The Premise: God is evil

[Empty Hands]

As ninjamom said, I'm not sure that God condemns anyone for believing in Allah, either.

Well, without getting into a theological or exegetical debate, I will just say that there is ample biblical support for someone to believe that God would condemn someone for believing in Allah. In fact, much of Jesus' and the apostles words concerning salvation rely not on issues of character, but belief. That was one of Martin Luther's big disagreements with the Church, which was focused on salvation by works.

There are other disciplines for asking and answering questions. History, Law, Language, and music are some pursuits not governed by science.

These other disciplines may not rely on experiment, but they still rely on naturalistic assumptions of the world, logic, and rationality. All of these also form the basis of science. History, for instance, is highly concerned with issues of evidence. I don't think using history as an example really helps you justify belief in God. After all, no historian would accept your claim that George Washington crossed the Delaware because you believe he did.

Eventually you must reach a being of which no one can claim more power. Some people refer to this being as God.

What if that being was us? Would that still prove the existence of God? Seems a little Jesuitical to me.

So, in the question of burdens of proof, let's look at this another way. Without you meeting my wife personally, can I absolutely prove to you that she 1.) exists, and 2.) that she is in fact the person that I describe?

Sure you could, in the definition of "fact" promulgated by Stephen Jay Gould: "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

If, however, you try to convince me that I am a fool for believing in my wife, because you have "disproven" my argument, then the very large burden of proof is on you.

So it is with my belief of God. I do believe I "know" him. Not only proofs of his existence, (for me), but also by experience of his presence.

These arguments are not at all comparable. Need I detail for you the differing evidence available for the existence of your wife and the existence of God? Your wife's existence can be proven as a matter of principle quite easily, to Gould's level of certainty. God cannot.

Then I was miraculously healed.

I have no reason to doubt your experience. Nonetheless, it does not really justify your belief. Many other alternative explanations are available, your experience does not narrow it down to God. Even if your healing did prove the existence of the divine however, it still would not show that this divinity is the God described in the Christian bible - a whole 'nother problem indeed.

That said, I'm really glad you were healed. I don't like to see others in pain.

 

[thardey]

Now there's another thought to consider.

Are you, EH, (as others have) using the argument that because God is unjust, immoral, or even "evil" that he does not exist?

That's quite a leap of faith and reasoning.

Or are you saying (again, as others have) that because God is all of these things, he does not "deserve" to be believed in?

Again, if he does indeed exist, but is "immoral" from our perspective, that does not change the premise that he does exist. You might be able to argue that he doesn't deserve worship, but that's hardly a prerequisite to existence.

(Actually, come to think of it, worship of God is not required for salvation, either in Judaism, or Christianity. In Judaism, it is righteousness based on following the Law, in Christianity, it is righteousness accepted as a gift, because another took my punishment in my place.

Worship generally flows out of that, as a natural reaction.)

But if God does exist (in the form of the most powerful being in the universe, of which there must be at least one, and knowledge being a part of that power.), and if you are opposed to his/its use of that power and knowledge, you are setting yourself up as his/it's enemy. In my mind I would have to truly think long and hard, and have some incredibly convincing proofs before I was willing to take that step.

Honest questions, of course are encouraged. It's the questions asked as though you already have decided the answer that will put you in opposition to God.

You can argue that God is not perfect, but that is an individual characteristic that the God of the Bible claims. (Actually Jesus claims that about God "You must be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect" [Mt. 5:48].) But then again, can you define pi to absolute perfection? Can you judge whether circle is "absolutely perfect", that is, that it has no straight segments, and that each point is exactly the same distance from it's center?

And what does "absolute perfection" mean, anyway, that it has no flaws? Or that it can accomplish it's purpose perfectly? Or that it can do all things perfectly?

Can something become "more perfect?" I think a wise question would not be "does God exist?" but rather, "how close to perfection is God?" And "Can God change?" If God is absolutely perfect, then he cannot change, or he would cease to be perfect. If he is less than perfect, why does that mean he does not exist? And, what "yardstick" shall we hold next to this God to determine his perfection?

God's perfection in justice is being questioned, but what does "justice" mean?" Balance, equity, fairness all come to mind. But fairness on what scale? An individual life? A community? A nation? A planet? Eternity? It is possible (though I'm not one to do it) to argue that justice requires pain in some lives to "balance" the comfort of others. That "impotence" in some is in "balance" to the power of others. Justice is a very slippery concept, especially unbiased justice. Does anybody really know enough about it to claim mastery?

Nobody claims that God's justice is a simplistic, black and white issue. The only people who claim that are detractors, who are seeking to set up a straw-man argument.

There are some, though who are content with a simple explanation, hoping to understand it more fully some time down the road. For all practical purposes, 3.14159265 is quite enough for most people to understand pi. For some people, saying "God's justice be done" is enough. Please do not make the mistake of thinking that is all the deeper it goes.

I'll admit that there are things about God that I have hated, there will probably be things I will continue to learn that I will hate, and I will do so honestly. But I will also do so realizing that I know very little, and that I have an extremely limited perspective on life, and that I will probably change my mind, as I have in the past.

 

[Empty Hands]

Are you, EH, (as others have) using the argument that because God is unjust, immoral, or even "evil" that he does not exist?

Or are you saying (again, as others have) that because God is all of these things, he does not "deserve" to be believed in?

No, of course not. Logically, the two issues are completely separate. However, this thread has branched a bit from the original question of "Is God evil?" to include questions of existence.

But then again, can you define pi to absolute perfection? Can you judge whether circle is "absolutely perfect", that is, that it has no straight segments, and that each point is exactly the same distance from it's center?

Well, this is a bit OT, but yes. There are formulae that perfectly describe both. As it applies to God, this does touch on a fundamental difficulty in these discussions, that of defining terms, "God" foremost. For instance, I think most people would dispute your definition of God as "the most powerful being in the universe". It could end up being us after all, and I think most people would consider God as being outside the universe.

 

[thardey]

Well, without getting into a theological or exegetical debate, I will just say that there is ample biblical support for someone to believe that God would condemn someone for believing in Allah. In fact, much of Jesus' and the apostles words concerning salvation rely not on issues of character, but belief. That was one of Martin Luther's big disagreements with the Church, which was focused on salvation by works.

Belief in what? Martin Luther was sick of the church teaching that people could buy their salvation. Again: "The character issue I believe is at stake is whether or not an individual will keep trying to earn what cannot be earned, or are they willing to put aside their pride and simply "ask" for forgiveness, without bargaining, manipulating, or buying it.

Allah (and Muhammad) offers salvation by works. It is not the worship of Allah that condemns men, according to the Bible, but the reliance of works to earn "righteousness." (Romans chapter 1, 2, and 3, Galatians 2:11-5:15, Ephesians 2:1-10, Philippians 3:1-11, Colossians 2:6-23, to start.) Jesus' offer of righteousness is the only one in the world to offer it for free, that I have ever heard of.

These other disciplines may not rely on experiment, but they still rely on naturalistic assumptions of the world, logic, and rationality. All of these also form the basis of science. History, for instance, is highly concerned with issues of evidence. I don't think using history as an example really helps you justify belief in God. After all, no historian would accept your claim that George Washington crossed the Delaware because you believe he did.

I was responding to this statement:

There is no negative burden of proof. Whomever makes the positive claim has the burden of proof. After all, negative claims cannot be exhaustively proven and thus always remain contingent. However, this doesn't provide any sort of evidence of the corresponding positive claim. I hate to break out these old chestnuts, but "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and "I tell you there is an invisible pink unicorn dancing on your shoulder. You cannot detect it using any scientific means. Should you believe in it?"

Should I reject the belief that Washington crossed the Delaware because the only proof I have is that biased historians tell me so?

What if that being was us? Would that still prove the existence of God? Seems a little Jesuitical to me.

I'm not sure about the Jesuits, but at the basic premise, the concept of "god" in general is that of the highest, most qualified being to lead. If the best and brightest of the human race is the most qualified being in the entire universe, then by definition, that person could be considered God. Would that person be perfect? No. But I've already expanded on this idea, in my above post.

Sure you could, in the definition of "fact" promulgated by Stephen Jay Gould: "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

I was referring to scientific proof of fact. Gould's definition is hardly complete. In this belief of God, I believe there are enough proofs to believe in the God of the Bible to that degree. You do not. Gould's definition gets us nowhere.

These arguments are not at all comparable. Need I detail for you the differing evidence available for the existence of your wife and the existence of God? Your wife's existence can be proven as a matter of principle quite easily, to Gould's level of certainty. God cannot.

Unless you have reason to disbelieve me in the first place. How many people in the world choose not to believe the Holocaust happened, that the wives and the children who died in the Holocaust never existed? If you have chosen to believe that my wife does not exist, I could not scientifically prove it to you that she does, apart from meeting her. I believe I have met God. That's the only "proof" I can offer, which is no proof at all for you.

I have no reason to doubt your experience. Nonetheless, it does not really justify your belief. Many other alternative explanations are available, your experience does not narrow it down to God. Even if your healing did prove the existence of the divine however, it still would not show that this divinity is the God described in the Christian bible - a whole 'nother problem indeed.

That said, I'm really glad you were healed. I don't like to see others in pain.

No you're right. No words on an internet board could ever justify my belief that it was the God of the Christian Bible that answered that prayer. But unless you have a compelling reason to believe it is impossible I was miraculously healed, you have to admit that you stand very little chance of changing my mind. There will always be another argument I can use, because I know far more about what happened that you ever will.

But that was the point of the story. I will believe that is what happened, and I can't imagine how you will change my mind. I also don't expect you to believe my explanation for it, and I accept that. The issue is not the proof of "facts" but in how our worldviews cause us to interpret those facts.

"Worldview" from the American Heritage Dictinary
[SIZE=-1] NOUN: [/SIZE]
In both senses also called Weltanschauung [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1].[/SIZE][/FONT]

1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view


My worldview says that when I see a discrepancy between justice and real life, that I should assume I don't know all of the situation.
Apparently your worldview says that you should interpret it otherwise.

Unless we can agree on how to view the world, we will never be able to prove the "whys" of this world to each other. We can each take the same set of facts, but interpret them based on the filter of our worldview, and come up with different conclusions.

I can't prove to you that your worldview is wrong, because within that view, you are interpreting the fact consistently, and they are leading you to a justifiable end.

However, I can take the same facts, interpret them through my presuppositions and my worldview, and be equally justified in my conclusions.

How do we really know that we each hold the right worldview? How can you determine one over the other?

This is the question of philosophy.

 

[Empty Hands]

I was responding to this statement: Should I reject the belief that Washington crossed the Delaware because the only proof I have is that biased historians tell me so?

Sorry for the mixup. I will put my answer this way: if the only evidence you have is the say-so of historians, then yes you should reject it. However, good historians have all sorts of evidence to back up their assertion that Washington crossed the Delaware, so in fact we have much more than their say so (even if as a matter of practicality we just take the historian's word for it, we could always demand to see the evidence). This reliance on evidence is what I would see as setting the discipline of history apart from the argument for the existence of God.

I'm not sure about the Jesuits, but at the basic premise, the concept of "god" in general is that of the highest, most qualified being to lead. If the best and brightest of the human race is the most qualified being in the entire universe, then by definition, that person could be considered God.

I see where you are coming from, but I just don't think most people would follow you there. It is a nifty way to prove the existence of God. However, in a universe without higher consciousness, a mud puppy or a spider could end up being "God." I just don't think that is what most people have in mind as the creator. Of course, I keep putting it that way ("most people") because in the end it all does come down to definitions. I know of some people who call the entire universe "God". Works for them. It also has the advantage of definitively existing. :ultracool

I was referring to scientific proof of fact. Gould's definition is hardly complete. In this belief of God, I believe there are enough proofs to believe in the God of the Bible to that degree. You do not. Gould's definition gets us nowhere.

Actually, I think Gould's definition is a good scientific one. It allows for (near) certainty, while still acknowledging that what we know might be wrong. There can never be a scientific proof without this knowledge of error. We could all be brains in a vat, a la The Matrix. However, it still allows us to say with some certainty that "thardey's wife" is fact while the jury on God is still out.

Unless you have reason to disbelieve me in the first place. How many people in the world choose not to believe the Holocaust happened, that the wives and the children who died in the Holocaust never existed? If you have chosen to believe that my wife does not exist, I could not scientifically prove it to you that she does, apart from meeting her. I believe I have met God. That's the only "proof" I can offer, which is no proof at all for you.

Actually, the "perverse" part gets at that pretty well. Compelling proof can be offered for your wife's existence and the existence of the Holocaust, such that we rightly consider deniers of the latter as nutballs. The evidence is completely compelling. I just don't think the evidence for God, such as it is, rises to that level. Again, I understand where you are coming from, but I just don't think an objective observer would consider your evidence for God as compelling as your evidence for your wife.

But unless you have a compelling reason to believe it is impossible I was miraculously healed, you have to admit that you stand very little chance of changing my mind.

No, I am not so arrogant as that. I am just having a discussion on an internet board, not trying to change anyone. Mostly, I am just putting my perspective forward. I wouldn't tell you what to believe, or what happened with your own experiences.

My worldview says that when I see a discrepancy between justice and real life, that I should assume I don't know all of the situation.
Apparently your worldview says that you should interpret it otherwise.

Well, we can only judge by what we know, concerning mice, men or Gods. FWIW my worldview is thoroughly naturalistic and mechanistic, with a strong bias towards empiricism. I don't see how any other method can give us reliable information about the universe. I'm aware this is not a universally shared perspective.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[MartialArtHeart]

hmm, if you want to discuss creation, I would suggest a thread geared toward it. I have no problems with this discussion, but a thread made for the purpose of creation-evolution debate might be more appropriate.
Empty Hands, as I have said before, your view was mine, and creationism seemed a myth... a silly dream made by evil men seeking to justify themselves in all that they did... and part of that view still lingers.
But I have found that, in seeking UNBIASED truth... the evidence overwhelmingly suggests intelligent design. I shall say no more on this thread, because giving nuggets of truth is always refutable with the larger amount of information available. Only when given and taken as a whole can something be accepted; I say this because people tend to deny small truths, and even try to shut their eyes to larger ones, no matter their beliefs, people tend to be close-minded when something challenges them.

 

[Empty Hands]

... the evidence overwhelmingly suggests intelligent design.

I'm sorry, this just isn't true. As a biologist, this is my area of expertise. There is no compelling evidence for ID, all of its arguments such as irreducible complexity have alternative explanations and haven't stood up to experiment and peer review. As you say though, that discussion might be best for another thread.

 

[MartialArtHeart]

To go back to the ORIGINAL direction of the thread, I just got through with C.S. Lewis's book The Great Divorce... Absolutely superb book, btw... It explains many things that have to do with what I have questioned. The scary thing about it is how believable the characters themselves are... check it out.

 

[thardey]

I am glad you're finding answers - I'm also glad you're questioning!