Religion (God)

Quote:That we like to share our toys?

Out of the womb? Out of the womb, there is nothing (as the capability for moral reasoning is not quite yet fully developed). A bit later on, there is a very weak tendency toward sharing things, if the entity judges that it will maximise utility. As a whole, young people will be territorial and selfish, unless they percieve some other thing to gain or they are taught otherwise.

Quote:We don't "learn" evil.

I'm really resisting bringing up the whole "morality is relative" point right now, but just to let you know, it's there ;)

Quote:"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?

Except that this "free will" we talk about only operates on top of the existing innate evil that you say we have. Thus, it is really free at all? Adam made that one choice so long ago, and because of it, God sees it fit to put in me innate evil that inherently biases my own free will: It makes me more likely to choose evil. This doesn't seem particularly moral, or particularly free.
Also, I have some issues with the whole "Adam-eve-morality tree" bit that I'll bring up later.

Quote: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.

But what an odd thing: God put in us attractions toward other people (men in some cases, women in other case), and yet he would then tell us to forgoe these biological, base-level attractions and instead choose him. Why would he do this? He had to have known (being all-knowing) the result of this: He essentially, knowing that it would sin, constructed a machine that has a massive bias to sin. This is really weird.

Quote:"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?"

Yes. If God doesn't want the criticism, he should have been a bit more skilled in putting man together.

Quote:So in this case, the dichotomy was clear.

Clear, but not true. Ultimately the logic of the Wager falls apart anyway.

Quote:But again, it even appears to defensable, because, if Christianity is, in fact, the one true religion,

But in order for your 2-choice wager to work, not only does Christianity have to actually be true, but it has to be common knowledge amongst both participants that it is true. The atheist likely is not convinced of its truth, however, and thus from his perspective (EVEN if it is really true) the other choices still have equal weight.

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

Definitely. Basically what I'm saying is: Even if we accept that I should live my life as a Christian because, if I don't, I might suffer for all eternity...this doesn't serve as proof that Christianity is actually true. That is to say, the proof:

1. Suffering is bad
2. If you aren't a Christian, you might suffer in the afterlife.
3. Therefore Christianity is true.

doesn't work. Pascal's Wager doesn't speak to the truth or falsehood of Christianity.

Quote: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 ;-)

You said it in this post:
http://course-notes.org/forum/showpost.php?p=19319&postcount=66

Quote:Upon what do you base your reason? ;-)

Given that the entirety of the evidence for his existence also applies to other claimed gods of other religions, the probability of all of them is equal (since the evidence for all of them is the same). Because the probability is equal (and low), choosing any of them is not justified, and choosing any of them over another is definitely not justified (since I have no basis by which to rank them)

Quote:I was stating the "Why"

Evolution doesn't talk about the moral "why", but instead the physical "why"

Quote:I was drawing the natural conclusions from the worldview that Evolution presents.

But evolution doesn't present a worldview :P This is, to me, like talking about the worldview that gravity presents: It is an almost absurd thing to speak of.

Quote: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. =)

Why not post it here, or in a new thread? I'd love to see it.

Quote: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?

Sure, if they both had an equal probability to be true, then you would have to move on to arbitrary factors to choose between them. But they don't have an equal probability: One is much higher than the other.

Quote:Absolutely? :-P

Yes. Note that I said moral absolutism: I'm not saying that *everything* is relative (for instance, the statement 1=1 is not relative), but all moral statements are.

Quote:If truth is relative (not absolute) shouldn't you just be tolerant, since my truth is different than your?

Moral truth is relative. Truth itself may not be: again 1=1 is not relative to the observer.
Since I hold moral truth to be relative, the Bible (as a source of moral guidance) will also be relative to each individual. Becaues I disagree with many of the things the Bible says, it is not applicable to me. It may or may not be applicable to you. For me, however, it is not morally "true".

Quote:My point was, if God is all-powerful, why would he use evolution?

Possible answers:
1) To test our faith
2) To provide a mechanism where he doesn't have to fine tune every little detail all the time.

Of course, I think evolution is really obvious, and so I find this debate to be weird. Let me ask you: When an illness like tuberculosis (spelling?) evolves to become resistant to some drug, is this evolution or is this God?

Quote:These mystical "guiding forces" hardly seem to be consistent with scientific experimentation, though, do they?

They are hardly mystical. For instance: 2 groups of animals lives on a certain island. Group 1 is made up of a species called the "Eaters", and group 2 is made up of a species called the "Colourers". The eaters do not have very good vision: They can only see really bright colours.
The colourers vary in the colour of their skin: Some are brighter and some are darker.
What evolution says is that it is likely that the brighter skinned colourers are going to be hunted and killed, preventing them from reproducing, and thus the species is going to move toward darker skin (since darker-skinned colourers are more likely to survive, and hence reproduce, passing on their skin). Thus, when humans finally come to the island, the Eaters have moved on to find something else to eat (bananas, I guess) and the colourers are now very dark skinned.

Is this random? No. The evolution of the colourers was a direct response to the environment in question. If, for instance, a mosquito were to carry an illness that was deadly to eaters onto the island, maybe the colourers wouldn't have become darker (since the evolutionary force pressuring them to become darker has now disappeared).

This isn't random at all: It isn't that some die rolled a 6 and so magically the colourers are going to become darker.

Quote:because that is the only way we can escape responsibility from anything or Anyone else.

Evolution doesn't talk about responsibility, except in the sense that some forces are responsible for provoking change in other forces (the eaters were responsible for provoking change in the colourers, for instance)

Quote:1. Moral Agency--Obey me [God] (Don't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They disobeyed.

But a moral agent is only that agent which has the knowledge of good and evil. If they did not have this knowledge, then they were essentially no better than robots, since I believe moral agency is a preqrequisite to free will.

Quote: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.

But it is an unfalsifiable position, and not particularly interesting: We can potentially explain away everything as "You aren't God, yo.", but as a form of logical argumentation, this doesn't really address the point in question.

Quote:He loves us and doesn't want to annihilate us. Were we actually to see God in His glory, we'd die.

Oh. This point caught me by surprise: I've never heard it before. Why would we die?

Quote:because he HAD to be just, AND He also had to be loving and merciful.

Except that he gets to define what is just, because he is God, and all morality flows from him, doesn't it? So he is free to say "It is just for me to forgive you this once."

As well, is it really the case that God, by harming himself, really fulfilled the commandments of justice? For instance, if my friend wrongs me in some way, can I flog myself to remove them of their responsibility?
It seems odd that God would not judge us individually.

I still don't see why Christ was required at all.

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

Actually, feel free to explain whatever you would like to. I like to learn about stuff :)

Quote:He's obviously not nudging you too hard, is He?

No, which is another really odd thing: He nudges certain people more than he nudges others. If he exists, it seems like he doesn't really want me to worship him :\

Quote: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?

Then why doesn't he interfere *more*? A father provides for the needs of his children, lest he be a negligent father. Thus, from the point of fatherhood, God isn't doing so well.

Quote:Not anymore it doesn't. Should it? I think I am misunderstanding your question.

It seems to me that nonexistence (and the accompanying state of nondesire) is preferable to either heaven or hell.

Quote:I disagree.

You are free to.

Quote:Evidence is what you want it to be.

Evidence is either actual correlation to the physical world or propositions/inferences that derive themselves logically from accepted assumptions. It isn't simply "whatever you want it to be"

Quote:I have all the "evidence" I need to disprove Evolution.

I'd like to see it :) Either physical evidence to disconfirm evolution (since it is a falsifiable theory) or logical evidence to fight against the mechanisms of evolution (providing it to be impossible, for instance).

Quote:You'll need something more than "evidence" to make a decision.

I need more than evidence, perhaps, but evidence is a required component of the process.

Quote: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." =)

I will outline many of my views after I'm done respnoding to your post (one more line!!)

Quote:What exactly do you mean by "God"?

I mean whatever you mean by "God" :) If you hold God to be omnipotent, then I am as well. If you hold god to be merciful, then I am as well. Whatever you say is God, apply to me.

----

Alright, new stuff:

There is one item on the agenda that I will address:
-God creates morality.
I should note upfront that this will go into divine moral absolutism, divine command, and eventually will be an attack on moral absolutism in general.

Generally it is held that morality flows from God. That is to say: The Bible hates X, the Bible is the word of God, God hates X, therefore X is bad don't do it!!
But I am sure that you are familiar with the Euthyphro problem? Basically:
1. Does God endorse a moral proposition X because it is good, or
2. is X good because God endorses it?
Is it wrong to murder just because God says it is wrong to murder, or does God tell me murdering is wrong because it is actually objectively wrong?
This question seems to negate God as relevant to morality, or morality as relevant in general. Indeed, in order to justify moral absolutism, in my mind (and I'm still in high school, so I admit that everything I know about philosophy is not formal) they both need to be true, but they can't both be true, in order for divine moral absolutism to work.

If God endorses a moral proposition X because it is good, that means that moral position X is good independent of God: God is endorsing it *because* it already has the property of being "Good". Ultimately, God can take a flying leap and X is still going to be good, because it is good independent of what God thinks. That is to say: Morality exists independently of God. However, this means that morality does not flow from God at all.

That obviously isn't an acceptable solution, so we have to endorse statement 2: X is good because God says it is. However, this reduces morality to absurd relativism: Suddenly morals do not reflect any fundamental truth, but merely reflect the random whims of God (and indeed, they are random whims: X isn't good prior to God choosing to endorse it, but since in the beginning God didn't endorse anything, nothing was good, and therefore God acted entirely randomly in choosing to endorse things). God could come down and say "Murder is right, yo" and that would suddenly make it true, and God has absolutly no reason at all to not do it (since, by definition, whatever God does is right). Thus, because moral statements no longer reflect a truth about the world, but merely the whims of God, morality does not exist in the absolutist sense.

In order for God to both determine morality and in order for morality to have a fundamental "truth" to it, both 1 and 2 have to be true, but they both cannot be true for they are circular: We would essentially be saying "God endorses X because X is true because God endorses X because X is true because God endorses X because X is true because God endorses X because X is true because ... " onto infinity.

Thus, it seems to me that either morality doesn't flow from God (because it is outside of God) and is objective or it is relative and doesn't flow from God (because it is relative).

Indeed, moral absolutism seems to be a silly thing to me anyway. To say that "It is TRUE that stealing candy from babies is wrong" is to say that morality is some sort of scientific property of the universe, but we have absolutely no evidence as to this at all: Indeed, what would it even look like for it to be a property of the universe? We have absolutely no system today which can even begin to model morality as a property of the universe (no ethical calculus).
But of course, that doesn't mean it cannot be a property of the universe, it just means we haven't seen it, right? Ignoring the issue that the probability of it being a property of the universe is so low now that belief isn't justified...Moral statements do not appear to have any possible way that they can be falsified. If I say "Stealing candy from babies is wrong", we cannot set up any sort of experiment or perform any sort of math that could show us that this statement is false. We are able to do this for scientific concepts like evolution or gravity or whatnot, but morality seems oddly immune to this.
Indeed, we can set up no experiment to help prove it correct, either. We can help to prove gravity correct by putting ourselves in a situation where gravity ought to hold force and see if it does. If our observation corresponds to our theory, the probability of that theory being true goes up. Morality doesn't seem to work like this, though: What can we observe that would increase the probability of "Stealing candy from babies is wrong" being true? It seems like an absurd thing to ask, of course, since to me it seems that the statement isn't particularly apt toward making predictions or to observation.

So if this is the case, then it would seem almost certain that morality is not a property of the universe, and is certainly not scientific.

What does it even mean for morality to be objective? It seems to be almost a nonsense statement: We could say it means that you ought not do a certain thing, but what does *that* mean? What does it mean for me to *ought* not do something? Perhaps it means that such a thing is immoral...but what does it mean for a thing to be immoral? Do you see where I'm getting at? All of these explanations are vacuous: They don't give me any new information at all, and just say the same thing over and over again. Morality doesn't seem to have an essence to it at all.

What about the is-ought problem? It may be true that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, but why should I invest moral authority in the Bible? Because God wrote it? Why should I invest moral authority in God? Because he's god? But what does that matter: Why *ought* I invest moral authority in God?

Why should I value life? Because life is good...but why is life good? Because it creates stable societies...but why should I value a stable society? Because it benefits me...but why should I value what benefits me? Because I am me! But what does that matter? Why *ought* I value what benefits me, or anything else?

Why *ought* I value anything? After all, it seems like I can't justify any value I hold except in reference to other values, or in an appeal to authority...but I can't justify the appeal to authority without referencing to other values!

It just seems like moral absolutism is an absurd concept. But let us even assume it is true, despite all of the above: How does this help us at all? Since there doesn't seem to be any way to access this moral truth (with any high degree of certainty), especially given that almost everyone seems to have a different moral system...it doesn't seem useful for me at all to know about the independent moral truth that exists.

As well, don't you find it odd that people from the same region and time period tend to have the same moral system? That people in the Middle East tend to have the same system, that people in California tend to have the same system, that people from Washington in the 70s tend to....As well, it seems odd that moral systems seem to evolve in response to the society around them. A society in extreme danger or famine seems to have a different concept of what is moral than a society in abundant prosperity and safety.

It seems to me that moral propositions reflect, at their core, chemical reactions. When I say "Murder is wrong", the information conveyed is "Murder provokes a strong chemical reaction that I interpret to be negative in me". After all, the moral systems that most people have tend to be the moral systems that most people really want to have. Since I was taught that murder is wrong, I've come to the point where I want to have that as part of my moral system, and so I do. I was also taught homosexuality is wrong, but I don't want to have that as part of my moral system, so I don't.
But if the moral systems of people tend to be a product of their desires (which are influenced by their environment), and we accept that their desires are not objective, then it seems that moral systems are subjective. This doesn't necessarily mean morality is, but combined with the above, it seems that morality is indeed subjective. The statements "Homosexuality is wrong" and "homosexuality is right" both have equal moral weight, equal truth value (namely, none). The difference comes in what gives us the most pleasure to follow.

Now, none of this is to say that we ought not believe in morality, because that too is a moral statement, and thus is not true, and thus can be ignored. What this does say, however, is that our moral system doesn't exist on the same level as "Gravity exists", but rather on the same level as "Chocolate is the best!". But if this is the case...conservative Christianity is essentially wiped out, since it claims its morality to be objective.

This whole morality issue thus mostly nullifies religion for me, since religion doesn't seem to matter much anymore. Whether God exists or does not exist is irrelevant to my morality and how I ought to behave.

Here are other issues I have with religion:

Why is it that the scriptures of the world seem to vary so much? The beliefs of Islam and Christianity, for instance, appear to be inconsistent in many ways...not to mention the beliefs of Hinduism versus Christianity or whatnot. How to explain this?

The problem of evil - why does God create within us a bias toward evil? Also, the problem of natural evil - why does God allow "evil" events to happen that are outside of our control?

The problem of evil from a moral perspective: If God does not interfere with evil, then he seems to be placing "free will" above everything...If morality flows from God, and if morality has an objective basis, then it seems that I ought to do the exact same and not interfere in the moral actions of others so as to preserve their free will.
In other words: God doesn't help the old lady on the street be saved from the mugger. He apparently doesn't consider it wrong enough to interfere with it, so why should I?

If God really wants me to believe in him, why doesn't he give me any evidence that HE is the correct God to believe in?

If God created everything, it seems he did a really poor job of it. Why did he create things like disease? Why didn't he create humans to have wings? Why did he create in humans this bias toward evil? Why can't my eyes see in the dark? Why will our sun explode?

Why is it that God interferes with world events, but only sometimes, and he doesn't interfere in other times because that would violate our free will?

The whole "free will" thing seems a bit odd to me...Why does our free will even matter? And even if it does matter, why can't God act while still preserving our free will? He could make the weather all over Earth wonderful all the time without taking away from our free will at all.
Indeed, why does he give us free will, but then seem to constantly interfere with us at every turn? He performs miracles or blessings, he has programmed us in such a way that we have a large tendency to act in a certain manner...
How applicable is free will to this debate? Environment seems to matter a great deal to how a person will develop. I would be entirely different today if I were born in Saudi Arabia or in Burma. Hence, if I would act a different way based on where I was born, who is to say I am acting in a way that is consistent with the "free will" of my spirit right now?
Why doesn't God simply give us an equal playing ground? After all, if he wants to see us act with our free will, the best way to do this (scientifically) is to nullify all the other variables. As it is, the other variables all seem to taint this experiment.
Science is increasingly showing that free will is largely (though not totally) an illusion created in the brain. How to explain this? If God wanted to give us free will, he seems to have done a bad job of it.
What does it even mean to have free will? What is "will"? What is the nature of sentient existence?

Why is it that Christianity has so many similarities to pagan religions before it?

How can we claim Christianity is true when it seems like Christian doctorine was agreed upon by consensus at the Council of Nicea?

Why does God do anything? After all, if he is perfect, then he has no reason to do anything - he knows and experiences the outcome of all possible actions before they even occur, so it seems like he has no need to do such a thing.

Why should I believe in a God when it seems like science is able to adequately explain things? Why should I believe in a God in the absence of evidence?

I think you have enough to play with for today. Please respond soon, I'm very curious to see your reply!

No way! You have a history final too? Or just finals in general?

Quote: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?

"Why does God feel the need to interfere with our affairs so much?"

It seems (to me) that you are straddling both sides of the fence. I will not (indeed I cannot) argue with someone who is inconsistant. However, I do not believe you are intentionally being inconsistent, so I will state my objection, and then see whether or not you meant what you said.
It appears that you want free will, but you do not. You are questioning "Why doesn't God just take over, because then we wouldn't have to make a choice." If this is not what you are intending to say, please clarify for me. As for crops and natural disasters. How do you know he doesn't? How many crops grow well? (interesting that you chose this analogy--as it is closely related to the fall of man. Genesis 3:17 "And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wifeand have eaten of the treeof which I commanded you,'You shall not eat of it,'cursed is the ground because of you;in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;""
How many natural disasters have you seen God NOT prevent. (Perhaps you meant for God to prevent ALL natural disasters, in which case I would also ask...Why doesn't he give evil people (yes this is all of us, but let's use an example we can both, assumedly, agree upon) like Hitler? Why doesn't He magically eradicate all disease? If He is in fact omnipotent and omniscient, and omnibenevolent, shouldn't He do these things? Perhaps because of the existence of evil, you find it hard to believe in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. Naturally so, and you are certainly not alone. It seems logical enough, right?
You can see this easily becomes the "Problem of Evil" question. This is my answer: How do you judge what is best for humanity? If God is omniscient, shouldn't He KNOW what's best for us, and act accordingly? Yes. And we have a history of seeing how some of the most evil things produce the most good. So, really, God must prevent only unnecessary evil. And then the question becomes, "Well, what is 'unnecessary'?" And again, whom would be more qualified to judge, you or God? (We are assuming the existence of my God for the sake of argument, as that is how your questions are phrased.) Essentially, you are saying that you personally know what is best for mankind, that you are God, and that your standards are higher/better than His. This, assuming God is who He says He is, is not only foolish, but the height of arrogance (and incidently the same attitude caused Lucifer to become Satan.)

Quote:I would say not, because I reject the notion that humans (or moral agents in general) can become property. [Emphasis mine]

"Attempting to say "It is a true thing that God exists [or that humans cannot become property]" 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."

Here again it seems that you are advocating both sides of the argument, which is also not proper logic. In your words, just because you reject (or accept) something, does not make it untrue (or true).

Quote: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.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. (Romans 5:12-13)
However the heck this works, I admit defeat. All I can say is that, because my father (great, great, great, etc. grandfather) Adam sinned--I inherited that sin nature. Because I have this nature to sin, and sin merits death, I must (for the sake of justice) die. It's fine to say that you don't like the rules God lays down, but it doesn't really matter what a child thinks of his parents rules, does it?
Also, you would think that a creation would be required to worship (out of mere decency of gratitude) its creator, right? Does that make sense or no? However, He gave us the choice. For truly, without choice, there cannot be real love. Robots and puppets cannot love. That is why, I think, we have free will. Quote: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."

Remember the part about justice? Sin demands justice, because God said himself "The wages of sin is death." Remember all the animal sacrifices that people get all riled up about in the old testament? What were those for? The term Christians use is "propitiation for sins". Essentially, substitutes. Unfortunately, no blood of an animal, no matter how "clean" can cover over all the sins of a man. So what had to happen? There had to be a perfect sacrifice, the perfect sacrifice, once and for all, for the "remission" (forgiveness) of sins.
"In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." (Hebrews 9:22)
Why did God set it up this way? I'm not sure, but that doesn't really matter does it? It's how He chose to do it. I'm sure there is a legitimate reason, if I actually researched it further, and I will do so if you have further questions. But that is why Christs sacrifice was not "strange" but necessary for the forgiveness of sins.
God cannot say "Oh, it's ok. I'll just forget about that." That would deny His justice, and God cannot/will not deny or defy his nature. (This is also one of the answers to the non-sensical riddle "Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?")

Quote: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.

I still think you are partially right, or at least from your perspective. Yes, you can see it as God "sending" you, as you explained. But then, why not look at it as "sending yourself to jail/hell"? It seems to be an issue of blame-placing, for which human beings, due to free will, have no excuse. Yes, God could give us warnings--and in fact He has and does and continues to do so. Christian evangelists, the Bible, signs, miracles, delaying the apocalypse (I dunno when He's gonna do it, but He could do it any time He wants. Why not now? Because His patience is that amazing. He is still desiring, no matter how muich we've spit in His face, for us to come to repentence. That's what I think anyways.

Quote: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.

(I think) I understand where you are coming from. It absolutely looks like God is saying "You are my creation, obey my rules or else!" But is that not the case? (assuming my position for argument as always) Does He, being the Creator of your very existence, not have that right? Here is what Isaiah has to say concerning this (and actually a few previous topics we've covered so far.
"You turn things upside down!Shall the potter be regarded as the clay,that the thing made should say of its maker,"He did not make me";or the thing formed say of him who formed it,"He has no understanding"?" (Isaiah 29:16) One thing this says to me is that either A. These arguments are as old as dirt, B. God knew these objections would come up and acted accordingly, writing these things in His word, or C. Both. Certainly sounds convincingly accurate and pointedly relevent to this topic of conversation to be coincidental, doesn't it? These words were written more than two thousand years ago! (If you are unclear, the potter is God and the clay is us, His creation.)
So what does this demonstrate? Isn't it ludicrous and even laughable to imagine a pot saying to the Potter, "You block head! What the heck did you make me like this for?! You're doing it all wrong you idiot! Get it right!" To me, this is the stuff saturday morning cartoons are made of, (biblical versions, of course ;-)
Another verse that may not be palatable for you at this point, but is quite relevent to this conversation, (and usually avoided by most Christian apologists)--Proverbs 16:4
"The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble." Does this mean God purposely brings people into existence knowing that they will go to Hell? It certainly seems like that, but perhaps I am just misinterpreting this particular verse. However, let us assume that is what that means. Is God then immoral, and thus, unworthy of our praise?
Again with the potter/clay metaphor, except this time several hundred years later--"Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable." (2 Timothy 2:20)
This seems to indicate that there ARE, in fact, some people that are made to be honored (I assume taken into heaven) and some people that are made for dishonor (assuming Hell). My theology on this may be a little shakey, but I'm pretty sure that's what this means.
So then, is this God an evil God? Hardly. Firstly, whom sets up the term for good and evil? Man or God? Second, whom is the ultimate judge of all things, Man or God? This being the case, we really have no room, just like King David of Israel and Job said, to judge God. He is God and we are not. Period. Paragraph. Hard to swallow? Probably. But IF it is true, have I been consistent? Perhaps you still have a question.
"But WHY would He organize it in such a way??" (Remember we can't call into question his right or wrongness on the matter, since He is the ultimate judge of that himself, but we are absolutely free to beat against His chest and say "What the crap, God?")
I think the answer is, God does everything to bring glory to Himself. Egotistical? Perhaps it would be for anyone or anything other than God, the creator and author of all life. Self-Centered? Again, whom is the center of the universe (metaphorically speaking)? You see, we humans are so hopelessly bent on the idea that it is all about us, and the simple truth is, No, it's not. Hard truth, but simple.

Quote: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.

Bingo! So which do you trust? Your intellect or God's (assumed) word? Let me offer some insight (and I will elaborate later) on this subject. I propose a theory. And this theory is that our reason is based on faith. That we cannot know ANYTHING without first making assumptions (beliefs>faith). So then, all God is asking is for you to put your faith in Him, rather than yourself. Considering He is immortal and unchanging, I would think that He would be the better, safer bet. But you are 100% on the money--it requires belief. It's so redundant, so hopelessly impossible to miss, yet people seem to believe that their faith is based on reason, rather than visa versa. I wrote my first philosophy paper on the subject if you would like a copy. =)

Quote: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.

This is incorrect. The truth worht of a person is based on the what the creator of that person says about them. God repeatedly demonstrates and declares His love for His creation, and it will be only too clear that THIS is the true derivative of worth on the last day when he either says to us "Well done, good and faithful servant." Or "Depart from me, you wicked servant." My guess would be there will be no greater joy or sorrow at the pronouncement of those words. We see how much we yearn for the acceptance and validation from our earthly fathers, how much MORE our heavenly one and Creator?

Quote: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.

But since moral truth is relative, it doesn't really matter what you think is "desireable" does it? I find it morally repugnant that you believe yourself able to judge people's characters (remember you can only judge actions, you can't tell whether they're giving to the poor for recognition, only to exploit them again by tax collecting, or if someone donates a million dollars to a campaign, only to have their agendas furthered. You simply cannot see a persons heart.
...But it doesn't matter what I think either =)
And yes, you're partially right. God does not see eye to eye with you. Or rather visa versa. He states plainly:
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts."

God has no problem with an identity crises, nor has he an under (or overly, that's impossible for an infinte being) developed ego. He knows and makes it clear to us His position. He is God, we are not. Romans 3:4
"By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,

"That you may be justified in your words,
and prevail when you are judged.""

Summary? God wins. Conclusion? It may be wise to join the winning team. I apologize for the oversimplification.

Quote:
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).

Good work, but you missed something on your conclusion, namely about the poor. It might follow, had God not actually commanded us to care for the poor. Why do we pray? God already knows the thoughts in our heads, and even before we think them!! (looked for but didn't find the scripture for this verse...stupid BibleGateWay :-P) The answer is because he commands us to. (1 Thessalonians 5:17) Why do we evangelize? God obviously will has already chosen whom His vessels of honor and dishonor are.
He commands it. (Matthew 28:19)
Etc., etc.
I had a thought--consider two things. Honestly. Seriously. For just 60 seconds. If God did create man, what is His purpose? and secondly...I just came across this verse...
"In the pride of his face the wicked does not seek him; all his thoughts are, "There is no God."" (Psalm 10:4) Just consider for 60 seconds--suspending your disbelief for the sake of argument for 60 seconds. What if that statement is actually true? (Remember we're all fallen, so this isn't a jab at your morality ;-)

As for your "good actions" problem at the end. Notice: God doesn't accept us because we're "good". That is definitely one of the most common misconceptions, especially WITHIN the church. We're all equally messed up. "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8) He didn't wait for us to start doing "good things" or "acting nice." If that were the case, because He looks on the heart, we would all still be totally boned.
Also note the misconception of "All he cares about." You are very close to the truth, but off by a little. All he "cares about" or wants, is obedience. (notice the revulsion you feel at this statement) This doesn't mean automaton subservience. Some people think you have to trade in your brain for your soul or something. (Do I appear to be an idiot? Hahah bad question.) What I'm trying to say is that it IS possible to believe in God and still be you!!! He wouldn't have it any other way. HE made you just the way you are, the only thing you have to do is submit your will to His. It seems repulsive at first, but once done, the realization is that you are more free than you ever were before because you are doing what you were created for. I guess that's kind of a spoiler for the above question.
He made us to worship Him. There, I said it, plain as day. Why does this sound repugnant and egocentric? Because we want it to be about US, dang it.
Anyways...

Quote: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.

LoL, I'm actually finding it coincidental (is there such a thing? 0.o) how well you played into this one.
Try again. Been there. Done that. No, you didn't end up becoming a Christian, in fact, you ripped out his beard, flogged off his skin, and nailed God to a cross. (And so did I by the way.)
Dunno about floating in air, but walking on water is close enough, right? As for abundant crops--He clearly demonstrated that he had the power to turn water into wine, curse a fig tree so that it withered within a day (I think that's the right time period) and calm stormy seas. I don't think it's too far off to say that he could cause a little extra food surplus that year, too. (Especially if he can feed 5,000 men with two loaves of bread and five fish ;-)

But you respond: "Wait a second! I wasn't there. I didn't do all those nasty things. I didn't witness those miracles.
Pardon my frankness, but are you really so arrogant as to think that you are better than every single one of the people that lived back then? You (and I) would have done the same. Kind of like the Adam thing, I think.

The demonstrated truth is--we can have God staring us in the face, and we will not see unless we believe. (Kind of counter-intuitive eh? Believe first, then see.) Where have I heard that before? I think in The Santa Claus. "Seeing isn't believing, believing is seeing." LoL, why does this Christian thing keep coming back to Santa Claus?! (Not meant to be a distractor) Though you will notice this to be true in your own case. No matter how hard you try to explain to Christians that Atheism just PLAIN MAKES SENSE, they seem to be ignorant, stupid, blind even. They do not believe.

Quote: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."

What a coincidence. I feel the same way =) Well almost. What exactly can we not observe? God Himself? Yes, you are right. But we CAN observe his actions--namely creation. As for your position--Have you observed the primordial singularity? Or macroevolution? No, simply the "effects". So you see, we are in the same boat. This is an effective stalemate, unless you have a new counter for me. =)

Quote:
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!"?

If you believe in an omnipotent, purposeful God--yes, actually. Whether or not you could fathom the significance of that rock or would want to spend the time trying is a different question. Perhaps it was there so that some amoeba could regenerate, infect a bird landing upon it, killing the bird at the precise instant to cause it spiriling down into the eye of an elephant who kicked over a tree in agony, that killed a lion cub that would have otherwise eaten more than his share of antelope, causing less propogation of the species, eventually leading to its extinction, totally disrupting the eco-system as we know it and causing the earth to slowly die in a long, drawn-out famine of doom! But most of us will probably never know. =D
Haha, ok that may not have been necessary. Though, if God is omnipotent and lives outside of time, I'm sure He's got the "time" to orchesrate such events.
You may have noticed the allusion to the Butterfly affect, and for good reason. Here I now claim that there are no coincidences =) w00t for V for Vendetta! (What'd you think of it?)

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

Cool! Do you do yoga? Or am I mixing up my religions?

Quote:This.
Another potentially offensive (though that doesn't necessitate it's invalidity) verse.
"Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool,but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered." (Proverbs 28:26) The obvious question follows "Well then what is wisdom?" Conveniently, Proverbs offers this definition as well.
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight." (Proverbs 9:10)
Note: I'm not guiltless of trusting in my own mind either ;-)

Quote: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.

My first reaction is to start defending, but I've got to admit, this is a new one for me, and I'm honestly not sure. The best I can offer at this point is that God is in control, He looks on the heart, and He is loving. On the other hand, he is also just, and creates both vessels of wrath and honor, both for His own glory. (Why He may choose to do something like this, I have no answer, and for find a little comfort in the fact that it is, as far as I know, a hypothetical situation.) I'll have to ask my dad/pastor/friends about this one! =D
...Though I could probably just google it. I'm guessing this has the name "three missionaries problem" or "random choice problem". But perhaps this is original...let's see.
Well after 5 minutes I didn't find anything...Moving on!

Quote: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.

Your analogy does not hold. God is not a man. Men do not make laws, truth, morals, etc. God does. Since He (and not some random man) is the supreme being of the universe, honestly--who is going to judge Him? Any man that thinks that He is God and therefore can do whatever the heck he wants is easily dealt with. One man I can think of ended up lying in a ditch, covered in petrol, on fire (that's fun). LoL, see Eddie Izzard's commentary on WWII for the joke. Though this seems like a big "I'm God" cop-out card, it actually does hold logically. There is a prime-mover, and that prime-mover is not responsible to anyone or anything but itself. We humans like to think that this is our place in the universe sometimes, but we are sorely mistaken.

Quote:Why is this?
I thought I explained this earlier.
All men have sinned. (Romans 3:23)
Sin deserves death. (Romans 6:23)
Therefore, all men deserve death.
(Notice the extense of death is beyond physical death in this sense. Adam did not, in fact, drop dead when he ate the forbidden fruit, but rather experienced separation from God--spiritual death.) That's really what Hell is. Sure, the burning part isn't going to be a whole lot of fun, but what's the point if you never cease to exist? Surely you develop some sort of pain endurance after a few millenia. (This is sarcasm at its worst and I apologize for the insensitivity, but it is merely to demonstrate a point.) The real "hell" of Hell is separation from our meaning in life, from our purpose, from our Creator. Knowing that we had the choice and having no one to blame but ourselves. Those are my personal thoughts on Hell, I can't back them up scripturally, so I might just be talking out my butt, but it makes sense to me. :-P

Quote: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.

I understand self-interest, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about selfishness. I don't really understand or see how your hypothesis is played out in history, could you explain? I disagree with the view that "liberalism" leads to "good". Liberalism leads (in theory) to liberation, or freedom, which is another name for individualism. Yet, we appear to be social, pack creatures. What's the deal?

Quote: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.

I agree. Bad example on my part. I should've just stuck to where that was coming from. "Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him." (Proverbs 22:15)
It is my theory that kids who are left to themselves, given whatever they want (thus less inhibiting the natural nature of the being) turn out to be complete spoiled brats. I'm sure you have had similar experiences of other kids.

Quote:Out of the womb? Out of the womb, there is nothing (as the capability for moral reasoning is not quite yet fully developed). A bit later on, there is a very weak tendency toward sharing things, if the entity judges that it will maximise utility. As a whole, young people will be territorial and selfish, unless they percieve some other thing to gain or they are taught otherwise.
Bingo. Total self-centeredness is innate.

Quote:I'm really resisting bringing up the whole "morality is relative" point right now, but just to let you know, it's there

It is my relative moral standard that I may rape and muder in cold blood anyone I want. This idea, from my perspective, serves as little more than a cop-out for the difficult reality that morality is objective, not subjective. There is a standard, and we prove it every day. True, we can erode and ignore these standards quite effectively. Does that mean there won't be a judgement because "we don't like that idea"? This seems familiar... ;-)

Quote:Except that this "free will" we talk about only operates on top of the existing innate evil that you say we have. Thus, it is really free at all? Adam made that one choice so long ago, and because of it, God sees it fit to put in me innate evil that inherently biases my own free will: It makes me more likely to choose evil. This doesn't seem particularly moral, or particularly free.
Also, I have some issues with the whole "Adam-eve-morality tree" bit that I'll bring up later.

Good point. I need to do my research. =) I look forward to your issues with the tree thing. Have you read Genesis ever?

Quote: But what an odd thing: God put in us attractions toward other people (men in some cases, women in other case), and yet he would then tell us to forgoe these biological, base-level attractions and instead choose him. Why would he do this? He had to have known (being all-knowing) the result of this: He essentially, knowing that it would sin, constructed a machine that has a massive bias to sin. This is really weird.

Word. You've totally got a point. (As you may be able to tell, It's getting late and my ability to think is rapidly declining. 0.o 4:45 AM. YAY!) hahahaha. Though--I have heard this one before. So--if God KNEW we were going to sin (being all knowing) why did he create us in the first place?
Same answers as before.
1. How can we judge what God does as good or evil? If He is supreme, doesn't He set the standard? Moreover, is He under the standard which He requires of us? I personally don't think so from some simple deduction. God groups envy with such characteristic as "wickedness" Mark 7:22, yet He declares Himself a Jealous God. It seems He is not subject to the laws He makes for human kind. I don't really see a problem with this, seeing as His nature is so drastically different from ours. It seems we tend to imagine God as the ultimate man, but it's just not an accurate representation.
2. Do we have God's wisdom? Could we have done better? To believe such is astoundingly arrogant. Equal-ing one's self to God is what turned the head arch-angel Lucifer into the purpose for which Hell exists.
Note also: God did not create Hell with humanity in mind. It was originally designated for the devil and his angels (demons).

Quote:Actually, feel free to explain whatever you would like to. I like to learn about stuff

A picture is worth a thousand words. So since I've already given 10 pictures worth up to this point, and to deal with your comment about the trinity being derived from a pagan idea/symbol...
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trini...

Enjoy! =D

Quote:No, which is another really odd thing: He nudges certain people more than he nudges others. If he exists, it seems like he doesn't really want me to worship him :\

You are absolutely right. He chooses some, but not all, why? The answer I continually arrive at is: For His own glory. "How does it give God glory to have some of His creation burn in Hell?" Is the next question, for which my response is "It demonstrates His justice." And then I lead into, "Can there be any happiness without sadness? Good without bad? Justice without mercy?" God wrote the story, not me. One thing I know for sure:
"The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." (2 Peter 3:9) A good reason why the apocolypse hasn't happened I think.

Considering my point of view, and that there are no coincidences, I see one option. Consider this your personal call from God Himself:I sent my son Jesus to die for your sins because I love you. Will you accept his sacrifice on your behalf by placing your faith no longer in yourself but rather in Him, in Me?

Now you have no excuse, and there are two perspectives.
1. (You) Why the crap did you tell me? I wasn't ready to hear that! (maybe there's a lesser penalty for people who are never told, or maybe they get a second chance, but I have absolutely no scripture to back that up, so I can't endorse that idea.
2. (Me) What if I had not told you, and no one had ever told you, and there was no "lesser punishment" or "second chance". Then you would scream at me--"Why didn't you tell me?! You had the truth all along but you didn't tell me!!"
"I didn't think you were ready..." would be my only, pitiful response. And it would be on my conscience for the rest of eternity (if such a thing exists), but perhaps that won't happen, since there is no more pain, regret, or sadness in heaven.
So you see the precarious and uncomfortable position of evangelism--which is what I suppose I have just participated in.

I actually find this the most intellectually fulfilling worldview...(ok it's the only one I've ever had, but still...;-)

Quote:Then why doesn't he interfere *more*? A father provides for the needs of his children, lest he be a negligent father. Thus, from the point of fatherhood, God isn't doing so well.

He has provided the Way (the Truth, and the Life also). The only thing left is for us to take a step of faith. He cannot/will not coerce us into loving Him. What would that be? Divine rape--hardly consistent with the character of God. Love is a choice. Moreover, it's a risk. A flippin' big one, too. He led us to water...

Quote:It seems to me that nonexistence (and the accompanying state of nondesire) is preferable to either heaven or hell.

Truly, the odds are better if you don't like risks. But you don't get a choice to place better odds. :-/
I also disagree with your assessment, but that's my opinion, eh? ;-)

Quote:Evidence is either actual correlation to the physical world or propositions/inferences that derive themselves logically from accepted assumptions. It isn't simply "whatever you want it to be"

Evidence: Flower
A correlation to the physical world. But "evidence" of what? Of evolution? Of creation? It swings both ways. That is why I say it is "whatever you want it to be."
How are either propositions or inferences evidence? What if "accepted assumptions" turn out to be false in the future? (humanity doesn't have a very good track record.)

Quote:I'd like to see it Either physical evidence to disconfirm evolution (since it is a falsifiable theory) or logical evidence to fight against the mechanisms of evolution (providing it to be impossible, for instance).
I was mistaken. I cannot disprove this theory. Because after all, there is no "proof" in science. Only theory. Everything is subject to change. Even the law of gravity supposedly. I find this yet another appealing reason to place my faith in God rather than science or man.
Some reasons for doubting Evolution's accuracy are:
1. Hilarious odds (truly, evolutionists have greater faith than I do)
2. Terrible track record regarding "missing links".
3. Utterly inefficient fossil records.
For more fun:
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns239.html
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
http://www.creationapologetics.org/refuting.html

I guess this is a good point to acknowledge biases, and state plainly--yes I do have them. And so does everyone else. I really need to post my paper.