ChrisJGQ

"What if Smith is wrong about his definition of "benevolent"? "


If this God would damn me to an eternity in hellfire because I lacked belief in him, while leading a good life, then I'd have to say the only way to apply the world "benevolent" to him would be to completely pervert it's meaning. Especially since He built me this way, gave me the tools of logic and reason, and provided no evidence of his own existence.

Abacus

I would say nature is our maker, and that we are a part of the maker (nature). They are one and the same.

You and I are dependent on nature for everything. The food we eat is grown via natural processes. The way our bodies utilize the air we breathe is understandable as a natural process. The way the sun warms the earth by radiating energy produced by a continous thermonuclear reaction is understandable in light of natural laws. Do you deny this? Where is the need for a supernatural explanation in any of this?

Could all of this been started by an intelligent designer who has since stepped back from the scene. I suppose this is possible, but unlikely. If there is a god or gods, I see no evidence that they are taking an active role in our universe. I think it is way too much of a stretch to conclude that a particular deity found in one of the many human-created "holy scriptures" is the creator and that we must be grateful to it.

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: Abacus ]</p>

Vanderzyden

MadMordigan,

Thanks for responding! I'm taking your quotes out of order...

I need clarification: How does the immensity of the universe, the unpredictability of nature, or direct interaction with God nullify his existence or somehow make him less than perfect?

Yes, and perhaps you'll agree that it is also possible for someone to desire to affirm their presuppositions, preferring comfort to truth. And in light of that possibility, it is also possible that people are "dishonestly mistaken". Do you agree?

Furthermore, it's also possible for people to become outright dishonest, that is, deceitful. some people viciously deceive themselves. And these are reasons behind your other complaint:

Your last question is the most interesting:

Do you have a "simple test for benevolence"? How do you justify its validity?

Well, I for one, do not condemn you. I have no right. But I will tell you that I don't believe what I do because it feels good. Yes, I could be mistaken. I will always know that. But mine is not a tentative belief. It is not a superficial one. I believe because I have searched, and counter-searched. Having been close to the bottom, I believe what I do because I find that it is the truth.


I have one last question, prompted by this:

Are you able to defend why existence itself is not a clue to the existence of God?

Vanderzyden

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

wade-w

Vanderzyden:

This sounds like the Argument From Design, which is a well known argument that was soundly refuted many many years ago. I gave you a link to relavent material, above, since I did not want to bore everyone else with arguments that I am sure they have seen many times before. <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/design.html" target="_blank">You can find many articles on the subject here.</a>

Kassiana

VZ:
God would not have to use one sentence of Scripture to show us our guilt and the appropriateness of our condemnation.

Kass:
Oh, do tell....

VZ:
1. Was it not plain in Nature that everything you had was a gift, and that you were dependent on your Maker for life and breath and everything?

Kass:
Which one? To me, it's plain that the Gods and Goddesses are present in nature, so no, it is not plain that the Christian God is the one who created everything. Try again, "God."

VZ:
2. Did not the judicial sentiment in your own heart always hold people guilty when they lacked the gratitude they should have had in response to a kindness you performed?

Kass:
When they both (a) knew I was the one doing it and (b) they wanted me to, yes. Given that many do NOT know that your God is doing anything good for them, or they don't want your God to do "good" things for them, given his miserable track record in the OT, e.g....it is reasonable to deny that the Christian God is responsible for the "kindnesses" of this world.

VZ:
3. Has your life been filled with gratitude and trust toward me in proportion to my generosity and authority?

Kass:
You bet. Given that your God has no authority over me and has not been generous to me, I am grateful to him in proper proportions: I am not.

Try again. This was rather easy to show as false.

Vibr8gKiwi

The implication here is insulting. Do you think you are "dishonestly mistaken" or "preferring comfort to truth" in your disbelief of all the other gods and religions out there besides yours?

Again, which god? The one that tortures you for believing 'a' or for not believing 'b' or for not wearing 'x' or for doing 'y' or not doing 'z' or yadda, yadda, yadda.

You're not afraid of all the other gods and their hells, so why would you imply that we're worried about yours? When you starting worrying that existence itself implies Allah, or Zeus, or Osirus, and you're worried you might be "dishonestly mistaken" about not believing in them, then and only then should you make such comments as you have. Until then you just appear a hypocrite to us.

(btw, this is your second instance of hypocrisy in just a few posts--the first being pointed out by the edit in my previous post to you a few posts back).

joedad

I consider such a "defense" easy, depending of course on what you mean by "existence itself."

If your meaning is "why is there something instead of nothing?" then you are asserting that the physical Universe requires some kind of cosmic magician to pull it out of an empty hat. I think that would technically qualify you as a nihilist. As I don't think you are pantheistic, I'd be curious as to why you embrace nihilism.

If this is not the case and you are not an ex nihilist, then you implicitly agree that the physical Universe is at least as ancient as your creator. So then why would you need a creator?

If you mean "existence" as somehow separate from that which exists, then you're simply trying to separate ten pounds from the ten pound watermelon, or a mind from a brain, and using this "observation" to assert that a god exists, the god of course representing "existence itself." Again, I find this strange and untenable, but if you are one of Van Til's presuppers, I at least understand your motivations.

Which is it? Or is your meaning something else?

Remember the old brain teaser where three men pay a total of 30 dollars for a room, each paying 10 bucks?

But then the motel manager, realizing he overcharged the three men, that the price of the room is really only 25 dollars, sends 5 dollars back to the men via the Bellhop?

And on the way to return the 5 dollars the Bellhop decides to pocket 2 dollars and gives each man a dollar back?

Well, each man has now paid 9 dollars for the room, right? And the Bellhop has the 2 dollars he pocketed, bringing the total to 29 dollars. Right?

So, where's that last dollar from the original total of 30 dollars?

I hope I haven't insulted you because that is not my intent, and I did try to convey that with the smiley icons. But that "missing dollar" represents the god that you're looking for, imho, the god that is just not there in the first place.

joe

RogerLeeCooke

Reply (not answer) to Question # 1: Since when does human interest or lack thereof affect the truth of a proposition?

Answer to Question 2: No, ignorance or indifference cannot be erroneous. Only a specific assertion can be erroneous.

abe smith

Regarding "what most of humankind believe" about the existence of "gahd": I give you Henry &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;"One man in the right is a majority of one", Babe. Bugger the majority whose opinion has no substantiation.

Jamie_L

Well, it's not my wager, so I can hardly take much credit. However, I did come to those conclusions intuitively before discovering the wager. I latched onto it because it seemed to spell out what I had been mulling over in the back of my head for some time.

Vanderzyden:

As I mentioned above, I didn't discover Smith's Wager and then build my life around it. I carry it with me because it is an eloquent way of expressing things that I have thought for some time. (Actually, the longer version is eloquent. What I actually posted is a paraphrasing).

My jumbled versin is this:
If God is omniscient and omnipotent, and God wants me to believe in him, he can cause me to do so at any time. Even if he wants me to do so of my own free will, he knows exactly what I need to be presented with to make me a believer. Since I do not believe, I can only assume: a) God doesn't want me to believe. b) God doesn't care if I believe. c) God is not actually omniscient and omnipotent. or d) There is no God.

Now, clearly I am not the same as believers. If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and made everything, then I am this way because he made me so. If God is benevolent, I find it odd that he would punish me for being as he made me.

If God is benevolent, I should have little to fear. If God is not benevolent, it would seem I've little hope. After all, he made me an unbeliever in a game where unbelievers are to be punished. What hope would I have then?

Jamie