Johnny Skeptic

My current position, which is addressed towards Christians who believe that God will provide them with a comfortable eternal life, is that there are at least three possibilities, that 1) God will provide believers with a comfortable eternal life, 2) an evil God is masquerading as a good God and will send everyone to hell, and 3) God is amoral and it is unknown what he will do to believers and everyone else after they die.

How do Christians suggest that we determine which possibility is most probable?

hatsoff

Well, I can't speak for all Christians--or any, for that matter--but let me hazard a guess as to what the most learned would say:

If you want to know Christ, get into the Word. Read the Bible and go to Church. Talk about it with others. Think about its message. Etc.

Johnny Skeptic

Your approach would be valid only if possibility 1 is true, and I am not aware of any ways to reliably determine that possibility 1 is the most likely possibility. How about you? Regarding possibility 2, an evil God would be just as powerful as a good God, so he could easily duplicate anything that is attributed to the supposedly good God of the Bible. Regarding possibility 3, an amoral God might very well act exactly like the God of the Bible. For instance, Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" If a man made a person blind or deaf, he would be sent to prison, and with your approval I might add. Revelation 9:1-6 say "And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man. And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them." 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." Matthew 18:33 says "Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?" The aforementioned scriptures could easily apply to an amoral God.

hatsoff

That's right. Christians believe possibility 1 is true, and they work from there.

Johnny Skeptic

The question is, how reliable are non-tangible spiritual/emotional/intuitive experiences? According to the writer of the book of John and the writer of the book of Acts, sometimes not reliable enough. Consider the following scriptures:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. (KJV)

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. (KJV)

John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased. (KJV)

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. (KJV)

Acts 14:3 So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders. (NIV)

Using the aforementioned sciptures as a basis, it is reasonable to conclude that 1) at least sometimes, spiritual/emotional/intuitive experiences cannot adequately confirm tangible experiences, in other words, first hand tangible experiences are at least sometimes necessary in order to adequately confirm spiritual/emotional/intuitive experiences, and that 2) today, we deserve the same tangible evidence that people supposedly had back then so that we can have first hand tangible confirmation of "the message of his grace."

Ok, I will now try another approach. As you said, "That's right. Christians believe possibility 1 is true, and they work from there." Your problem is that if God is evil, which is just as plausible as that he is good, and if he is masquerading as a good God, he would have the ability to easily duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible, and being omnipotent and omniscient, he would easily have the ability to deceive Christians and the followers of all other religions as well.

It is no accident that the followers of all religions out of self-interest err on the side of God being good. If not for the hope for a comfortable eternal life, why else would anyone ever dream up a religion?

hatsoff

My question is, and remains to be answered: How does any of that invalidate Bible apologetics?

Johnny Skeptic

Ok, here is my revised topic: What evidence validates Bible apologetics? As I said, "Your problem is that if God is evil, which is just as plausible as that he is good, and if he is masquerading as a good God, he would have the ability to easily duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible, and being omnipotent and omniscient, he would easily have the ability to deceive Christians and the followers of all other religions as well." Apologists put great emphasis upon tangible events. They argue that the Resurrection, miracle healings, and fulfilled prophecies, are historical events, but even if the events happened, that doesn't tell us whether or not God will provide believers with a comfortable eternal life. Hence, I do not see any good reasons at all why anyone should accept Bible apologetics as being valid, or in other words, why anyone should become a Christian. Christians who comprise the "faith only" crowd have chosen to validate the Resurrection by means of spiritual/emotional/intuitive experiences. No one can invalidate a "faith only" argument, but by the same token, no one can validate a "faith only" argument. I would be quite content if every Christian used a "faith only" argument because that kind of argument is becoming increasingly unpopular among the undecided crowd in countries with better educational standards and a higher standard of living, especially in Europe. What I mostly care about is votes, particularly regarding physician assisted suicide, homosexuality, and same sex marriage. I do not object to your right to believe as you wish as long as you do not try to legistlate your religious beliefs. The only reason that I attack fundamentalist Christian theology is because in the U.S., meddling fundamentalist Christians are the chief opponents of physician assisted suicide, homosexuality, and same sex marriage.