Evidence for Christianity

[dqualk]

Then I can't have made my point well enough. If a god is the source of morality why is it not possible to prove these things?

This is a good and difficult question. I would say it is because God thought faith was necessary to the best possible of all worlds; maybe it is a necessary property of a temporal thing. Maybe it is becasue we are not and can never be omniscient, so faith must be a principle part of our being.

But I can understand why that would make it more difficult ot believe in God.

---

The Golden Rule generally works well, but it does have some problems. What if someone is a masochist who enjoys having pain inflicted on him? According to the Golden Rule, he should inflict pain on others. What if someone wishes they were dead and wants someone to kill them? According to the Golden Rule, this person should run around killing people.

I like the rule proposed by Dan Barker. He says we should always do our best to "minimize harm". I think this covers pretty much any moral dilemma.

I think the golden rule covers all moral dilemna because doing unto others as you would have them do unto you does not mean killing if one is suicidal, although one could take the rule out of context and make it mean that, it means in the same way that you want people to respect your desires and wishes, you should respect theirs.

And I could take Dan Barker's rule out of context and say what if someone likes harm, you are denying them what is pleasing to them, which is causing them more harm. Either way I think the golden rule and Dan Barker's rule are for the most part saying the same thing, or trying to hit the same principle at least.