Argument from Conscience

[Longhorn]

Except complexity emerges over time, like from single cell organism to humans. To put an infinitely complex being before the most simple one is entirely illogical. And that doesn't even begin to address the issue that if god is infinitely complex, he can't be understood by simpler organisms, like us, and so the assertions made about him, especially such simple and entirely human attributes ascribed to him like loving, just or caring, are unfounded and contradictory with this apparent uttermost complexity.

[Redbeard The Pink]

If you don't mind I'd like to address just a few things you mention here.  You say that God made this horrible place and that he does not care about human suffering.  Would you prefer he made a world where evil was not possible and that all there is was love?  Do you find it logical for me to say that evil is really just a violation or purpose?  If God created a place where there was no evil (no violation of purpose) would that not be mindless automatons just doing what they are told (or programmed) to do?  Why do people have children in this world that have the free will to defy their rules?

God is NOT distant from human suffering.  People often ask me why Jesus came when he did and not earlier in history.  I thought about that as well.  Think of the manner of his death.  “Crucifixion was invented by the barbarians at the edge of the known world and taken over by the Greeks and Romans.  It is probably the cruelest method of execution ever practiced.  Delayed death is intensified until maximum torture had been inflicted.  Roman citizens were exempted except in extreme cases of treason.  Cicero writing about it says this, ‘To bind a Roman citizen is a crime, to flog him is an abomination; to kill him is almost an act of murder, to crucify him is what?!’”  To bind him is cruel, to flog him is cruel and to crucify him defies language!  No wonder Trypho writing to Justin Martyr said, “I am still incredulous over this whole crucifixion issue.”(From Dialogue with Trypho).  The word excruciating comes from the Latin, excruciatus which literally means, “out of the cross”.  The very word for extreme agony is borrowed from the metaphor of the cross, which was not a metaphor but a reality.

According to the Bible, God is worse than distant from human suffering; he is utterly indifferent to it. The book of Job is ample evidence of this. God, over a bet with Satan, allows Satan to torture Job relentlessly, killing every living thing in his household, taking all his possessions, and striking him with horrible illness. In all of this, Job refuses to curse God, instead insisting that there must be some higher purpose behind it all that he just doesn't understand.

When he finally does go to God and say, "Hey, man...there's obviously some kind of reason why this is happening, and maybe if I understood a little better, I might be less miserable..."

And what is God's response? Is it compassion? Apology? "Well done, good and faithful servant"? Nope. Instead, God basically says "Fuck you, insignificant human. You are smaller than nothing to me, and you were nowhere and nothing when I made this universe. You are nothing and you know nothing, and I am everything and know everything because I'm all-powerful God, and I still wouldn't tell you any of it because fuck you. Now fuck off and shut the hell up; you bother me." Yeah, Job gets a break in the end, but the fact remains that God does not apparently give even the smallest of shits about Job's pain, or at least he wants Job to think that, anyway.

Gee. What a caring deity this is.

Jesus wasn't sent because God cares about our suffering. He was sent because God cares about having blood spilled to atone for sin and about being recognized and worshiped by humans. If he cared for our suffering, he wouldn't have invented suffering, and he certainly wouldn't have invented Hell.

[Angrboda]

...Naturalism offers no value, no meaning, just depression and despair...

You may say, "I don't know" but when facing tough questions in life, the answers that a naturalistic framework offer are bleak.

The answers that certain interpretations of naturalism offer are bleak.  There are positive interpretations of naturalism, but even if there weren't, turning aside from naturalism because you haven't found comforting answers in it is a lot like turning away to "godidit" because the answers to the origin of the universe aren't forthcoming.  Both moves put an end to inquiry.  If naturalism appears bleak, turning your back on the quest for answers is even bleaker.  It assures failure by putting a stop to seeking.

The Vinegar Tasters, is a traditional subject in Chinese religious painting. The allegorical composition depicts the three founders of China's major religious and philosophical traditions: Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism. The theme in the painting has been interpreted as favoring Taoism and critical of the others.

The three men are dipping their fingers in a vat of vinegar and tasting it; one man reacts with a sour expression, one reacts with a bitter expression, and one reacts with a sweet expression. The three men are Confucius, Buddha, and Laozi, respectively. Each man's expression represents the predominant attitude of his religion: Confucianism saw life as sour, in need of rules to correct the degeneration of people; Buddhism saw life as bitter, dominated by pain and suffering; and Taoism saw life as fundamentally good in its natural state.

Wikipedia | The Vinegar Tasters

[IATIA]

1) Each person is obligated to follow his or her moral conscience.

Obligated by what?

6) The only remaining source is something that transcends nature, the individual, and society. Such a source must be divine.

Why? None of the statements force this.

[robvalue]

The "some intelligence behind it" rule instantly fails, unless you're happy with the idea of an infinite regression of creators.

[Whateverist]

...Naturalism offers no value, no meaning, just depression and despair...

You may say, "I don't know" but when facing tough questions in life, the answers that a naturalistic framework offer are bleak.

The answers that certain interpretations of naturalism offer are bleak.  There are positive interpretations of naturalism, but even if there weren't, turning aside from naturalism because you haven't found comforting answers in it is a lot like turning away to "godidit" because the answers to the origin of the universe aren't forthcoming.  Both moves put an end to inquiry.  If naturalism appears bleak, turning your back on the quest for answers is even bleaker.  It assures failure by putting a stop to seeking.

Rather like looking for ones lost watch under the street lamp where the light is good, even though there is no reason to think it was lost there.

The Vinegar Tasters, is a traditional subject in Chinese religious painting. The allegorical composition depicts the three founders of China's major religious and philosophical traditions: Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism. The theme in the painting has been interpreted as favoring Taoism and critical of the others.

The three men are dipping their fingers in a vat of vinegar and tasting it; one man reacts with a sour expression, one reacts with a bitter expression, and one reacts with a sweet expression. The three men are Confucius, Buddha, and Laozi, respectively. Each man's expression represents the predominant attitude of his religion: Confucianism saw life as sour, in need of rules to correct the degeneration of people; Buddhism saw life as bitter, dominated by pain and suffering; and Taoism saw life as fundamentally good in its natural state.

Wikipedia | The Vinegar Tasters

Thanks for sharing this.  I've seen such pictures but never knew the back story.  Confucius is seen as the control freak but I like his emphasis on finding the sacred in the mundane.  Buddhism is largely escapist but in Zen at least gives rise to "mindfulness", a useful notion.  But Taoism is the ultimate naturalist stance, and one built on realization rather than empiricism.  I wonder if I can incorporate a statue of this image in my garden somehow.