quote:One could raise the argument that by setting up a mechanism to punish those who do not believe, God is unnecessarily tainting the decision making process of his creation. For instance, if I tell a person "You can either choose to like chocolate ice cream or vanilla, but if you choose vanilla, I'm going to pound your face in!", one might say that I am creating such a bias in their decision making process that the freedom of their choice is negated.

You are quite right, and I see your point. This is obviously the common informal fallacy of Appeal to Force. And now, may I offer an alternative point of view? A. So what? He's God. (But that will hardly suffice now, will it? ;-)
B. I believe you're analogy not similar in a crucial point. The choices are not between some arbitrary "chocolate or vanilla" but the choice itself is, to phrase it in your words "Would you like to be punched in the face or not?" Perhaps there is a bias, and any rational human being would obviously choose not to be 'punched in the face.' Exactly how many important (non-arbitrary) decisions are unbiased, I wonder? Yet, we demonstrate our own free will in that some of humankind still chooses "Punch me in the face." Or, as I think may be more accurate to describe the situation--"Don't give me the cure for my fatal disease."

Quote:Furthermore, if God sends people to hell simply for nonbelief, it indicates that the major portion of a persons character derives not from their deeds or morality, but merely whether they endorse a specific statement or not. One could use this as evidence to say that such a God is immoral, as he does not judge based on the contents of a persons character but merely by whether they satisfy his own need for praise.

I can understand how you would view it this way, it certainly seems like that when I see it from your perspecive. Some tyranical, sadistic, control-freak, insecure God bullying people and sending them to eternal torment for His own jollies. (By the way, if He were truly the Author of Life, wouldn't that be His prerogative? Not that I'm saying it is, for then His worthiness of our praise would come into question, wouldn't it?)
However, allow me to explain my perspective on the matter.
This notion of "sending" to Hell, I think, is misleading. Though it can certainly be viewed as such, the picture one gets is of a God pointing his omnipotent finger and saying "I don't like you. Burn forever." Obviously (from my understanding) nothing could be further from the character of God. Perhaps, as is the Biblical standpoint, man has taken the first step, breached the contract of peace with his Creator, and is helpless alienated from God (Genesis 3, The Fall of Man). Now, God, being wholly just, by rights ought to let us, as the perpetrators, experience the consequences of our actions (indeed He does, with physical death). However, because he is also merciful--He humbled Himself (we're talking about God here), came down to Earth in the form of a man, died on a cross and paid our debt for us, satisfying his wrath (out of His justice).
Now, if this, is the case, I hardly find such actions consistent with the idea of someone looking to damn random people. So--that's one explanation for the particular word "sends" ;-)

Your next objection--being saved simply for endorsing a simple statement, is absolutely founded! Were that the case, God would indeed be unjust and immoral, being just as shallow as any of us humans, who can only see other humans outward appearances and actions. You have part of the truth--"because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord...you will be saved." (Romans 10:9) What the crap?? However, what is in-between those elipses? "and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead," Now we have something that man alone simply cannot judge. No matter how hard I try, I cannot judge what is in your heart (the closest I can get is looking at your actions). Again, "man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart." (1 Samuel 16:7)

So what does all this mean? You aren't saved because you go to church, give money, help the poor, and/or pray. The key is belief. Can you tell whether I believe or not? No, you can only look at my actions. Will anyone ever know? Nope. The only ones who will know are me and God--and then of course everyone in history on the last day. So, God is neither immoral or amoral, but quite the epitome of (and reason for) morality.

Also, you seem to have some conception that God "needs" us. I think this is a pretty old heresy, one which stems from "God was lonely so He created us." This is simply wrong. God is fully complete in Himself. So why did He create us? Because it's His nature. He is a Creator.

Skipping to new post, cause this one's getting long...

Okay, I don't have the time to read all that, so you guys play nice okay?

Quote:As well, one could say that God has not provided sufficent evidence for his existence...

What would you accept as evidence? I personally am convinced that if the stars arranged themselves in the sky to say "I AM", the Evolutionists would scramble faster than snot on a hot doorknob to come up with an explanation. What do you see when you see the undeniable order in the universe? Random chance. (Assuming you were an evolutionist, no offense meant). What do I see? A Creator. As Johnson put it: "But evidence never speaks for itself; it has meaning only in the context of rules of reasoning which determine what may be considered and what counts as evidence."

It's all a matter of opinion/perspective, isn't it? This is where the relativist chimes in and says "Yes! See, there IS no right way, its all subjective!"
Again, this would be nice, except for the fact that some opinions/perspectives are just plain wrong. If you need this proven I'll be happy to provide examples. Simply stated--there are absolutes. A denial of this is self-defeating, doesn't that prove its soundness/validity?

So, You can choose to believe either "In the beginning a primordial fluid..." OR "In the beginning God..." That is YOUR choice, as you have demonstrated by advocating one over the other (assuming again you are an evolutionist, but it really comes down to the same thing in the end, doesn't it?).

Quote:...and given the number of competing Gods of various religions, it is not moral for God to expect you to essentially randomly choose him out of all these others and punish you with hell if you fail to do so.

I am curious, what is your religion? I assume, just from the tone of what I've read so far, atheistic. Whatever the case, did you "randomly" happen upon your beliefs? Or did you work it out in your head, for yourself, and it made the most sense to you? (I'm going to assume that's what you did, indeed for your sake I hope it was.)
Searching for the truth will lead you to the truth. "seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you." Matthew 7:7
I think I hear you saying "What about the people in Africa that never HEAR about God, and thus don't have any way to place their faith in Him?" If God sent people to Hell for being "in the wrong place at the wrong time" that would hardly seem fair. Again, two answers to this:
A. He's God, what are you going to do about it? If your arguing for "fairness", then by rights, we ALL deserve to go to Hell. Would you like God to be "fair"?...Neither would I.
Here you seem to be playing the "Everyone deserves to go to heaven and God is a meany for not letting us" card. I understand the roots of this objection, and it is essentially based in the (false) belief that mankind is basically good. (See Genesis) Mankind is not basically good, but bad. Do we come out of the womb being respectful of our parents, wishing only that they could get a good nights sleep, and that we can wait until morning to be fed? That we like to share our toys? Again, I can argue this point, but I'll just state for now: mankind does not deserve anything but Hell.
Hardcore, I know. Believable? Probably not to you now, but maybe as life goes on we'll start to realize how screwed up we really are. Perhaps you have this wisdom now and realize that you are, in fact, one messed up person. Guess what! So am I, and my mother, and sisters, and friends, etc. etc. etc. We're ALL messed up. We don't "learn" evil. It's innate. We're born with it.
"Why?" You ask. That doesn't seem very fair. I didn't choose to be born evil. Yes, Adam made that choice for you. Would you like to have given it a shot for yourself? Would you like to be in Adam's shoes now? I wouldn't either.
"That hardly seems fair," you say, "to judge us all based on the choice of one man. After all, don't we have free will?" Absolutely. And we choose to do evil every day, don't we? (Well maybe YOU don't but I do ;-) If you had a choice between being forever separated from the girl of your dreams and obeying God, which would you choose? Yeah, Adam did, too.

SO! After that in depth monologue the short answer is "I [God] will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." (Romans 9:15)
And
"But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" (Romans 9:20)
LoL, basically. Just read Romans, specifically chapters 5-10, for all these answers. God does a lot better job of explaining Himself ;-)

Quote:First of all, it is not particularly relevant what a certain segment of the population believes or how they respond to some statement. The actual truth value of the statement is not affected by the emotionalism of those giving or fighting it. One cannot say: "Atheists get angry that I say they are going to hell, therefore hell exists", because that arguments sets up the condition for the objective existence of a thing on the subjective emotional states of various people. Thus, if I encounter an atheist that does not become angry, then both the statements "Hell exists" and "Hell does not exist" become true, resulting in a contradiction, indicating that the logic used is bad. One should limit ones argumentaton soley to the logical and factual support used, not to the specifics of the person in question.

Word. ;-)

Quote:Second, I imagine that many atheists get angry because hell is commonly thought of as a place for "bad people", and thus by telling them you are going to tell you are essentially saying they are bad people. It doesn't seem so unreasonable for a person to become at least somewhat angry at the accusation that they are a bad person.

I think you nailed it. That is, in fact, exactly what Christians are telling them, when they say they're going to Hell. (Which is personally why I don't like to go bible-bashing and fire-and-brimstone-preaching. Its part of the truth but not all of it. As aforementioned, yes, atheists ARE, in fact, bad people. What the Christian doesn't say is, (and I think they should, but most of them don't get far enough), "AND SO AM I!!!" Previously stated: We are ALL "bad people," has any of us not lied? idolized? You broke part of it, you're guilty of all of it (James 2:10)

Just my thoughts on the blunt and ineffective way some Christians try to evangelize. Yes, culturally--you just don't call someone else a bad person. But sometimes the truth hurts. ;-)

pianogirl2422 wrote:Okay, I don't have the time to read all that, so you guys play nice okay?

Hahah I am! I LOVE Gir!!! Moreover I love that quote. It's one of my favorite counters to Evolutionary worldview ;-)

Quote:This looks like a verison of Pascal's Wager...etc.

You are too right =) I posted this before I took my Phi 101 course and didn't know about the false dichotomy. Man, that was a fun one discussing with my prof.
However, I do have some defense for my position anyways.
First: This was used in the context of talking to an atheist, while advocating my Christian (and it is conservative) worldview. So in this case, the dichotomy was clear. You are right to point out that it completely denies other alternatives.
But again, it even appears to defensable, because, if Christianity is, in fact, the one true religion, then it's claims that all other positions are false are justified. Either Jesus or Hell, if you so wish to see it as this position, would be consistent with Christian doctrine. Anyone who says otherwise is not an orthodox Christian, (meaning they're either a "heretic" or a "pagan").
Since that is the claim of Christianity, then it IS a dichotomy, but not a false one. The only distinction that would be made would be "Either you confess and believe, or you do not." The implications follow...

I am unsure about the point of your defining the existence of absolute truths at the end...can you explain?

Quote:The development of Western philosophy suggests that a firm belief in God is the "ludicrous" option (in that it is logically not justifiable). Why do you say nonbelief is ludicrous?
Did I say this, and if so, in what context? (I agree with the statement, but I'd like to know what my background situation is ;-)

Quote:Unfortunately, though, his lack of will to do this simply presents us with no rational reason to believe in him, or to choose him among the countless number of Gods that have been worshipped throughout history.

Upon what do you base your reason? ;-)

Quote:This is not correct. Evolution tells us about the mechanisms that cause changes in species. It makes no moral statements whatsoever. If you feel like less of a person because you may have evolved from a different form, that is entirely your problem, and evolution says nothing about it.

I wasn't defining Evolution, I was explaining it's motives and purpose. I was stating the "Why" not the "What". I was drawing the natural conclusions from the worldview that Evolution presents. For a better explanation, I just wrote my Philosophy paper on this subject and I'd be happy to e-mail it to you, if you'd like. =)

Quote:Even if this were true (and it isn't, for numerous reasons), it is also irrelevant. There are many truths that are uncomfortable or undesirable to deal with. I don't want to think that people I vote for ever do bad things. Does this mean I should endorse the statement "People I vote for never do bad things"? Of course not - just because I don't *want* to believe it doesn't mean it isn't true.
I find the statement "People do bad things to other people" to be absolutely depressing. Does this mean I should disbelieve it? Of course not - my personal revolusion toward a thing does not change its truth value.

Again, you nailed it.
1. Notice that this sword cuts both ways ;-)
2. I didn't mean to advocate disbelieving in Evolution because it's implications are depressing, I was merely pointing out that, given the option between two world views, assuming that both are equally viable, why would you choose the one that declares you a pointless, purposeless being?
I believe we are in agreement on the idea "Just because something is hard to swallow, doesn't mean it's not true." So then, what is truth? You may have found my thread "Quid Est Veritas" ;-)

Quote:I don't find the Bible debate to be at all relevant, since it has one massive internal flaw in it that disproves the rest: It claims moral absolutism, but moral absolutism is an absurd concept.
Absolutely? :-P

Quote:Furthermore, as applicable to my moral system, the Bible says many things that I consider to be extremely morally repugnant. Thus, as a source of moral guidance, it cannot be true (for me).

Nice save at the end there ;-) But then, why are you propogating your views? If truth is relative (not absolute) shouldn't you just be tolerant, since my truth is different than your?
Obviously you are convicted about saving some ignorant people from their wrong truths(?).

Quote:The probability that God created the universe directly or used evolution are both equally likely. Technically, if God is all knowing, then he would immediately know the path that evolution would take, and thus the end result is the same.

My point was, if God is all-powerful, why would he use evolution? He could, I grant Him that, but I find it inconsistent that people want to conform an all-powerful God's power, to fit their perception of how life began--especially when He tells us how He did it Himself. Yes, it is equally likely that the universe came into existence in 6 days or 14 billion years (given an omnipotent God), but which is more consistent with which God would choose? This is the classic case of "putting God in a box."

Quote:Evolution does not at all say we are accidents. In fact, evolution is quite clear: Our existence was not random, but came about instead due to a response from the forces around us.

Where do you get your information? Yes, I have heard this response. These mystical "guiding forces" hardly seem to be consistent with scientific experimentation, though, do they? Why not posit "God" for "forces" in this case? No. Evolution NEEDS random, dumb, luck--because that is the only way we can escape responsibility from anything or Anyone else. We are cosmic accidents, brought about in purposelessness, and will die the same.

Quote:Again, this is entirely irrelevant to the truth value of either evolution or religion. Just because a thing is not desirable for you does not mean it is not true.

Already addressed, keep your (my) arguments straight. This is not an argument for the truth (or falsehood) of Evolution. It is a simple statement of the logical end of an Evolutionary worldview. The point is to illustrate where this worldview ultimately leads. By demonstrating that, one can effectively see some pretty good reasons not to opt for an Evolutionary worldview, if all other worldviews are, as you seem to advocate with relative truth, equal.
Quote:Furthermore, evolution is compatible with God: Since he would know that our form would come about, if you subscribe to divine command, then your moral system remains completely intact: He meant for us to exist (or else he would have prevented it).

Absolutely. Just because it's compatible doesn't mean it happened that way, though. I think we are in agreement on this, and this has already been discussed.

Quote:There are a couple of problems here:

1. How can Adam and Eve be held morally responsible for their behaviour if they did not have moral agency in the first place?
2. Why should suceeding generations be held responsible for their behaviour when we did not have moral agency in the first place?
3. Why does God simply and explicitly come down and tell us these things...free will is preserved since we are free to continue to say he doesn't exist.

1. Moral Agency--Obey me [God] (Don't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They disobeyed.
2. Discussed previously--further Romans 1:20 "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
3. Firstly, whom is God here? Do you make the rules, or does He? If, in fact, you are wrong, then who are you to tell God what He should and should not do. Furthermore, your wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, being finite, are inferior to His, being infinite. That is from my perspective.
However, I can offer at least one reason why He doesn't do as you, (and a great many with you) wish. He loves us and doesn't want to annihilate us. Were we actually to see God in His glory, we'd die. As the saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for" becuase one day it will come true, though I doubt you or anyone on the planet will wish it then.

Quote:
God created a son in order to exploit a loophole he put in a system that he created. Not only that, but with the Trinity (which is a bizarre pagan concept, I ought note) the differentiation between "God" and "Jesus" is blurry anyway.
The action simply was not required (as God can do anything), and thus the only real explanation for Jesus is that God is a sadist.

Here you only expose your poor knowledge of theology. I have explained this previously (above) but will give it one more run through, for clarity's sake.

1. God is just. (It's in His nature) (Deuteronomy 32:4)
2. Sin deserves punishment. (Romans 6:23)
3. Man sinned. (Romans 3:23)
4. Man is unable to save himself. (Ephesians 2:5, Collosians 2:13)
5. God is loving and merciful. (The Bible, See Psalms specifically)
6. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

This means that we were hosed, and God loved us so much that He gave his only, beloved son as a scapegoat for us--because he HAD to be just, AND He also had to be loving and merciful. Christ's sacrifice demonstrates that paradoxical statement perfectly. Our sin is now paid for, God's justice is satisfied, and we can once again be in fellowship with Him. All He commands is for us to believe on the one whom He has sent.

Thus, you see how it was required for Christ to die, not just some gruesome, sadistic joke by a tyranical God.

Would you like me to explain the trinity? I doubt it.

Quote:Why does God feel the need to interfere with our affairs so much? Why can't he just let us be? If he truely wants us to make our own decisions, he shouldn't be nudging us in any directions whatsoever.

He's obviously not nudging you too hard, is He?
Simply--we're His creations, His kids, and He, like any half-decent father, loves us. Perhaps you think it better to be left on a street corner when we're born?

Quote:The possibility of hell does not concern you?
Not anymore it doesn't. Should it? I think I am misunderstanding your question.

Quote:The development of theology is something that was very active and, ultimately, seems to have largely resolved itself in favour of atheism.
I disagree.

Quote:Whether you accept this or not isn't relevant, though: The mere fact that it has been so incredibly active indicates that your implication that atheists do not do research is patently false.
Quote:It is a rather arrogant thing for you to make such bold generalisations, especially when I'm right here to disconfirm them.

I did not mean to make the blanket statement "atheists don't know their stuff." Merely that, at the point in the discussion thread, no one seemed to. I have met and enjoy the company of many well-educated atheists.

And at that point you hadn't posted, nor would you have, I imagine, had you not read that ;-)

Quote:I am an atheist because I have seen no reason at all to believe that the probability of God's existence is particularly high: I have no evidence for such. Indeed, the evidence that Santa exists is far higher (at least I recieved presents from him on Christmas). As I studied the concept more, especially in the field of ethics, the number of contradictions against him (in the typical conservative Christian form) became too large. Indeed, the divine command problem and the is-ought problem, combined with the support moral skepticism/noncognitivism/relativism, simply decreased the probability of his existence too much.

You're Christmas presents were actually from God ;-) His name is even in the holiday! (joke)
Again, I advise you to dismiss this idea of "evidence for or against" a particular idea. Evidence is what you want it to be. I have all the "evidence" I need to disprove Evolution. Does that mean that every Evolutionist I meet immediately converts? I wish. You'll need something more than "evidence" to make a decision. As far as your objections to the likelyhood of his existence, I would be more than willing to listen. I didn't recognize any of your stated objections formally, but I assume one of them was the "Problem of Evil" objection, which I am prepared to answer. As for the others, "We will see." =)

Quote:As you respond to this, though, I would also invite you to disprove the following statement: I am God. I think it is a useful exercise in demonstrating my problems with your position.

Oh Goody =) To bypass a lot of words and frustration lets do this the right way so you don't have any wiggle room.
First, I think definitions are in order.
What exactly do you mean by "God"?

This has been much fun, and my final is now 7 hours away. I need some sleep =P
-Tyler

Quote:and I should be studying for my History Final...ugh.

Me too, but this sort of thing is far more important ;)

Quote:(But that will hardly suffice now, will it? ;-)

Indeed, that isn't a particularly satisfying answer ;)

Quote:Or, as I think may be more accurate to describe the situation--"Don't give me the cure for my fatal disease."

The question comes down to: Why does God maintain a general policy of noninterference? Why does he not, for instance, make the crops grow well or prevent natural disasters or whatnot?

Quote:wouldn't that be His prerogative?

I would say not, because I reject the notion that humans (or moral agents in general) can become property.

Quote:breached the contract of peace with his Creator,

To what are you referring? For instance, I do not recall signing any sort of binding document with God stating "I (Zasch) will worship him". Indeed, up to this point, I'd say I've lived a moral life.

Quote:, came down to Earth in the form of a man, died on a cross and paid our debt for us, satisfying his wrath

See, to me, this is a very strange thing indeed. Why would God have to come down to Earth at all? He could simply say "Oh, well, you humans are kind of pathetic...but cute, so I'll just forgive you."

Quote:Now, if this, is the case, I hardly find such actions consistent with the idea of someone looking to damn random people. So--that's one explanation for the particular word "sends" ;-)

Ultimately, though, he is still "sending" people to hell: Just in a different way.
If I have a contract with someone, and I violate that contract in some way, and I get sent to jail...that person with whom I signed the contract is still sending me to jail. They could choose to forgive that specific part of the contract, or they could choose to give me a warning instead, or whatever...But they chose instead to let me go to jail.

But even more importantly, we have to question whether this contract is a moral thing or not. Is it moral to go to jail because I did not worship some being? Is it moral to be binded by something that I did not sign in free will anyway? From my perspective, it looks like God unilaterally said "You just signed this contract with me", and then said "Oops, you just violated this contract. Burn forever!"
This doesn't seem particularly moral to me. So please, explain this contract business a bit more.

Quote:"and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,

But see, this statement relies on me believing in God. I can only believe that God raised X person from the dead if I believe that God exists. If I think God doesn't exist, or if I think the probability of his existence is extremely low, then I cannot believe he acted upon the world.

Hence, it looks like I'm going to hell anyway for not believing in God.

Quote:but quite the epitome of (and reason for) morality.

But if God creates morality (and I think I'll address that point later on), then essentially what the True Morality(tm) says is: The worth of a person is based on whether they believe in the One True God(tm) or not.
For me, this is a morally undesirable outcome: I judge people based on the content of their character, not necessarily their superstition. A man may not believe in X god, but may be a saint otherwise, and I would still judge him to be a good person worthy of being "saved". God apparently disagrees with me on that one.

Indeed, once we accept that a person's worth (as seemingly judged by God - belief in him is the make-or-break criterion here) is judged by that, then other actions would seem to be less morally positive: Why ought I help the poor? God doesn't seem to care about that: All he cares about is whether I believe in him or not. Hence, if he doesn't really care, then is it really good to help the poor? When we say "act Good", it seems that the only thing we mean is "Believe in God". Nothing else is good (or good enough).

Quote:What would you accept as evidence?

If God were to hold a press conference in Jerusalem and performed neat magic tricks (float in the air, cure some people of their illnesses, rebuild Jerusalem from scratch, made the crops abundant, etc), I'd be very impressed. Impressed enough to become a Christian.

Quote:What do you see when you see the undeniable order in the universe? Random chance.

Except that my viewpoint is backed up by a massive amount of observation and review. Your viewpoint is necessarily unable to be proven in this manner. Thus, the probability of my viewpoint being correct is very high, whereas yours is very low, since mine corresponds to the physical universe and observations on how things have changed whereas yours simply ignores all this and says "Nope."

When I take a walk, I may come across a rock. I may think to myself: Why is this rock at this exact location? Why is the rock not over to the left a bit, or over to the right? What are the chances that this rock would be at precisely this location at this point in time?
Would it be justified for me to then say "This rock did not arrive here by natural means...but instead God placed this rock right here!"?

Quote:I am curious, what is your religion? I assume, just from the tone of what I've read so far, atheistic.

I am a kind-of Buddhist, but that describes my philosophy rather than my religion. Religiously, I do not believe in a supernatural power.

Quote:Or did you work it out in your head, for yourself, and it made the most sense to you?

This.

Quote:"What about the people in Africa that never HEAR about God, and thus don't have any way to place their faith in Him?"

No, this is not what I am saying. Rather, what I am saying is: I am a person in Africa. I am just about to die. Prior to this moment, I hadn't really thought about religion. At that very moment, three missionaries come to my door: A Christian missionary, an Islamic missionary, and a Meist missionary. They all tell me that if I don't convert *right now* to their religion, I will go to hell. Luckily, I'm alive long enough that they are all able to teach me their gospel. Let us assume that the Christian missionary is the correct one and that his God exists.
From my perspective, who should I choose? Is it not the case that, from my perspective, they are all equally likely to be true (since none of them have any particular evidence to support their case)? If so, then essentially I have no logical way to choose between them, and the decision would have to be random. So I roll a die and Meism wins.

Why should God punish me for this? It is true that I was aware of his possible existence...and it is also true that I got to hear his gospel. But my decision was not unreasonable: It was not as if I *knew* he existed and just chose to ignore it. Given that God refuses to make a strong case for himself (indeed, the strength of his case is basically the strength of the case of all gods), why ought I be punished for eternity for this random decision? It does not seem moral.

Quote:A. He's God, what are you going to do about it?

This isn't a particularly satisfying answer. If an evil man does an evil thing, ought I justify it by saying "Well, he is Person X. What are you going to do about it?"
No, since this doesn't address the morality of what he has done, merely his ability to do it.

Quote:If your arguing for "fairness", then by rights, we ALL deserve to go to Hell.

Why is this?

Quote:and it is essentially based in the (false) belief that mankind is basically good.

I agree. On an individual basis, people attempt to maximise their own utility. Now, how they define that utility depends on their cultural environment: As a Westerner, I define this utility partly in doing things like helping people around me, participating in discussions like this one, etc. Thus, if I come into a situation where I can use force to "convince" people of my position or I can be peaceful and use argument (even if this won't convince them), my utility is maximised by using peaceful argument. This is because of my environment.
Likewise, the utility of someone in rural Africa may be different: For them, there may be no value in peaceful argumentation, and so for them using force maximises utility.

Now, the maximisation of utility on an individual level, I think, generally leads to the development of what I (as a Westerner) would call "good", as people realise that their own utility tends to be maximised when liberalism is the high value in society. By our own biology, we eventually evolve to create moral systems, and those moral systems tend toward maximisation of freedom as people realise that it results in their own self-interest being fulfilled.

Quote:Do we come out of the womb being respectful of our parents, wishing only that they could get a good nights sleep, and that we can wait until morning to be fed?

At this stage, we are not morally aware of things. It is not that the baby is thinking "Wow, my parents are real nasty people, I think I'll keep them up tonight!" but rather the brain is recieving a signal that a certain chemical imbalance has taken place.