IF GOD EXISTS, THEN HE CERTAINLY DOES NOT CARE FOR YOU AT ALL

[clemdog14]

There is no such thing as 'free will' when the options are

1. Do exactly as you are told
2. Suffer forever in fire and misery

It is not 'free will' if any use of it condemns you to eternal suffering.

I don't agree. I think there is a third option. Let's say that you believe that there is a God and that He commands you to have a certain obligation. You have the option of choosing to obey His word, however, you also have the option of choosing not to obey his word. This would be the third option.

God is respecting your view and allows you to do so. Therefore, you do not necessarily have a gun to your head.

It is kind of like Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov in that Ivan decided that he could not love God considering all of the terrible atrocities that the world commits. Even though Ivan realizes that he could choose to follow God, he decides to not do so out of his own spite. Therefore, he has a third option.

What would motivate you to believe something for which you have no evidence?

I'll make a wager that you don't do this with any other aspect of your life. You probably don't cross a street based on faith, you rely on evidence.

I think that faith is important in other aspects of life. If I get on a plane, I have faith that the pilot will fly me safety to my destination.

Granted, I will use reason throughout my life because God has given me a brain and rationality so that I can cross a street based on evidence. It's just interesting that I have faith in certain situations but not all.

you believe that you "rationally" believe in a god. This is not rational. It's not even reasoned.

If there was honesty in this quote, then I would say you're on your way to clear thought on the subject. You have to drop the views and unproven claims first, though.

You are right. It is not rational for me to believe in God. I have to abandon reason in order to have faith in God. As Kierkegaard would say, faith is an absurdity, yet I still cling to it.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

If God exists, he's certainly angry at your all-caps thread title!

[Simon Moon]

I think that faith is important in other aspects of life. If I get on a plane, I have faith that the pilot will fly me safety to my destination.

That's not faith. That's evidence based, reasonable expectations.

Granted, I will use reason throughout my life because God has given me a brain and rationality so that I can cross a street based on evidence. It's just interesting that I have faith in certain situations but not all.

It is interesting. It is known as 'compartmentalization'. You purposely partition a certain area of your mind in which you keep your unsupported beliefs. For some reason you refuse to examine those beliefs using the same level of evidence and logic you use for other aspects of your life.

Why, do you suppose, you do not examine those beliefs as stringently as so many other aspects of your life?

You are right. It is not rational for me to believe in God. I have to abandon reason in order to have faith in God. As Kierkegaard would say, faith is an absurdity, yet I still cling to it.

Yes. Because you don't care if your beliefs are true, or at least likely to be true. The evidence and reason you use to determine if something is true or not in all those other aspects of your life, you do not use for your religious beliefs.

[clemdog14]

Because you don't care if your beliefs are true, or at least likely to be true.

But I do care. If they are not true, why would I choose to believe in them? Why would I waste my time with something that isn't true?

That's not faith. That's evidence based, reasonable expectations.

Granted, I have reasonable expectations that the pilot will fly me safety, however, because I do not know the pilot personally, his experience, his past, and other concepts, I still put some aspects of faith into his flying skills. I have uncertainties about the pilot, however, I still put faith into him.

For some reason you refuse to examine those beliefs using the same level of evidence and logic you use for other aspects of your life.

What's funny is that sometimes I question my beliefs. I try to use the same level of evidence and logic in these religious beliefs. It's not like I lock away all of my "uncertainties" into a particular box and refuse to analyze them. I work with my faith, test it, and challenge it.

I sincerely believe that faith and doubt run hand in hand. Yet, even with my best tests, my best challenges, my best reason, I still come back to it.

Seems paradoxical doesn't it? Almost irrational? And yet, I still believe it.

[Ryantology]

I don't agree. I think there is a third option. Let's say that you believe that there is a God and that He commands you to have a certain obligation. You have the option of choosing to obey His word, however, you also have the option of choosing not to obey his word. This would be the third option.

God is respecting your view and allows you to do so. Therefore, you do not necessarily have a gun to your head.

It is kind of like Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov in that Ivan decided that he could not love God considering all of the terrible atrocities that the world commits. Even though Ivan realizes that he could choose to follow God, he decides to not do so out of his own spite. Therefore, he has a third option.

If your dogma is correct in its assumptions, then God certainly does not respect your ability to disobey. The first four Commandments make that clear. There are only two options because there are only two outcomes: obedience and paradise, or disobedience and hell. There is a gun and it is pointed right at your face.

[clemdog14]

If your dogma is correct in its assumptions, then God certainly does not respect your ability to disobey. The first four Commandments make that clear. There are only two options because there are only two outcomes: obedience and paradise, or disobedience and hell. There is a gun and it is pointed right at your face.

But that dichotomy is so uninteresting! It makes God look malevolent in that if we do not choose to follow "his game" then we are simply out of luck!

Why wouldn't God respect your choice? If you choose to not follow God, he will validate your decision by granting what you want--separation from him. He could not go against your will by automatically making you spend the rest of eternity with a relationship with him. Instead, he grants your wish in that you choose to not have a relationship. If he did otherwise, that would go against your will and this would be malevolent.

On another note, what do the first four commandments have to do with this argument? God was talking to the Israelites in that he had taken them out of Egypt and that they wished to enter into a covenant with him. God asked them if they wished to enter into the covenant in which they accepted. After they accepted, he proceeded on his end by providing his commandments (a portion of the covenant). God did not go against their will by forcing them to enter into a covenant, rather it was a conditional situation. In the same way, God gives us a conditional in that we can actively accept, refuse, or be indifferent to. He does not point a gun to our head.

[Ryantology]

But that dichotomy is so uninteresting! It makes God look malevolent in that if we do not choose to follow "his game" then we are simply out of luck!

God is malevolent.

Why wouldn't God respect your choice? If you choose to not follow God, he will validate your decision by granting what you want--separation from him. He could not go against your will by automatically making you spend the rest of eternity with a relationship with him. Instead, he grants your wish in that you choose to not have a relationship. If he did otherwise, that would go against your will and this would be malevolent.

That is a very interesting spin.

We'll just forget all the instances depicted in the Bible which feature God commanding his zombies to slaughter neighboring tribes to the last man, woman and child because they refused to recognize the true head psychopath in charge. Or that time he drowned everybody for the same reason.

On another note, what do the first four commandments have to do with this argument? God was talking to the Israelites in that he had taken them out of Egypt and that they wished to enter into a covenant with him. God asked them if they wished to enter into the covenant in which they accepted. After they accepted, he proceeded on his end by providing his commandments (a portion of the covenant). God did not go against their will by forcing them to enter into a covenant, rather it was a conditional situation. In the same way, God gives us a conditional in that we can actively accept, refuse, or be indifferent to. He does not point a gun to our head.

I'm sorry, but "accept me without question or suffer for eternity" is not a conditional situation by any sane measure. That is not 'free will'. That's coercion, if not outright terrorism.

The first four commandments are relevant because they demonstrate that Yahweh's followers are commanded to live in slavery to him and that he is definitely not tolerant of dissension.

[Faith No More]

Why wouldn't God respect your choice? If you choose to not follow God, he will validate your decision by granting what you want--separation from him. He could not go against your will by automatically making you spend the rest of eternity with a relationship with him. Instead, he grants your wish in that you choose to not have a relationship. If he did otherwise, that would go against your will and this would be malevolent.

You forgot the last step. The one where your god throws us into the most malevolent place ever created.

[Simon Moon]

But I do care. If they are not true, why would I choose to believe in them? Why would I waste my time with something that isn't true?

If you cared, you'd rely on a lot more than faith. You'd want demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid logic to support your beliefs.

I'll bet there are many supernatural claims, such as; UFO abductions, bigfoot, crystal healing, astral traveling, Jinn, garden fairies, etc, that you disbelieve for the exact reason of insufficient evidence, reasoned argument and valid logic. Yet you have this one belief that you continue to hold in spite of the same insufficiencies.

I don't know what your motivations are to continue your unsupported beliefs. Maybe you get a 'warm fuzzy' feeling when you believe there's a galactic father figure, maybe you fear death and want to believe you will exist forever. But you are definitely very emotionally invested in your beliefs.

Granted, I have reasonable expectations that the pilot will fly me safety, however, because I do not know the pilot personally, his experience, his past, and other concepts, I still put some aspects of faith into his flying skills. I have uncertainties about the pilot, however, I still put faith into him.

We must be using different definitions of the word 'faith'. Maybe we should decide on the definition before we go on.

In a religious context, I use the definition - belief that is not based on proof or evidence.

In the case of the pilot, there is plenty of evidence for his/her piloting skills. If you want me to list them, I will. There is no faith required to believe I will arrive at my destination.

What's funny is that sometimes I question my beliefs. I try to use the same level of evidence and logic in these religious beliefs. It's not like I lock away all of my "uncertainties" into a particular box and refuse to analyze them. I work with my faith, test it, and challenge it.

But you're not testing your beliefs against reality. You're testing them against your existing faith.

I sincerely believe that faith and doubt run hand in hand. Yet, even with my best tests, my best challenges, my best reason, I still come back to it.

Yes, because you want to continue to believe in spite of insufficient demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid logic.

If your 'best tests' aren't asking for demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument, then you are not critically analyzing your beliefs.

Seems paradoxical doesn't it? Almost irrational? And yet, I still believe it.

Not 'almost' irrational, It is the definition of irrational.

[clemdog14]

Seems like you are presupposing a lot of "givens" based on my responses.

Not 'almost' irrational, It is the definition of irrational.

It is.

I admire reason, I respect it, but sometimes it falters on many levels.