Johnny Skeptic

I had most of this partially revised post as part of another thread, but I think that this topic needs to be addressed by itself instead of being including in discussions on eternal comfort in another thread.

Even if I believed that Jesus rose from the dead, I would not become a Christian unless God first answered a lot of questions to my satisfaction. For instance, I would like for him to explain some of his questionable actions and allowances in the Old Testament, some of his questionable allowances in the world today, such as allowing tsunamis, hunger and plagues, why he gives humans such a brief amount of time to accept him, why he doesn’t provide more proof of his existence, and why Jesus hasn’t returned to earth.

Logically, there is no automatic correlation that can be made between the ability to rise from the dead, the ability to predict the future, and goodness.

If an evil God created the universe, it would be impossible for anyone to know what his motives are. He could easily make prophecies that come true, heal the sick, cause anyone to rise from the dead and be responsible for pleasing spiritual experiences. Even the delivery of a comfortable heaven would not be proof of God’s love since he could easily soon take it away and send everyone to hell.

Where is God today? The Bible claims that there is tangible evidence of God’s power thousands of years ago, but what tangible evidence is there of his power and involvement in the lives of humans today? An unusual healing can happen to anyone, not just to Christians. In the world today, there is every indication that tangible good things and bad things are not distributed equitably, and that they are distributed according to the laws of physics, not by divine intervention, calling into question claims that miracles occurred thousands of years ago.

Matthew 14:14 says “And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.�? We need compassion in tangible ways today just as much as people did back then. It seems to me that there are only two possibilities here, either that God is no longer compassionate in tangible ways, or that he never was compassionate in tangible ways.

When confronted with difficulties like the ones that I mentioned, Christians frequently refer to Isaiah 55:8. The versse says “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.�? The problem for Christians here is that in order for the verse to make any sense, Isaiah would had to have known what God thoughts and ways are in order to know that they are different from our own, which of course he didn’t. If I had been alive back then, I would have asked Isaiah “How do you know that?�? His response might have been “God told me so.�?

We have only the Bible writers' word for it that God is good and perfect. That simply will not do.

seebs

It seems to me that, for any standard of proof you care to invent, I can invent a hypothetical malevolent God who could meet that standard of proof but not actually be good.

The question, then, becomes whether we can reasonably expect to understand things to our own satisfaction. This is obviously a question which depends on our personal standards of knowledge.

For me, the answer is clear: Not much can be explained to my satisfaction. I am willing to believe that magnets work, but it is apparently beyond the scope of modern physics to explain how to my satisfaction, because no one can tell me what a field really is. It doesn't seem to be particles. What is it? How do they work?

I don't think I accept this, because it frankly makes no sense at all. Why would I have to know what someone is thinking to know that it's not what I'm thinking? The world is full of people whose thoughts are a mystery to me, but are definitely unlike my own.

Consider, if you will, a guy in an SUV who tailgates constantly, drives 20mph over the speed limit in heavy traffic, dodges and weaves around other cars, and honks at people who don't move out of his way. This guy exists.

Do I need to be able to explain what he's thinking to tell you that he does not view this circumstance the same way I do? No, I do not.

When I was a small child, I watched a movie called Gandhi. In this movie, a man behaved in ways that I could make no sense of at all. He did not act as people normally do. I did not understand his behavior. (The movie may have been wasted on a child perhaps 8 years old.) But I could tell that his thoughts were not my own.

Today, I think, I have some small understanding of Gandhi's thoughts. I have found others who thought similarly. I have come to share some of these views.

But I knew, long before I understood them, that their thoughts were not mine, and their ways of living were not mine.

It strikes me as wholly unexceptional for anyone to conclude, based on even the most casual observation, that if there is a God, this God does not behave exactly like we do.

Johnny Skeptic

Your arguments are not valid. In ancient times, some people believed that God is evil. Today, many if not most skeptics believe that if the God of the Bible exists, he is evil. That includes me. The Bible says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Following your own same line of reasoning, "if there is a God, he behaves exactly like we do." It is a fact that the Bible teaches that people can become saved precisely because Jesus DID NOT act like we do. Isaiah 55:8 says “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.�? The verse clearly says that God DOES NOT behave exactly like we do.

If God exists, no one knows whether he is good or evil. The Bible says that God is good and that the Devil is evil, but there is no evidence that exactly the opposite is not the case. In other words, God might be an evil deceiver, and the Devil might be our friend. Since many humans are deceivers, why can't God be a deceiver?

seebs

I think I'd need a more specific criticism than "your arguments are not valid" to understand your rebuttal.

I agree that we do not necessarily know whether God is good or evil. So? The standards you propose, of asking for explanations to your satisfaction, don't actually establish that God is good, only that God is either good or better at deception than you are at figuring things out. Nor does failure to meet them establish that God is not-good; it is easily conceivable that God could have traits we do not adequately understand.

So, while the line of inquiry is interesting, it really doesn't allow us to know for sure that God is good, or that God is not-good. While it is obviously desirable to try to test the assertion that God is good, I can't imagine any test I could apply to an entity substantially smarter and wiser than myself which would let me verify its goodness or non-goodness.

Johnny Skeptic

Regarding "I can't imagine any test I could apply to an entity substantially smarter and wiser than myself which would let me verify its goodness or non-goodness," that is exactly what I have been trying to tell you and Christians.
However, there are some tests that would help us. First of all, it would help if God were to clearly show himself to everyone and answer a lot of questions. If his thoughts and ways are so different from own that we can't understand them, he needs to tell us that himself. Second of all, if he delivers to believers the comfortable heaven that the Bible promises, while he could take it away anytime that he wanted to take it away, that would still be a lot more evidence of his existence that we have now.

seebs

It's not news to most of us.

Fair enough. So far as I can tell, though, if I live as Jesus said to, I find myself in a life good enough that I would not complain if this is all there is, so I guess I'm covered. This is the kingdom that was promised; I'm quite happy with it. If there's more, cool. I'll get there when I get there.

Johnny Skeptic

Why not as good as Buddha said to be? Your viewer profile does not tell what your world view is. What is it? Many atheists and agnostics are wonderful, loving, moral people, and they don't need the promise of a heavenly reward in order to be good. At any rate, your views are definitely not the views of the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians, and they are the group of people who I oppose.

seebs

I'm a fairly generic Christian.

Me, I just like to debate and discuss and possibly learn something. As it happens, I don't think this argument is especially informative; it doesn't really address the traditional arguments for belief in a benevolent God; it just argues that you'd like to see another standard met. However, you haven't yet shown why your standard is better, and indeed, even the standard you advocate is still vulnerable to spoofing, in theory.

In an open discussion, no matter to whom your arguments are primarily directed, it's open season on any argument from any poster, even posters who agree with your conclusion but don't find the argument persuasive.

seebs

I didn't say "as good as". I merely observe that this set of instructions seems to produce good results.

In fact, I believe I could argue fairly persuasively that most varieties of Buddhism produce comparable results, because they are in fact comparable methods.

Nor do I.

If we needed the promise of a reward to be good, what we would be is not "good" but "self-serving yet not entirely stupid about it".

In the end, any talk of reward or punishment is entirely unrelated to the question of what actions are moral. Reward and punishment are how you talk to children. Some churches have found that encouraging the believers past spirtual milk onto spiritual meat reduces their tendency to take instruction easily or donate large sums of money; this could quite reasonably be called a "perverse incentive" in any sense you care to use the words.

Johnny Skeptic

My purpose in starting this thread was to oppose Christians, not you.