God's Moral Authority

[GUNWOUNDS]

Atheists usually attack two points of God.  One part of their attack is one of "there is no proof".... but that usually isnt enough to convince anyone of faith, given the magnitude of the universe and our unusual existence.  So they have found that the best way to attack God is by attacking His morality.  Because simply put, if you can trash God's morality then you can acheive the next best thing to finding definite proof that He doesnt exist. And you can make the arguement that even if God does exist he isnt worth worshipping and so therefore lets get on with our humanistic lives.

So since attacking God's moral authority seems to be the crux of any arguement of any atheist worth his salt... this is something that i think deserve its own thread for intense discussion.

What gives God the right to have total control of the universe?

The real question is, why wouldn't an omniscient, omnipotent, morally perfect God have the right to do as he sees fit? We are used to thinking about human rights and what humans should and shouldn't do, so we are likely to make the mistake of thinking of God as a more powerful (and therefore more corrupt) human. However, God is not a human who has somehow acquired great power; instead he is Deity, a supernatural being who is far superior to humans and who has a perfect mind and heart.

There are many reasons why mere humans do not have the right to be supreme rulers of the universe:

They might make a disastrous mistake due to ignorance, inexperience, fatigue, etc.

They could have evil intentions and use their power for evil, or they could be fooled by an evil person

They might be corrupted by flattery and think themselves wiser and greater than they really were

Even if they wanted to do good, they wouldn't know for sure what would be best for everyone

They are likely to show favoritism to some and treat others unfairly

Yet none of these reasons are applicable to God. God has perfect knowledge and wisdom; God never gets tired or makes mistakes; and God is perfectly good and just.

What makes it right for God to take human life, when he forbids us to do so?

Humans can take life, but we can't bring the dead back to life, nor can we control what happens to someone after they die. A human's killing another human is a destructive and irresponsible act, for once we kill someone, we can't undo it or control the harm that results.

God, however, has greater abilities and knowledge than we do, including control over life and death. If God kills someone, he is able to bring them back to life or to place them in any sort of afterlife he chooses. God's use of death is comparable to someone burning a fire in a fireplace: it can be controlled, lit or extinguished at will, and used for a purpose. In contrast, humans' use of death is like setting fire to a dry field: the fire rages out of control, and consequently is dangerous and destructive.

Furthermore, what is death? Many believe that death is the end of both one's body and one's mind/personality/soul. If so, death is a destructive act for both humans and God. Yet if Christianity is true, one's soul is not destroyed, but continues to exist in an afterlife. In this case, death is not destruction, but rather a transfer from life on earth to an afterlife of eternal joy or just punishment.

What gives God the right to do things to others without their permission?

God has given people autonomy in a wide range of areas. We make choices every day about how to spend our time and money, whether to do right or wrong and even whether to follow God or not. God does not force us to do his will, for he wants us to choose to do what is right (2 Cor 9:7, 1 Jn 4:18). Yet God has the right to, and does, change the circumstances of our lives.

If God were required to ask people's permission before he did anything that affected them, he would be prevented from doing good, including some good which only he is able to do (e.g. miracles). People might not give permission for God to do some good things because they wouldn't be able to understand how it would result in good, wouldn't want to endure short-term suffering to receive a long-term benefit, or even because they wished to harm themselves or others. Suppose parents had to ask their children's permission instead of requiring them to do certain things. There would be a lot of children who would be malnourished and/or sick, ignorant, selfish and unable to care for themselves, for what child willingly consents to receive shots, go to school, do chores, etc.? While adults have more knowledge and maturity than children, we are still ignorant and immature in comparison with God, and consequently don't always know what's best for us.

Also, there are things which we would never realize would make us happy until they were given to us or happened to us. Many Christians would never have given their consent to the circumstances that led them to become Christians, and probably could not have realized in advance what joy and peace they would have after becoming Christians. If God had to get their consent beforehand, he wouldn't have been able to bring them true happiness and fulfillment.

Requiring God to receive the permission of humans before he acts would make him dependent on and controlled by humans. How can it be good for God, who is omniscient and morally and otherwise perfect, to be controlled by humans, who have limited knowledge and intelligence and often make mistakes or commit outright evil?

What about human rights?

What is a human right? When we talk about human rights, we generally mean that one human doesn't have the right to do particular things to another human, like kill them, enslave them, etc. Why is it wrong for someone to do a certain thing to another? There are several possible reasons:

Humans have an inherent, inalienable right not to have that thing done to them, because it's always immoral for anyone to do that thing to another

Humans possess certain characteristics (e.g. the capacity to reason) which makes it immoral for anyone to do that thing to them

Humans are equals and one equal does not have the right to do that thing to another

Which human rights are inalienable? Thanks to Thomas Jefferson, we speak of our "inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Yet these so-called inalienable rights are alienable. If someone walks into a school and begins shooting the students and teachers, others have the right to take the shooter's life to prevent further murders or take away their liberty by incarcerating them for life.

Are there any truly inalienable human rights? Humans have the right to a fair trial for their crimes and just punishment for the crimes they've committed. There is no case in which a biased trial or undue punishment is morally justifiable, thus these rights are inalienable - and they are respected by God.

If reason (2) applies to any of our rights, which rights are they and which human characteristic grants us those rights? Animals can feel pain and emotion, and they have conscious minds and the ability to make choices and act on them. Yet most people believe we have the right to limit their liberty (by keeping cats indoors, keeping dogs on leashes or inside fences, etc.) and cause them some amount of fear and pain (by taking them to the vet) in order to protect them. Additionally, many people believe we have the right to perform medical research on animals in order to save human lives. Twelve-year-old children are human, have intelligence and can communicate their desires and even make moral decisions, yet their liberty is restricted by their parents and the government and they are forced to do many things against their will.

Finally, reason (3) applies only to interaction among equals; it applies to human-human interaction, but not human-God interaction. God is not merely our physical superior, but our mental, intellectual and moral superior .

[GUNWOUNDS]

Genocide in the Old Testament

Why were the cities destroyed?

The primary reason was punishment for wrongdoing. The populations of the destroyed cities had long histories of grievous sins (Gen 15:16, Dt 25:17-19), which often included sacrificing their children to false gods (Dt 12:29-31). Their consciences should have told these people they were doing wrong. Had they listened and changed their ways, they would not have been destroyed. God has said that if any nation is about to be destroyed as punishment but repents, he will forgive them and not destroy them (Jer 18:7-8). In fact, this occurred in the city of Ninevah (Jonah 3:4-10).

In the cities that were given to the Israelites as their inheritance, there was a secondary reason: totally depraved cultures were destroyed so that they would not corrupt the Israelites into committing the same evil acts (Dt 7:1-4, 20:16-18). This did in fact occur: when the Israelites didn't obey God and destroy cities, they too began practicing child sacrifice (Ps 106:34-40).

Additionally, the destruction of wicked nations served as an instructive warning to contemporaries (Josh 2:1-11) and future generations (1 Cor 10:1-11).

What about innocent adults?

Sadly, these were few and far between. If people grow up in a culture that accepts things like murder and rape, very few will listen to their conscience and go against what everyone else says. Children learn wrong things from their parents and the surrounding culture; as they mature, they become part of the culture and perpetuate it by participating in it and passing on its teachings to their children.

However, those who were righteous were spared from the destruction. In the destruction of Jericho, Rahab and her family were spared because she feared God and chose to help the Israelites (Josh 2:1-21, 6:22-25). Before the Amalekites were destroyed, their righteous neighbors were warned to move away (1 Sam 15:5-6). God promised not to destroy Sodom if there were but ten righteous people in the city (Gen 18:22-32), and in a later judgment against Jerusalem, promised to forgive the city if one righteous person was found in it (Jer 5:1).

What about the children?

Small children did not share the guilt of their parents. The Bible describes small children as not knowing right from wrong (Is 7:15-16), and in some cases, this meant that they were spared the earthly punishment their elders received. For example, when the Israelites sinned during their wanderings in the desert, God forbid the adults from entering the promised land, but gave it to their children who were too young to be held responsible (Dt 1:34-39). The Bible also clearly teaches that one person is not held guilty for another's sin (Ezek 18). Therefore, the children who were killed would not face the same punishment in the afterlife as their parents.

Why were the children killed, if they weren't guilty? Apparently, they were considered as morally neutral, since they weren't yet old enough to be held accountable or to have done much right or wrong. While not as corrupt as their parents, they were part of the society that was judged, and shared its earthly (though not its eternal) fate. (Conversely, the family of a righteous person sometimes shared their relative's protection from earthly destruction; see Josh 6:22-25, Gen 19:12-13.) Often, when someone did something wrong and was punished while on earth, only the evildoer themselves was punished. However, when a person or a society committed massive evil, that evil was punished by the destruction of the entire family or city; in such cases, only those who had actively demonstrated their integrity could be saved (14:13-20).  Since young children and babies are unable to actively demonstrate their integrity to be saved, they are considered morally neutral.  This will not save them from earthly fates of massively evil societies...but it will save them from eternal fates.  Damnation is only for those who actively demonstrate their wickedness.  So being morally neutral has its downsides and upsides.  Obviously the upsides far outweigh the downsides.... loss of a handful of decades of life for eternal paradise and removal from a wicked society.

Couldn't the children have died painlessly?

Why didn't God translate the children into heaven instead of having them die by the sword? Since the children lived in a world affected by sin, they faced its earthly consequences (Rom 5:12-14). Only a few righteous people were translated into heaven, namely Enoch (Gen 5:24, Heb 11:5) and Elijah (2 Ki 2:11). As noted above, since the children had not shown themselves to be righteous, they were not spared the common fate of death.

It's worth noting that being killed with a sword (perhaps beheaded) was at the time one of the quickest ways for the children to die (as opposed to suffocation/strangulation, starvation, disease or being torn apart by wild animals - see Ex 23:28-29).

Were the Israelites right to obey God's orders?

The Israelites personally knew God to be just, righteous and wise. Aside from knowing God through prayer and individual devotions, many generations of Israelites personally witnessed God's miracles. The generation that fought against the Midianites was the generation that had miraculously escaped from Egypt; the generation that fought the wars in the book of Joshua was only one generation later, and saw the parting of the Jordan River (Josh 3:7-17). Both generations experienced God's provision for them during the Exodus (Dt 29:5; manna was provided until the time of Joshua - Josh 5:12). Finally, Moses explicitly taught the Israelites that God "is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he" (Dt 32:4). These things gave them reason to trust God even when he commanded them to do something they might otherwise refuse to do. Furthermore, they understood that God has the authority to destroy a city, and that the best thing for them to do was to trust someone whose judgment and wisdom are far superior to their own.

Some have argued that the Israelites should have decided that God's command was wrong and refused to carry it out. It is worth noting that God is unchanging (Mal 3:6), so the Israelites would have known that the just and righteous God they knew before was still just and righteous when he issued the command. However, let us suppose for the sake of argument that God could have issued an unjust command; for instance, ordering the Israelites to be sadistic by torturing babies and enjoying their pain. Sadism is inherently evil; there is no possible situation in which it could be right to take pleasure in torturing others. (The Israelites slew people with swords, which would have been one of the quickest ways at the time to kill someone, and were never told to enjoy killing; thus God's commanded genocide was not sadism.) Therefore the Israelites would have been justified in refusing to practice sadism. Killing a person, while often wrong, is not wrong in all situations; for example, it can be justified if necessary for self-defense. That is, it's not automatically wrong for God to issue an order to kill humans. Since the Israelites had good reason to believe in God's moral perfection, omniscience and omnipotence, the best choice for them would be to trust that God had a better understanding than they of the situation itself and the moral rules governing it. The only way for them to be justified in not obeying God's command would be if the command were inherently evil and impossible to justify (though it must be cautioned that humans with their imperfect understanding could incorrectly decide a command was inherently evil).

How did the Israelites know it was God's command?

Some people have objected that the Israelites didn't directly receive a command from God, but were following their leader's orders, and thus they didn't know if God himself had commanded it or not. It's true that God gave the commands to the leaders of the Israelites, but in all the cases where the Israelites were told by a leader to destroy a population, they had plenty of prior evidence that the leader was in fact anointed by God and could be trusted to deliver God's commands. The three leaders who passed on these commands were Moses, Joshua, and Samuel. The Israelites literally saw for themselves that God spoke with Moses (Ex 33:7-11, 34:29-35), plus they had seen all the miracles that he performed. Joshua was chosen to succeed Moses, and God performed the miracle of the crossing of the Jordan explictly so that the Israelites would know that God was with Joshua (Josh 3:7-17). (After Joshua's death, God spoke to the Israelites directly - see Judges 1:1-2.) And as for Samuel, "all Israel from Dan to Beersheba recognized that Samuel was attested as a prophet of the Lord" (1 Sam 3:20).

Were the Israelites merely justifying their aggression/xenophobia?

When the Israelites destroyed a population, they were acting as God's tools, not taking matters into their own hands. God made it clear to them that he was the one behind their victories (Jdg 7:2-3, Josh 5:13-14). In many cases, the nations were defeated by miracles of God (Josh 6, 10:8-14), and in all cases the Israelites were victorious only because they were following God, who gave them the victory (Josh 10:42).

Furthermore, God told the Israelites in Deuteronomy 9:1-6, "It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations." He had also given them several laws concerning treatment of Gentiles/foreigners, including, "When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt" (Lev 19:33-34). Only nations that were guilty of great wickedness were to be destroyed; the Israelites were instructed to first offer peaceful terms to other cities they attacked, and to only kill the men if they ended up going to war (Dt 20:10-15).

God held the Israelites accountable for their sins also. When they sinned, they were unable to win any battles (Josh 7:1-12). When they later fell into the same evil acts that the punished nations had committed, Jerusalem was beseiged and its inhabitants died or were exiled.

Can the genocide in the OT be used to justify genocide or mass destruction today?

Genocide, murder or any killing that is not necessary to defend another person's life is not justified. God alone has the right to take human life in cases other than defense. The only reason the Israelites were right to destroy cities in the OT is because they received a clear, direct command from God to do so. Any reason short of that, including humans deciding on their own that God wants them to kill others, is not enough to justify it.

Does GOD Punish Children for their Parent's sins?

When parents do wrong or experience punishment on earth, their children share the ill effects - if a parent is put in jail, their children are adversely affected; if a parent is abusive or negligent, their children suffer. This sort of thing occurs in many places in the Bible. For instance, Achan and his family died as a result of his disobeying God (Joshua 7). However, while children often shared the earthly punishment of their parents, they would not be punished for their parents' sins in the afterlife. Ezekiel 18 makes it clear that the real guilt belongs to the person who sinned, not their family. Deuteronomy 24:16 is an application of this principle to human-administered justice: while God decreed that some sins merited the death penalty, humans were not to apply the penalty to anyone other than the guilty party. If, as in the case of Achan, a family or nation was to be corporately punished, only God had the authority to decide that corporate punishment was merited.

On the other hand, God often extends mercy to the families of people who are righteous. Rahab's family was allowed to survive because she respected God (Joshua 2). God spared Noah's family because Noah was righteous (Genesis 7:1). And of course the nation of Israel was blessed because of Abraham's obedience to God (Genesis 22:17-18). Again, the blessings received by a righteous person's family only affected their life on earth. A person's relatives will not be saved or condemned in the afterlife because of that person's actions; rather each will be judged as individuals.

In other words, the true distinction is between life on earth and the afterlife. People do not receive precisely what they deserve while they are on earth; they are affected by the actions of those around them, and thus can be said to be punished (i.e. experience suffering) for their relatives' wrongs (or blessed from relative's righteousness). But this is a temporary state of affairs; when people enter the eternal afterlife, they will be judged as individuals, and what punishment they receive will be only for things they are truly guilty of and what rewards they receive will be only for what they deserved.  Simply put... you can suffer punishment/consequences on earth due to a relative's/societies' wickedness but still receive heavenly rewards when you die..... OR you can receive blessings/benefits from a righteous relative/society (even though you are wicked) on this earth but still receive eternal damnation when you die.

This may sound confusing but remember the saying.... "it rains on the just as well as the unjust" ....the examples in the Bible back this up.... God says he would spare a city if only 10 righteous were found (wicked people reaping benfits off of the righteous)..... and He also punishes entire families/societies even tho some may not have shared in sin (morally neutral/righteous people negatively affected by wicked people around/associated with them).  We are affected by our environment and the people around us.  Thankfully this is taken into consideration on Judgement Day and in the afterlife everyone ends up getting what they deserved.

Why then would God corporately punish a family when not all of them had sinned? In some cases, the relatives of the wrongdoers shared in their guilt by failing to stop the person from doing wrong or rebuke them for their wrong. In other cases, it's possible that the loss of the wrongdoer's family line was part of their punishment (i.e. you are so wicked, your bloodline is removed from the earth, certainly the greatest earthly punishment possible.)

[Khan]

My primary argument against discussions such as these would simply be that I dislike the idea, which most Christians I talk to seem to have, that Atheists need to take steps to disprove a G-d which hasn't been proven to exist. But then I'm tired and just back from the pub so everyone's going to ignore me anyway... they usually do.

[GUNWOUNDS]

My primary argument against discussions such as these would simply be that I dislike the idea, which most Christians I talk to seem to have, that Atheists need to take steps to disprove a G-d which hasn't been proven to exist. But then I'm tired and just back from the pub so everyone's going to ignore me anyway... they usually do.

Hi Khan.... say what do you drink?  I like the dark lagers when eating burgers and wings... but i like the light beers for social drinking.

Oh and I agree.... atheists shouldnt need to attempt to disprove a God that hasnt been proven to exist.  Nobody forces atheists to attempt to disprove a God... most simply try so for THEIR own peace of mind....in order to "protect" science from religious zealots and also because of a phenomena commonly known as "Proving God by disproving Him".  Simply put... assault God until you run smack into a brick wall... and hope that the brick wall is convincing to fill you with faith.  Its happened to many people such as C.S Lewis and many other believers-turned-atheist-turned-believers. 

AS far as defending science from zealots is concerned....I'm not so sure thats necessary.....zealots dont seem to be causing the downfall of science and even the vatican accepts evolution as a possible tool of God.  So to be honest, attempting to disprove God doesnt do anything to protect science .... only science affirming itself through hard proof to the masses can protect science.  Attacking God only pisses people off and causes more zealots who feel they must become zealots to fend of assaults of something they consider sacred.

To be honest tho Khan.. i think Pascal had the best attitude towards God... with such topics as his wager, and his famous saying of "God existing is inconceivable, and God not existing is inconceivable".  Being torn and critical is something that is natural and understandable.  What is counter-productive is when people become absolutely cynical and closeminded.

Fortunately most people are not that way.  Most people want their MRI's and their Miracles.  Most people want to cheer on scientific progress and still keep the Sabbath.  There's nothing wrong with those two halves.  What's wrong is when one side tries to deny someone of one of the halves by using peer-pressure, insults,  or violence.

[Khan]

Well tonight was Carlsberg Export. Not quite sure what dark larger and light larger is, we just have larger, like Bud, Carling, Stella etc.. which is good for social drinking, and ale, Adnams, Youngs, Spitfire etc, which is seen as an old mans drink but I like it, its better for having in your local though.

I understand what you're saying when you mention Pascal, and your last paragraph is something I agree with wholeheartedly (though I just want the MRIs myself). My only problem with pascal is that he seems to oversimplify the situtation. He only takes into account western religion, namely christianity, but what if that interpretation is wrong? If we all think back to the helpful chart which used to adorn your sig, now inexplicably replaced by some sort of meat pie, we only took into account God, a Christian interpretation of the 'higher power'. However, in over looking the other religions anyone playing pascal's wager only increases their chances of life after death by a small fraction: they will not adhere to the hebrew traditions of Kosher, or their rituals of the sabbath; they will most likely consume alcohol and may smoke, excluding them from the islamic interpretations of heaven; countless religions with their countless idiosynchrosis mean than pascal's wager only helps us if christianity is right, it by no means accounts for any other religion being right, or even no religion being right.

As for not needing to protect science from zealots, I'm not sure thats an assumption you can justifiably make. What would happen if no one defended the teaching of evolution and darwin's approach to scientific theory, for surely one will not be taught without the other, is retracted from our schools? Surely this will only lead to a complete breakdown in students' questioning of the validity of any claims made on illogical steps.

Don't get me wrong I'm no more in favour of the unwarranted attacks on peoples' faith that I seem to hear whenever religion is brought into question than I am the unwarranted zeal that makes people blindly follow faith in the first place.

I'll talk more on my views later but now its 3:30 and I'm very tired.

Night.

[VigilVirus]

All of this falls under the assumption that God is perfect in every way. If God wasn't omnipotent or morally perfect, would any of the following points still be true? I think not.

[Acriku]

I was about to post what Khan said in the end of his post, but alas it has been done so. I will emphasize, however, that science very much so does need to be protected by religious zealots. Case in point: the trial against the teacher who taught evolution. The famous one, but I forget the dubbed name of it. It took a trial and a man standing up for science to get rid of religious zealots trying to make it a law that you can't teach science (specifically evolution, a major part of science abroad). If religious zealots had their way, they'd institute ID theory into every classroom and get rid of evolution, leaving the kids without any background in science that's deemed significant or applicable (since the ID theory goes against not just evolution, but tenets of science like the scientific method, etc). Therefore, there would be less scientists and science would be hurt overall.

Also, sometimes it is necessary to disprove or debunk what religious zealots say of their faith because it affects public policy, education policy, and foreign policy, since there are religious people who are very powerful (formerly Haggard, Falwell, Robertson, et al) in the administration, people all over on school boards, in local benches (judges, etc), basically anywhere with power attached to it. With this amount of influence from people with a religious agenda, sometimes it is necessary to spread the information debunking some claims in order to not let certain legislation/actions get through. Such as getting rid of evolution, on a Federal level, state level, district level, school district level, to individual schools. I honestly believe that the amount of people speaking out loud over why evolution is valid and important to science is the fundamental reason why Creationists have not had much success in putting through the ID theory in schools.

And yes, we all agree that the burden of proof falls on the religious person. However, people chalk it up to faith a lot. So, atheists find the need to go ahead and structure arguments demonstrating why their religion or aspect of religion is faulty, wrong, or injust.

[Acriku]

Wow, this was a lot to read. I guess the best place to start is at the beginning.

First off, you're basically pulling a strawman by saying that the argument on God's morality is the best argument atheists have, and if that's wrong then they are wrong. That's not the case, although this argument is a strong one. Let's talk about it further.

I want to add that a key to understanding why people keep treating God like a human or to have human traits probably lies in your choice of words when you refer to God having a mind and a heart. What are these translated to, since God obviously has neither? Essence? Just a thought.

Anyway, I'm starting to get tired so I'm going to break this down as quick as possible.

From what I've read of your argument, in regards to my question that created this thread, you answer the question by basically saying that there were babies, children, women, and men found innocent that drowned in Noah's Flood. And those that were innocent and killed as well were sent to Heaven instead of Hell. Sound about right?

My only problem with this (besides the scary notion brought up that it doesn't matter if you die, as long as you are sent to Paradise [sound familiar if I replace Paradise with many virgins? This could be a dangerous motivator]) is that we have to assume God sent the innocent ones to Heaven. For all we know, God killed them and sent them to Hell. He'd then be a liar, which some might protest to with verses in mind, but if he is then he logically lied about those as well. Anyway, enough about that.

My biggest problem with this argument is that it assumes that finite disobeyance is just reason for infinite punishment. I am wholeheartedly against this concept, and it is scary to think that people actually think it's just to punish someone for eternity based on their half-century life. Nobody, not even Hitler^100 is evil enough to be punished forever. There is no justice in Hell.

[Caid Ivik]

God is an immoral, or better, supermoral being. Where is God 'given' a situation, in which he stays before a moral choice? Morality demands time and created space, so to speak about morality of an eternal creator, is like to speak about a performance of the physical definition of watt unit. There is no justice in neither hell nor heaven...

[Megashrap]

It took a trial and a man standing up for science to get rid of religious zealots trying to make it a law that you can't teach science (specifically evolution, a major part of science abroad). If religious zealots had their way, they'd institute ID theory into every classroom and get rid of evolution, leaving the kids without any background in science that's deemed significant or applicable (since the ID theory goes against not just evolution, but tenets of science like the scientific method, etc). Therefore, there would be less scientists and science would be hurt overall.

Also, sometimes it is necessary to disprove or debunk what religious zealots say of their faith because it affects public policy, education policy, and foreign policy, since there are religious people who are very powerful (formerly Haggard, Falwell, Robertson, et al) in the administration, people all over on school boards, in local benches (judges, etc), basically anywhere with power attached to it. With this amount of influence from people with a religious agenda, sometimes it is necessary to spread the information debunking some claims in order to not let certain legislation/actions get through. Such as getting rid of evolution, on a Federal level, state level, district level, school district level, to individual schools. I honestly believe that the amount of people speaking out loud over why evolution is valid and important to science is the fundamental reason why Creationists have not had much success in putting through the ID theory in schools.

Very good points Acriku.

From time to time my kids will bring home questionaires for or about future school events,upcoming classroom studies,fieldtrips,,etc. Last week I received one of these that directly asked me as a parent,"Do you agree to your child learning/studying such topics as Evolution in Theory? and or similar scientific topics in future studies to come?". Now of course I signed Yes to it. What bothered me even more was, what were the kids going to study who's parents signed No to such a ridiculous question obviously injected onto paper to be seen and signed by parents by some religious zealot somewhere among the school board level. By the way, that question was just after one asking if I agreed to a fieldtrip to Epcot's 'The Living Seas' exhibit and one to The Orlando Science Center. May seem trivial to most, but I think it's where loop-holes are born to lay the very construct of what type of lawsuits,or law changes that can be produced by such zealots.

[Acriku]

God is an immoral, or better, supermoral being. Where is God 'given' a situation, in which he stays before a moral choice? Morality demands time and created space, so to speak about morality of an eternal creator, is like to speak about a performance of the physical definition of watt unit. There is no justice in neither hell nor heaven...

Your description of God beyond what is time and space comes at an impasse when there is direct involvement from God to the people on Earth. This requires the same time dimension, and therefore God is either within space/time, or can bridge to and fro (which boggles the mind, but that's the point I guess). Your last statement is very intriguing, can you elaborate?

Hey scar, thanks. Were you referring to the questionnaire as a possible loop-hole? Like, for instance they get enough of a majority of No's and then protest that the parents don't want their kids to be taught evolution?

[Caid Ivik]

That's why christianity brought up this weird trinitar teaching, where 'father' presents the supertemporal substance, 'son' its actual existence, and 'holy spirit' the bridge, the creative actus. All ecclesial teachers who worked with it where either heavily inspired by platonism or zoroastrism, also you may find clues in these traditions as well.

Common logic is, that God enters the human rationality, either as the eternal idea of goodness (as by Platon) or in the form of wise angel, who gives the advice (as by Zarathustra). It should be in effectu the same. One thing is the idea, another is an act; God acts 'an sich' as a creator of space and time here (while these are, as defined by ie Augustinus or Eckhart, phenomena bound for 'my time', in more existentialist, than scientific sense; higher level would be if we talked about Church, or if we try to see the eschatology bound with nature as well, then the medieval term of time isn't enough), human does the other. 'Idea of goodness' does mean, 'what would God do in my present situation, as if He were a human'. To be exact, it doesn't mean a maintance of a certain order (--> justice); creation may go further within and with me. Heaven or hell is the effect - if it went further or not. To play a little with it, when you're dead, there is no more you can maintain nor create, thus you cannot be just no more - as well as nothing can be just to you any more.

[Egeides]

A (or even the) main issue here seems to be that some theists apply divine rule as "the law is the law": this is cold rationality with indifferent emotion towards the "condemned". Acriku seems to react to this. (God does not "condemn". He isn't "good" or "bad", he is beyond good or evil: they were not condemned but simply walked towards this; "karma" develops similar views).

The Gunwound-Acriku thesis/antithesis: God is or is not

"we have to assume God sent the innocent ones to Heaven. For all we know, God killed them and sent them to Hell."

Your conception of God seems to be some absolute "rationalist legalism" ie.The law is the law, whattever happens: but you suppose it non-fascist -"true because (spiritually) efficient"- because applied by a perfect being. Not much love there in actual application [of perfect Rule]... In a pragmatic world (only place for freedom, therefore chosing my direction), I should not expect to not die and so on... should not expect humans to not be tempted, chose unwisely and crash themselves (close their hearts to the embrace of perfection)... and I shouldn't expect every single written detail to be as perfectly regular as physics (Mencius, proponent of Confucius if there is one, wrote that it shouldn't taken by the word even though taken as absolute teachings).

Gunwounds asked why a "morally perfect God have the right to do as he sees fit?"

Because he does not see fit, which would mean heavy-handed "good" and "evil"; he just is] fit and therefore beyond good and evil. But it's all pretty useful to humans in a worldly world to conceptualize.

A tentative synthesis based on Caid's: Rationality, even Buddha's, smiles

It's not just rational (truth) as Gunwound's system seems to be (alienating emotions, severed from those lads who get slashed from the Earth- what Acriku criticises), it's passional (love):

Common logic is, that God enters the human rationality, either as the eternal idea of goodness (as by Platon) or in the form of wise angel, who gives the advice (as by Zarathustra).

Some Catholic grounds show, Caid ;)

Many Protestants would react by objecting that their faith is not "ideas" but passion. The whole Evangelical movement reacted to instituted Anglicanism for that.

I'd like to comment that what is meant by "intellect" with Plato or Plotinus is not necessarily to be taken as rationality by modern definition (or Kant's; in my opinion, it might actually have many parallels with Hume's perception... but I'm biased).

It seems to englobe a certain form of emotion, drive towards betterment (or drive towards the part of perfection we do not already have). But not all the "other" forms of emotion (they'd be for Plato's poets).

Consequence: It blocks someone to think that God is just rational in the modern sense, that which Gunwounds seems to apply ("the law is the law") and Acriku to criticize. It is not good to make of human emotions mere satellites to ideas of God rule (leading some to see God as rationalist absolutist- God is Love, absolute opposite of fascist).

"There is no fear in love."

[Megashrap]

Hey scar, thanks. Were you referring to the questionnaire as a possible loop-hole? Like, for instance they get enough of a majority of No's and then protest that the parents don't want their kids to be taught evolution?

Yes, at least that's how I see this particular questionnaire anyway. I mean it is clearly an attempt at gaining signatures at the very least. But, I am also reminded that during election time, some strange things manage to creep out of the woodwork.

[GUNWOUNDS]

That's why christianity brought up this weird trinitar teaching, where 'father' presents the supertemporal substance, 'son' its actual existence, and 'holy spirit' the bridge, the creative actus. All ecclesial teachers who worked with it where either heavily inspired by platonism or zoroastrism, also you may find clues in these traditions as well.

Common logic is, that God enters the human rationality, either as the eternal idea of goodness (as by Platon) or in the form of wise angel, who gives the advice (as by Zarathustra). It should be in effectu the same. One thing is the idea, another is an act; God acts 'an sich' as a creator of space and time here (while these are, as defined by ie Augustinus or Eckhart, phenomena bound for 'my time', in more existentialist, than scientific sense; higher level would be if we talked about Church, or if we try to see the eschatology bound with nature as well, then the medieval term of time isn't enough), human does the other. 'Idea of goodness' does mean, 'what would God do in my present situation, as if He were a human'. To be exact, it doesn't mean a maintance of a certain order (--> justice); creation may go further within and with me. Heaven or hell is the effect - if it went further or not. To play a little with it, when you're dead, there is no more you can maintain nor create, thus you cannot be just no more - as well as nothing can be just to you any more.

Yea you are basically saying what most  christians say... just in an overly wordy way.  And that is... Heaven and Hell are not so much rewards and punishments in so far as they are effects and conditions of what type of person you became on this earth.

C.S. Lewis said that as we progress through life we can become people with bright hearts or people with extremely dark hearts.  He said the prostitute out on the street trying to make ends meet to feed her kids may really have a kind heart.  While there may be an old churchlady acting holy in a church but really has the darkest heart you've ever seen.  If you die with a black heart you have, in effect, set yourself to be seperated from God.

Its not cold detachment as Egeides says... i do feel for the wicked and neutrals that died in the flood.... but in some weird way... their deaths could have been a form of mercy from God.  Jesus said Hell is worse for some than others.  By eliminating them from this earth, God effectively reduced their ability to commit further evil and make their afterlives that much worse.  That could be viewed as love, albeit love still working within the law.  Also since God is omniscient He knows whether they would have recieved Jesus, Elijah, etc to reform.  They had Noah preaching to them for 100 years.  If God knew that they wouldnt have reformed, and if he knew the children among them would have grown up to be wicked.... he had two choices... either turn them into robots and make them submit to His will... or remove them from this earth so that their wickedness will cease and their afterlives wont get any worse and their offspring can be saved.  Since only #2 is within the bounds of the laws of which He created for this universe, thats what He did.

Now when God said He wouldnt flood the earth anymore... that doesnt mean He would never command the deaths of humans.  Instead of floods God just used the army of Israel to remove the wicked from the earth.  However the difference between the Flood and the Army of Israel is that the Army was more surgical in precision, thereby leaving less collateral damage behind (such as animal deaths, innocents, etc) that a flood would cause.  To me this meant that God felt It was necessary to remove the wicked from the earth "en masse" due to only 5 people being acceptable out of millions/billions being wicked.  There is no way an army of Israel would be able to remove an entire globe of people. 

By cleaning the slate so to speak and starting out with Noah et al. (the best humanity had to offer at the time), He was setting the stage for a more balanced and efficent war between good and evil, while allowing humanity to develop.  This meant that everytime wicked people were removed from the earth... people would NOT have to pack up in boats and re-start human civilaztion all over again.  That would just keep stunting human growth.

[GUNWOUNDS]

"There is no fear in love."

When we talk about the MORAL LAW there are certain things you must understand.  You will find out more about God from the MORAL LAW than from the universe in general just as you find out more about a man by listening to his conversation than by looking at a house he has built.  Now, from this we conclude that the Being behind the universe is intensely interested in right conduct---in fair play, unselfishness, courage, good faith, honesty, and truthfulness.  In that sense we should agree wth the account given by Christianity and some other religions, that God is "good".  But do not let us go too fast here.  The Moral Law does not give us any grounds for thinking that God is "good" in the sense of being indulgent, or soft, or sympathetic.

    There is nothing indulgent about the Moral Law.  It is hard as nails.  It tells you to do the straight thing and it does not seem to care how painful, or dangerous, or difficult it is to do.  If God is like the Moral Law, then He is not soft.  It is no use, at this stage, saying that what you mean by a "good" God is a God who can forgive.  You are going too quickly.  Only a person can forgive.  And we have not yet got as far as a "personal God"---only as far as a power, behind the Moral Law, and more like a mind than it is like anything else.  But it may still be very unlike a Person.  If it is pure impersonal mind, there may be no sense in asking it to make allowances for you or to let you off, just as there is no sense in asking the muliplication table to let you off when you do your sums wrong.  you are bound to get the wrong answer.  And it is no use either saying that if there is a God of that sort--an impersonal absolute goodness---then you do not like Him and are not going to bother about Him.  For the trouble is that one part of you is on His side and really agrees with his disapproval of human greed, and trickery, and exploitation.

     You may want him Him to make an exception in your own case, to let you off this one time; but you know at the bottom of your heart than unless the power behind the world really and unalterably detests that sort of behaviour, then He cannot be Good.  On the other hand, we know that if there does exist an absolute goodness it must hate most of what we do.  This is the terrible fix we are in.  If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all our efforts are in the longrun hopeless.  But if it is, then we are making ourselves enemies to that Goodness every day, and are not in the least likely to do any better tomorrow, and so our case is hopeless again.  We cannot do without it, and we cannot do with it. 

     God is the only comfort, He is also the supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from.  He is our only possible ally, and we have made ourselves His enemies.  Some people talk as if meeting the gaze of absolute goodness would be fun regardless of your heart's condition.  They need to think again.  They are still only playing with religion.  God is either the great safety or the great danger---according to the way you react to it.  And we have reacted the wrong way.

Of course what i am talking about here is the father ....as Caid stated:

That's why christianity brought up this weird trinitar teaching, where 'father' presents the supertemporal substance, 'son' its actual existence, and 'holy spirit' the bridge, the creative actus.

Of course there is the "Son" that gives us the personal side.. the actual existence to go to and ask for forgiveness.  This is probably where Egeides gets his quote of "There is no fear in love".  And in a sense this is true.  Jesus' most often repeated phrase is "Fear Not".  Now this doesnt mean "Fear not for the lord God is indulgent soft and sympathetic".  It means "Fear Not, there is a way for man to be united with God after this mortal life"

Or atleast thats how i view it.

Guns

[GUNWOUNDS]

Yes, at least that's how I see this particular questionnaire anyway. I mean it is clearly an attempt at gaining signatures at the very least. But, I am also reminded that during election time, some strange things manage to creep out of the woodwork.

Despite all of that... i think that science is in no real danger.  Enough people and insitutions, including many religions and people of faith have accepted many things of science, ONLY, after it has proven itself to their satisfaction.  When Galileo said the earth orbited the sun and the church rejected it....how did the scientific fact of it finally become accepted?  By having atheists like Dakwins constantly attack the Church.  NO!  By having irrefutable scientific fact.  BY having high resolution photos, and having mathematics, and astronomy become more and more mature.

Science can only grow and prove itself by facts and truths (not setbacks like Piltdown man).  And evolution still has a ways to go.  I've been reading some biochemistry and molecular biology articles from evolution critics and it even makes me question some things i learned in college.  Because many of the criticisms that i am reading about now were not brought up during my education, even tho they were known since 1970, and it pisses me off a little. (especially misinterpretations about vestigal organs...yes we do use our coccyx and appendix, and btw gorillas have an appendix and other lower primates dont, there's a conundrum.) These inconsistencies werent taught to us most likely due to atheism being predominant on university campus' and any viewpoint that would weaken evolution is stifled.  This doesnt mean that evolution shouldn't be taught... but if if there are any inconsistencies i want to know them, and i tihnk our children deserve to know them too.  Why not tell the whole story?

Guns

[Acriku]

Despite all of that... i think that science is in no real danger.  Enough people and insitutions, including many religions and people of faith have accepted many things of science, ONLY, after it has proven itself to their satisfaction.  When Galileo said the earth orbited the sun and the church rejected it....how did the scientific fact of it finally become accepted?  By having atheists like Dakwins constantly attack the Church.  NO!  By having irrefutable scientific fact.  BY having high resolution photos, and having mathematics, and astronomy become more and more mature.

Science can only grow and prove itself by facts and truths (not setbacks like Piltdown man).  And evolution still has a ways to go.  I've been reading some biochemistry and molecular biology articles from evolution critics and it even makes me question some things i learned in college.  Because many of the criticisms that i am reading about now were not brought up during my education, even tho they were known since 1970, and it pisses me off a little. (especially misinterpretations about vestigal organs...yes we do use our coccyx and appendix, and btw gorillas have an appendix and other lower primates dont, there's a conundrum.) These onconsistencies werent taught to us most likely due to atheism being predominant on university campus' and any viewpoint that would weaken evolution is stifled.  This doesnt mean that evolution shouldn't be taught... but if if there are any inconsistencies i want to know them, and i tihnk our children deserve to know them too.  Why not tell the whole story?

Guns

I agree that we should teach the children the facts, and updating our textbooks nationwide is a necessity that hasn't been realized yet. Evolution has a ways to go just like any other topic in science has a ways to go. Picking on evolution alone just goes to show the agenda behind some critics. And I wouldn't take criticism of evolution as face-value Guns, nor would I expect you to take supporting evidence at face-value, as a lot of people have agendas and will bend facts and data to further it. Or, some are just plainly misunderstanding. Anyway, I would say the Piltdown Man was not just a setback but a demonstration at how science can and does come under fire and be doubted/criticized. After all, the hoax of the Piltdown Man was caught and demonstrated to be true by scientists themselves. When carbon-dating came about in practical use (which I remember you saying wasn't dependable?), they dated the Piltdown man and found it to be too young in age to exist as the finders proposed. Odd how you use an example exemplifying the uses of carbon dating while criticizing carbon dating prior.

Also, I don't feel one of my main points were addressed: how is sending a man to hell for eternity for finite sins committed in his half-century lifetime at all just? A justice system that incorporates that as being just is corrupt and detestable.

Oh, and I'd like to throw Epicurus into this debate:

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

[GUNWOUNDS]

I agree that we should teach the children the facts, and updating our textbooks nationwide is a necessity that hasn't been realized yet. Evolution has a ways to go just like any other topic in science has a ways to go. Picking on evolution alone just goes to show the agenda behind some critics. And I wouldn't take criticism of evolution as face-value Guns, nor would I expect you to take supporting evidence at face-value, as a lot of people have agendas and will bend facts and data to further it. Or, some are just plainly misunderstanding. Anyway, I would say the Piltdown Man was not just a setback but a demonstration at how science can and does come under fire and be doubted/criticized. After all, the hoax of the Piltdown Man was caught and demonstrated to be true by scientists themselves. When carbon-dating came about in practical use (which I remember you saying wasn't dependable?), they dated the Piltdown man and found it to be too young in age to exist as the finders proposed. Odd how you use an example exemplifying the uses of carbon dating while criticizing carbon dating prior.

Also, I don't feel one of my main points were addressed: how is sending a man to hell for eternity for finite sins committed in his half-century lifetime at all just? A justice system that incorporates that as being just is corrupt and detestable.

Oh, and I'd like to throw Epicurus into this debate:

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Well another giveaway that piltdown man was false was that they discovered the teeth had been filed down to look human.  So carbon dating wasnt even necessary if they had inspected the fossil properly....yet they let it slide for 50 years.  Also i said carbon dating is only reliable within a certain time frame.  Thousands of years?  Sure.  Its definately not reliable when trying to say that some fossil is 3 billion years old. I'm not contradicting myself... i'm simply stating that measuring tools have limits.

And as far as Epicurus goes...

Why be limited to just those points of argumentation you have bulleted? In an essay entitled "Arguments For Atheism", located on The Freethought Zone website, we can see see that the atheists who host that site feel that Epicurus

[Acriku]

It had not been ignored as you describe it. You make it sound like the scientists either knew it was fake but kept it a secret to further the evolution conspiracy or they were incompetent. Filed down teeth are hardly conclusive evidences.

As far as Epicurus' argument, it's an amusing argument in its simplicity. Of course it won't cover the entire grounds of the debate, but it brings out the basic principles of it. The objection to it referring to free will is not reasonable at all, as free will does not exist if there is truly a God, who has killed the entire world before by not committing to his word, continually threatens eternal damnation and suffering if you don't commit to his word, and continually declares eternal paradise and glory if you do commit to his word. It is hardly an influence-free environment. Free will is inherently impossible.

[GUNWOUNDS]

It had not been ignored as you describe it. You make it sound like the scientists either knew it was fake but kept it a secret to further the evolution conspiracy or they were incompetent. Filed down teeth are hardly conclusive evidences.

As far as Epicurus' argument, it's an amusing argument in its simplicity. Of course it won't cover the entire grounds of the debate, but it brings out the basic principles of it. The objection to it referring to free will is not reasonable at all, as free will does not exist if there is truly a God, who has killed the entire world before by not committing to his word, continually threatens eternal damnation and suffering if you don't commit to his word, and continually declares eternal paradise and glory if you do commit to his word. It is hardly an influence-free environment. Free will is inherently impossible.

Free Will doest exist merely due to the fact that we have to have this debate.  You are saying that on some higher level we dont have Free Will... even if thats true... thats irrelevant because even if it is an illusion of free will on a Godly level... its still genuine free will on a mortal level since that is what we perceive.  The absense of Free Will is makes no sense because all we can know and experience IS free will.  We can do evil... so we have a choice.  Just because there are consequences to actions doesnt mean there isnt free will.  We have laws and consequences in the USA... murder someone and you will get lethal injection.  However Texas executed 40 people in one year.  You say that we dont have free will because consequences exist for our actions.  But thats the whole POINT.  The point is to have evil and good exist... make a choice.. then reap the reward or suffer the consequence.  Its called life.  If all actions (good or bad) led to rewards..... then it would be pointless to have free will in the first place, because it wouldnt matter which action you chose.  If evil didnt exist and only good existed.... then it would be pointless to have Free Will because there wouldnt be a choice.

It makes perfect sense to me

[Acriku]

Consider a prisoner tied to a chair in front of you. In order to get him to confess, you threaten him to be tortured for a very long time. You scare him with what you're going to do with him if he doesn't confess. You then tell him that he will be free and available to many women if he does confess. A glimmer of hope shines in the prisoner's eye. He confesses (whether he did the crime or not). Now, can you say that this man confessed of his own free will?

Consider another example. You find your son taking a cookie out of the bag of cookies. You find the nearest knife and loom over him with it angled towards him. You tell him to put it back or else you'll cut him into pieces and feed him to the dog. The kid puts the cookie back in the bag promptly (and suffers considerable trauma later, but that's besides the point). Can you say that your son put the cookie back of his own free will?

My argument is that when heavy consequences (such as ETERNAL damnation) weigh your decision to do something, it is nearly forcing you to make the decision towards avoiding the consequences. You can't help but make the decision. Ultimately, you are the one to make the decision, but not without considerable influence that possibly swayed your decision. That is not free will. Perhaps it is best to discuss free will broken up into degrees. There is a low degree of free will when weighed against threats of heavy consequences. If we have such a low degree of free will (if we are made to believe that these consequences will happen), then there is no glory in having free will at all. If God had simply told us: 'look, this is how it is, take it if you like, otherwise have a cup of tea and crumb and be on your merry way', then there is a considerably higher degree of free will and can thusly be significant enough to counter Epicurus' argument. However, that is not so simple to say. Consider this example:

A woman goes to work by walking every day, crossing a couple streets on her way. One morning, she takes her usual route with an urge to begin her day fresh. She steps out to cross the street - BAM! A bus from out of nowhere hits her and she lays on the ground for ten very long minutes before eventually dying due to shock and trauma. How does free will factor into this suffering? It does not, and therefore there exists suffering that is outside of relevant 'free will' and therefore we revert to Epicurus' argument: suffering exists. An uncountered point, by now.

[alchemi2]

Well this my only my own opinion but who are we to judge GODs morality, if i kill or torture someone that is that but GOD can undo all that is done so operates on a different level.

a) There are no innocents because all of mankind is born into sin.

b) Christ offered redemption for all that believed in him (and all children regardless of belief)

c) GOD tests his product quite harshly, look at JOB but his morality is out of our perception.

And finally surely the whole point of FAITH is that it requires faith, if you have irrevocable proof of GODs existence then there would be no point in free will, because free will is about mankinds choice to have faith not to make choice in the mortal world.

[Dante]

Separation of God's existence and morality isn't going to be very useful. For if it can be proven that god is the ultimate justifiable morality, it does not do much good if one does not believe in the existence of god. Likewise if god were to have proven existence, this serves only a little in determining moral authority.

But that's beside the point. Ignoring the brief points on evolution and science, which I feel will only detract from the argument if they are concentrated upon, lets talk about god and morality.

Now I could, as I sometimes do, play devil's advocate and use everyone else's arguments against them. There are holes in Gunwounds' assumptions. I think I'll ignore them for now. No, this time I'll argue from my own point of view.

Let us assume that god, in the generally accepted chrsitian sense, exists. He is therefore, by default, the ultimate moral authority. What god does is 'good' because god does it; what god condemns is 'bad' because god condemns it. There need not be further justification, because there is no higher word than god's. Human moral constructs and arguments cannot be applied to god because he is beyond them all and beyond our comprehension. Even to use such terms as 'beneficial in the long run' or 'for a greater good' are to miss the point; there need not be any benefit or even result of god's actions, they are good because that is the only way it can be. Appeals for 'mercy' or 'favour' or 'consideration' or 'forgiveness' or 'pity' and the like are useless, for god will do that which is just and will condemn that which is unjust, and there is nothing you can do about it. If you repent you may be saved, but only if it is the right thing to do. And it will have been the right thing to do if you are saved. If you are condemned, then that was also the right thing to do.

Are we sensing a pattern here? Mercy, pity, truth and the like are human constructs that attempt to structuralise morality into rules and regulations. They are worthless. If god decieves, it was right for him to decieve. If god condemns, it was right for him to condemn. He may apply different rules to mankind than to himself, for that is right also if it is god's will.

Now, you ask, why am I, a confirmed and staunch athiest, arguing in favour of god's moral authority? Thing is, I'm not. That was all just backstory. The point is that while god's moral authority would be absolute if he existed, he does not exist and therefore the question is null and void. One cannot attack god's moral authority without accepting at least the possibility of god existing, if one does not do that then all arguments on the subject are purely conjecture. It would be like debating the colour of goblin eyes if they existed. As far as we know, they don't. The argument is therefore purely academic. The same applies.

What conclusions are you meant to draw from this? That if I believed in god then I would be the most fanatical catholic for miles around (if you're going to do something then there's no point being wishy-washy about it). But I don't. And so therefore, all arguments relating to the morality of god are pointless. This applies both to those attempting to prove god's existence through his morality and those attempting to disprove it. There is no point in attempting to disprove god through morality because god's moral authority is self-justifying. The only way to defeat it is on human terms (mercy, compassion, objective good and evil, etc), which do not apply because god would be beyond them. If you apply these constructs to god then you are no longer dealing with god's moral authority, but with an authority that is answerable to man.

Whether god exists is another question entirely, and one which it is not necessary to delve into here. I have made my point. God does not exist and therefore the matter is void.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Consider a prisoner tied to a chair in front of you. In order to get him to confess, you threaten him to be tortured for a very long time. You scare him with what you're going to do with him if he doesn't confess. You then tell him that he will be free and available to many women if he does confess. A glimmer of hope shines in the prisoner's eye. He confesses (whether he did the crime or not). Now, can you say that this man confessed of his own free will?

Consider another example. You find your son taking a cookie out of the bag of cookies. You find the nearest knife and loom over him with it angled towards him. You tell him to put it back or else you'll cut him into pieces and feed him to the dog. The kid puts the cookie back in the bag promptly (and suffers considerable trauma later, but that's besides the point). Can you say that your son put the cookie back of his own free will?

My argument is that when heavy consequences (such as ETERNAL damnation) weigh your decision to do something, it is nearly forcing you to make the decision towards avoiding the consequences. You can't help but make the decision. Ultimately, you are the one to make the decision, but not without considerable influence that possibly swayed your decision. That is not free will. Perhaps it is best to discuss free will broken up into degrees. There is a low degree of free will when weighed against threats of heavy consequences. If we have such a low degree of free will (if we are made to believe that these consequences will happen), then there is no glory in having free will at all. If God had simply told us: 'look, this is how it is, take it if you like, otherwise have a cup of tea and crumb and be on your merry way', then there is a considerably higher degree of free will and can thusly be significant enough to counter Epicurus' argument. However, that is not so simple to say. Consider this example:

A woman goes to work by walking every day, crossing a couple streets on her way. One morning, she takes her usual route with an urge to begin her day fresh. She steps out to cross the street - BAM! A bus from out of nowhere hits her and she lays on the ground for ten very long minutes before eventually dying due to shock and trauma. How does free will factor into this suffering? It does not, and therefore there exists suffering that is outside of relevant 'free will' and therefore we revert to Epicurus' argument: suffering exists. An uncountered point, by now.

The problem with your examples Acriku is you are assuming that the person is under duress.  We are not.   Look at yourself... look at Dawkins.  God isnt looming over either of you.  You carry on with your merry little atheistic livves and you will never know the difference until you die.

Your arguements would be valid if God were appearing before you shining so bright that he blinded you and forced you to kneel before Him.  However, He isnt manifesting Himself for that very reason.  Also Hell is just a story to you... so its not like eternal damnation is really affecting your decision making processes Acriku.

This is why your examples break down.  Also, there are degrees of Free Will.  And when Jesus returns... there definitely will be less Free Will when He does his 1000 year reign.  As end times grow near God will remove some of our Free Will and replace it with a bit more divine control.

Free Will exists... and i believe that it can be increased or decreased by God just like it can be increased or decreased by man.  The stories you have narrated Acriku show instances where man was decreasing the degree of Free Will someone had.  If your stories had been reversed they would be about people having their Free Will increased.

God can do the same.  Your stories prove that Free Will is a substance which can be removed or added.  And if something can be removed or added.... it must exist in the first place.

And since we arent  under duress and we dont have 100% proof that God or Hell exists... we in fact have huge amounts of Free Will.

AS far as the lady and the bus.. that's just silly... if i fall out of a tree and break my arm... well that is life.  Walk out in front of a bus and you will get squash.  Cant blame God for making us fleshy bodies.  Thats just silly.

The more i think about it the more this mysterious mortal life makes sense.  The whole mystery of this life is so that we will choose God for teh idea of what he stands for and what He is...without knowing if he really exists. 

Its sorta like a rich man not letting a woman know he is rich... because he wants to see if she will love him for who he is.  Just like God wont show His overwhelming presence to us because He wants us to love/accept Him for who he is.  This faith based system is perfect actually for preservation of Free Will.  Its the only way it could work.