Dr Rick

That's a really honest and straight-forward question; so here's a really honest and straight-forward answer:

It's ridiculous to assert something and then defend it with "these things might have happened." An infinite number or things "might have happened;" mere possiblities are a pathetic justication for asserting the truth. It's "possible" that this morning I sprouted wings and flew to Mars, but would you believe me if I told you I did and cited as evidence that "these things might have happened?"

It's "possible" that a pink invisible unicorn might have made the universe, but just the mere assertion is no reason to believe, act upon, or even contemplate it. Just because something is possible doesn't mean that we should accept it without critical analysis. It's possible that there is a Santa Claus, an Easter Bunny, a Christian god, and/or a Tooth Fairy; your evidence for a Christian god is no better than the evidence for any of the other make-believe entities that exist only in myth and folklore.

What is wrong with your assertion is that it is just one of tens of thousands of unsubstantiated assertions; you've provided no reason to accept yours over anyone else's. Provide some evidence that makes your god-belief any more believable than a belief in Zeus, the Easter Bunny, the Invisble Pink Unicorn, or Kari.

Rick

Philosoft

I am usually underhwelmed by "why not?" questions and this one is no exception. I've gone to great lengths now to explain to you "why not."

Except for God. God is apparently not part of the "whole idea."

We all presume a "first cause." I utterly fail to see why yours is any more intellectually satisfying.

Hello? Operator? Occam's Razor? Am I getting through here?
It's not proper for me to say the universe (for which we have objective evidence of existence) is the "ultimate source," but it's perfectly OK for you to presuppose a non-physical "ultimate source" that has the very same epistemological problems the universe has?? I am simply bewildered that you think there is anything to be gained from this kind of sophistry.

Keith

Hi Sue, sorry I'm so slow getting back to you. I'll TRY to answer your excellent questions...in order:

1. Because human nature became evil after the fall. We put our own selfish interests ahead of God and ahead of everything. Wars are a pretty clear indication that we will not love each other, love God, and live in peace.

2. My understanding (which is NOT infallible) is that after the fall, human bodies became vulnerable to various things like diseases which might not have been any kind of threat before. God warned that if they eat the fruit they will surely die. I think that they exist largely as a curse on us for our sin. IOW, sin, which Adam and Eve were warned about, is not without consequences.

3. I suppose that it has to do with the fact that physical death is not terrible for those who believe.

4. I think it was to show future generations the power of Faith, which is a gift of God.

5. This is the kind of problem that spreads like cancer in a human institution that claims infallible authority equal to God's. The RCC is an apostate church that lost its way more than a thousand years ago. I honestly believe it can't reform itself, and that it is doing a lot more harm than good in the world.

6. I didn't understand this question. I haven't done any re-interpretation due to advances in science, but maybe some people have. If so, I don't understand why people would feel that re-interpretation is necessary because of science.

7. I'm not sure. Jesus might have been using the phrase "inherit the earth" in a figurative way, or if he meant it literally then it will happen some day.

8. I'd say that by God's estimate, the bible came at exactly the right time for his purposes. I can't provide a better answer because the bible doesn't tell us.

9. This was the way God did things in the garden before
the fall. But the fall changed everything. Mankind became exceedingly evil. We all inherited a sinful nature that seeks autonomy rather than God.

10. Sorry, Sue! I'll try to re-reform myself of that habit! I use that style because in arguing with atheists, I have noticed that they tend to put the theist on the defensive while they don't really have to defend anything. If possible, I want them to see things that they might be avoiding. But I sure don't have all the answers and I'm still learning.

Keith

Eikonoklast

Yes, because it deprives an unwilling individual of their life, the necessary requisite for values and morals.

I've got a question for you:

How is god's morality NOT subjective?

Keith

Is there any moral sense in which YOU personally view murder as wrong? If so, why? If not, why not?

Keith

Keith Russell

Keith, I think that--before we even can ask the question "Is murder always wrong", we need to agree about what murder is.

How do you define 'murder'?

Keith Russell.

Keith

Why is it morally wrong to deprive unwilling individuals of life? Are all people bound by this moral standard? If so, how do you know?

I don't understand your question. Can you be more specific?

Keith

Keith

The intentional taking of a human life by an individual for purely selfish purposes that have nothing to do with defending one's self, one's possessions or other people.

I'll begin with this...but I might need to modify it. Let's try this for now shall we?

Keith

Eikonoklast

Life is the ultimate value, from which other values are derived. If you deprive the individual of their life, the ultimate value, you are depriving them of ALL values.

Are people bound by this standard? Yes. Value cannot be present in non-existence.

To rephrase my question -- Can it be said that the morality of god is not subjective, from god's point of view, and ultimately arbitrary?

Keith

If I understand you, you're saying Atheism is "good" and theism is "bad".

Why? Because atheists, unlike theists, won't prevent their children from getting medical care, oppose the teaching of science in classrooms, fight scientific advancement, and atheists will discover antibiotics and computers.

Assuming the truth of all this, you make the value judgement that atheism is (morally?) superior to theism? By what standard do you make this value judgement? How can your subjective values on these things be applicable to anyone else?

Keith