Johnny Skeptic

I restate my topic and opening post as follows:

Topic: Apologists should be neutral.

Opening statement: Assuming that intelligent design is a given, actually there are three possibilities instead of two, that God is good, evil, or amoral. The problem is finding out which of the three is most likely the one true God. Do you have any suggestions how we might accomplish this? An evil God could easily masquerade as a good God. One chance out of three that God is good is not very good odds.

RPS

No, there are an infinite number of possibilities.

The problem of the nature and character of God is a vexing one indeed.

In the same ways we examine other difficult questions.

Since when does three choices mean that the odds are one in three?

hatsoff

Neutral as in agnostic?

Johnny Skeptic

That would be fine, but not necessary. If a God exists, he must be either good, evil, or amoral, right? If so, then the odds are only one out of three that God, in this case meaning the Christian God, is good and will send believers to heaven and not to hell. An evil God could easily masquerade as a good God. One out of three chances that God is good is not very convincing. As an agnostic, although I believe that the odds are less than 1 out of three that the Christian God exists, and much less than 1 out of 3 that he is good if he exists, I will concede for the sake of argument that the odds are 1 out of 3 three that the Christian God exists. That is not very good odds. Some people who are considering which world view to choose are much more undecided than I am, so you need to consider those people too when you post your reply.

hatsoff

Wrong. If God exists, we shouldn't expect to understand him or his behavior. Heck, we might not even be *capable* of such an understanding.

Johnny Skeptic

If that is true, then that makes finding out what the one true God is really like much more difficult, right?

How is that? An evil God would be just as powerful as a good God, so he could easily duplicate anything that the Bible attributes to the God of the Bible.

hatsoff

Maybe, maybe not.

Anything is possible.

Johnny Skeptic

Please specify what you mean.

Any Muslim or Deist could make the same claim. What we need are probabilities, not possibilities. Assuming that intelligent design is a given, the probability that I am most interested in is the Christian claim that the most likely probability is that God will send them to heaven. Such a claim can be based upon faith, but not upon reasonably verifiable facts. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I will be happy to consider it. If God is evil, he could easily duplicate anything that the Bible attributes to the God of the Bible.

hatsoff

Since we don't know whether God exists, or how to identify him, it's impossible to say which scenarios would be most conducive to the search.

You're right. That's not what I was disputing. It is your claim that "Bible apologetics" are somehow pointless or inherently flawed to which I take issue.

Doug Shaver

If you mean "prove" in a mathematical sense, I agree.

But are you arguing that in the absence of conclusive proof, it is equally reasonable to believe or disbelieve any proposition? Is it your position that it is equally reasonable to either believe or disbelieve the core claims of orthodox Christianity? Do you think that there is no preponderance of evidence one way or the other?