Theory number 3.

[Darkstar]

---

I agree. I get the feeling that the only thing that justifies god's actions in the bible is because he says they are good, and he is so powerful no one dares to question him.

One argument I have for benevolent reasons of not sending Messengers/communicating to us, is that we would be dictated everything and wouldn't think for ourselves.

---

Why would he have to dictate us if he proved his existence?

---

He could have given us stronger souls... If you don't believe in a soul, then you will see no need to strengthen it. If the initial conditions plausibly allow many people to have defective souls, then he did something wrong.

First we have to establish somethings. A lot of are defective in some ways, but how we embrace our faults with grace, is a strength itself. Also how we embrace people with faults is a strength.

It's true we could've been created with "powerful" souls that are incline to be good, to see God, and we could all been good at art, science, math... etc... and all super intelligent...all follow the truth...but is there seems to be possible wisdom in creating us with weaknesses that we have to overcome.

I say there is honour and beauty in the struggle. Personally, I suffer from a lot of the negative symptoms common of schizophrenics. It's easy for me to take no responsibility and attribute it to something I have no control over, but I refuse to do that.

Now I'm not doing perfectly well, but a lot better then before. It's also easy for me to say my "lack of insight" was totally the illness fault, but I believe I had partial control, and I was not ready to accept the truth, because it hit my pride. But I still could've, and it was not impossible.

Yes, a lot of my flaws, are influenced primarily through mental illness, but when I start overcoming lack of will, anti-socialness, etc, and medications make the negative symptoms worse in most cases, it has a "value" to it, the "struggle" has more value.

It's true most people are lucky they are without coming over such struggle, but they also miss out on the opportunity of the "struggle".

Also another thing to say, is that different human experiences, are although none perfect, are valuable enriching experiences regardless of the flaws in belief.

And animals too have their own experiences that are valuable as well. They all have value.

It's not necessarily that a person who knows God has a more enriching experience then who doesn't. The person who doesn't has to embrace life without such knowledge, and that has it's own honor and dignity.

---

According the christianity, that 'honor and dignity' includes burning eternally in hell. I understand that one would need to strengthen their soul. My point was that if someone is born not even believing thay have a soul at all, then they will naturally make no effort to strengthen it.

---

But it is still more likely that it is not self-delusion and is actual experience, even though you cannot explain it and psychology has a scientifically valid answer?

Careful friend. Remember when design argument was inferred from biology. Took a while for evolution theory to come along and disprove that argument.

I'm bringing theories against arguments against Theism, like problem of evil or lack of knowledge of some humans from God...but these arguments are arguments from ignorance.

They are strong only in the same sense the design argument was strong, due to lack of explanation of evolution and other scientific theories.

---

Design was assumed, but there are many things, even without evolution, that do not suggest design. Design, just like 'goddidit', has no predictive power. We can call it design, but does that actually mean anything? Confirmation bias, on the other hand, does exist and can be used to predict how people might act. Psychologists did not simply say they are 'irrational' and move on, but give an accurate assesment of the phenomenon.

Confirmation bias

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

(bolding added in above and below quote)

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in military, political, and organizational contexts.

You can test this via the scientific method, 'design' was too vaguely and broadly defined to do that.

Everyone 'believes' in morality who is not insane.

There are nihilist. Heck there is even people who don't believe in free-will, and without free-will, morality definitely is a delusion.

Is it? The evolutionary explanation of morality would be equally valid if there is no free will. Also, if nihilists make any effort to be moral, they must believe in morality on some level, even if they do not acknowledge it (perhaps not even to themselves).