What if you KNEW there was a God.

[MormonChainMonteCarlo]

then faith as a concept would be rather meaningless, considering that it has now turned into fact

 

[LuisDantas]

I wonder. How often do believers see those parts of faith as significant, if at all?

 

[Thanda]

I don't think I'd like the biblical God much. It'd be too hypocritical for me to accept/pray to/worship the biblical God.

If there were a God, I'd have to hope the Bible was a corruption of the truth written by men. Seems to me that a lot of the Bible is just a collection of stories and myths. Maybe there is some truth but what are you going to do with it? Pick and choose whatever you like and discard what you don't?

Might as well create your own religious manual and fill it with whatever truths you discover for yourself.

Or you could ask God to help you pick and choose

 

[Thanda]

then faith as a concept would be rather meaningless, considering that it has now turned into fact

I don't think you understand faith. Even God has faith.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I wouldn't change a thing.

Whether your God is real or not isn't something I really care about.
If your God was real and If you had empirical evidence, then I would still reject Him.
I wouldn't deny that He exists, however, I wouldn't care that He does.

From my reading of the bible, my personal interpretations, there is nothing for me to respect of your God.
Quite the contrary, I have much to disrespect of Him and his son.

I reject God, real or not.

-

He created me? I didn't ask to be created.
He loves me? Doesn't mean I have to love him back.
I'll go to hell? Seems like a cooler place than heaven anyways.

I like this answer.

 

[Riverwolf]

How would your life be affected if video evidence was found of Moses parting the red Sea; Jesus walking on water; God using his own finger to write the ten commandments. And furthermore that video was brought to you by Jesus himself with Adam, Noah, Abraham with a few cherubim and some trumpets for good measure.

There's no such thing as "video evidence", really. Videos can be doctored. Besides, we don't know what any of those people looked like, so how would anyone know it was them for sure?

I'd most certainly question the authenticity if I saw European "cherubim" (the child-angels) wandering around with these guys, as they're not part of the original Lore at all.

If this happened, how do you think it would change you? Do you think you would start praying, stop lying, cease from pride and lust? Would you go preach the gospel? Would your political views change?

What I'm actually asking is, honestly speaking, how much of what you do, think and say that is contrary what the bible teaches - ten commandments, beatitudes etc. - is because of your uncertainty about the existence of God and the accuracy of the bible and how much of it is a result of you simply not being willing to live your life differently?

Assuming I could somehow confirm that it's all true, well... let's just say that I find a lot of inspiration in the stories of Prometheus and Robin Hood.

 

[Thanda]

There's no such thing as "video evidence", really. Videos can be doctored. Besides, we don't know what any of those people looked like, so how would anyone know it was them for sure?

I'd most certainly question the authenticity if I saw European "cherubim" (the child-angels) wandering around with these guys, as they're not part of the original Lore at all.

You perhaps don't realise just how important what you have just said is. People are always asking for evidence to know that there is a God but when you come down to it few actually know how much proof is "enough".

 

[LuisDantas]

You perhaps don't realise just how important what you have just said is. People are always asking for evidence to know that there is a God but when you come down to it few actually know how much proof is "enough".

I think you may be underestimating the role of the claims themselves on those requests.

Some claims just are not to be reasonably believed.

 

[Parsimony]

You perhaps don't realise just how important what you have just said is. People are always asking for evidence to know that there is a God but when you come down to it few actually know how much proof is "enough".

I have actually thought about this before and have come up with a couple of things that I would consider sufficient proof for myself:

- If I heard God tell me that He was going to perform some normally impossible feat (such as making my wisdom teeth grow back overnight) and it came to pass.
- If He gave me a very detailed prediction about some future event that would be nearly impossible to get right just by guessing (for example, giving me details about a future earthquake such as the date of its occurrence, the local time of day of its occurrence, location of its epicenter, its magnitude, the number of people killed, the cost of the damage done, etc. The more details given, the more believable it would be).

I would consider these to meet my burden of proof, unless I also discovered that these same kinds of things were verified to occur for other people who claimed that it was not the Abrahamic God, but rather some other entity (such as Shiva, Anubis, Thor, etc.) who told them these things instead. That would throw my uncertainty right back to square one. It would, however, make me a firm believer in the supernatural (even if I couldn't pinpoint who or what was responsible).

 

[Nakosis]

Or you could ask God to help you pick and choose

How would you know it's God that's is answering? How would you know it's not an hallucination or vision conjured by your subconscious mind?

Yes, I know you are certain you'd be able to tell the difference. Every conscious person assumes that. The problem is that consciously you are using only 2 to 5% of your brain. Your subconscious controls up to 98% of your brain of which you have no conscious access to. Your subconscious is a 1000 times faster and more powerful than you consciously and people have no idea how much they rely on the subconscious portion of the brain for their perception of reality.

The reason I mention that is because the subconscious mind is quite capable of providing you the experience of a relationship of whatever God you happen to believe in strongly enough.

So yes you might ask God and God might answer. You aren't really going to know if that is God or your subconscious mind providing you with the experience you seek.

That's not to imply that there is something wrong with you or folks who "experience" God. That's just to say the subconscious mind is very powerful. Powerful in a way you can't consciously understand because it's internal processes are hidden from you.

 

[Riverwolf]

You perhaps don't realise just how important what you have just said is. People are always asking for evidence to know that there is a God but when you come down to it few actually know how much proof is "enough".

I don't think you understand the whole context of what I'm saying.

I don't "need evidence" for the existence of any God, and so can remain a polytheist, because I understand that religious matters are separate from the matters that deal in evidence.

Besides, evidence and proof are not synonymous.

 

[VioletVortex]

If I knew there was a god, my thaughts would depend on what the god is.
If this god was the god of an Abrahamic religion, I would not follow him.
Those religions are very destructive. They incite wars, and their gods are very restrictive. Their teachings don't make any sense to me. All it is is "don't do this, you will burn forever in Hell."
That sounds like a good enough reason for most people, but why should one go to Hell for "sinning?"
You have to look at sin from the root. It isn't bad because some god says it is. Yes, some sin is bad.
Killing, for instance, is a sin in many religions. It is bad. It infringes on another perso's rights, the rights you would expect to have. Why kill an innocent person? It's different if they are doing something horribly wrong, but, under normal circumstances, killing is a bad thing.


Now, let's look at lust. Lust is natural instinct. Humans have two main natural drives: prey drive, and sex drive. The term "food drive" is more applicable to humans, now, because our brains are sophisticated enough to plan out the killing of food animals, and, also store and cook their meat, as opposed to us chasing down prey. We are also smart enough to understand our sex drive. In Christianity, this is called lust. This is where the intelligence ends, and is replaced by fear of nature.
Religions like Christianity say lust is bad, and has harmful effects. Without lust, humans wouldn't really be able to reproduce, at least with consent. Sex drive is a sign of a healthy mind.


Christianity cultivates the restriction of nature. It tells people's that natural, healthy things are "dirty."
Everything about nature is dirty to some Christians.


In Satanism, nature is embraced. That is why I like the philosophy so much.
Satan represents the Occult force that created nature, and still runs through it.


If I was sure of going to Hell, I would be confident that it is a good place.
If it exists, it's probably a forest. Souls do not burn. Pure Occult energy won't burn.


Sorry for this being so long, and deviating from the main topic. I'm just trying to state my reason behind choosing the Left Hand Path.

 

[Augustus]

Not "better" inherently, but at the very least I'm not going to adopt a morality out of convenience when I feel I have better reasons for following the morality that I already do. I can't just suddenly decide to "be okay" with genocide just because God tells me I should be and we arbitrarily designate God the arbiter of morality. If morality can be said to exist objectively in any way, there's no reason to assume that there couldn't be a morality than transcends God. I don't aspire to God's moral system, I aspire to something better, based on what I think are the best possible reasons for it. If God has better reasons, let God communicate those to me and I will change my mind. Otherwise, I'm not going to adopt a morality I find abhorrent just because I want some personal benefit out of it.

God wouldn't be the arbiter of morality 'arbitrarily', He would be it factually and objectively. There is no higher morality if we are accepting that the Christian version is true and anything that opposes God's will/plan is objectively harmful for society. You'd be like the Western communist apologists for Stalin, you thought you were helping humanity but you were just causing greater harm; a 'useful idiot' for the devil.

What about if God revealed that the true religion was ultra-Orthodox Judaism or Salafi Islam and required a major lifestyle change and had some teachings that went directly against your current morality.

Something like strict separation of the Sexes would be undeniably a command of God, would you object to it on the grounds that your morality disagrees?

I wouldn't be ignoring it - I'd be objecting to it. If someone tells me mass genocide is okay, I'm going to disagree with them - God or otherwise.

So you would say 'God, when you flooded the world to kill the sinners, probably made a mistake there chap'?

If you accept God as real, you have to accept that this was the objectively correct thing to do. It had a logic that you don't understand. Sometimes children don't agree with their parents telling them 'no' because they don't understand the logic behind it.

Even in the real world, human rationality is vastly overrated when seeking to see the 'big picture'. We really understand very little about complex systems and when we try to influence them we always get unexpected consequences.

Given that human knowledge of complex systems is very limited, and that global human society is a complex system, is it not unbelievably arrogant to assume you know more than a perfect all knowing God about something you factually know very little?

But it isn't ignoring the best objective evidence. My morality is based on understanding and empathy, not dictates. You can't just say "This is better because he says it's better", whether or not the "he" involved is God or nor. Morality doesn't work that way.

I would totally agree you are correct, now, but incorrect given the new information that confirms Gods existence and reveals the true form of Christianity to you it would be ridiculous not to have a major revision of your moral compass.

Not better, but as good as.

It's a tenet - perhaps THE most central tenet of the Christian faith - that humanity has acquired knowledge of good and evil. Deny this and you deny Christ's sacrifice.

In this situation, where you knew God was real and you knew factually the best form of Christianity to follow, the true Church, would you not create a new model framework based on the guidelines of this church? You would certainly know more about the difference between good and evil.

Let's say you knew indisputably that God was real and the Catholic Church was the true church. God told you to take your moral cues from them.

Would you oppose contraception?

I think it is immoral to oppose contraception now, but in this hypothetical new reality, I would have to say that opposing contraception was the morally correct thing to do as there was a divine reason for it.

You would have the strongest possible evidence to base your decision on and not doing so to stroke your own ego would be both irrational and immoral.

Or alternatively, what if God told you the Salafi Muslims had it right, would you become a conservative Muslim? This is probably a better example as it would require a more radical lifestyle change to comply with God's will. (assuming, of course, you were in no doubt as to God's objective existence)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

God wouldn't be the arbiter of morality 'arbitrarily', He would be it factually and objectively.

How?

There is no higher morality if we are accepting that the Christian version is true and anything that opposes God's will/plan is objectively harmful for society.

Again, how? God's morality isn't determined by what is best for society. God just decides what is right because that's what God decided is right. Owning slaves is harmful to society. Stoning adulterers is harmful to society. Forcing women to marry their rapists is harmful to society. God doesn't seem to care whether or not their standard is actually good for society or not.

You'd be like the Western communist apologists for Stalin, you thought you were helping humanity but you were just causing greater harm; a 'useful idiot' for the devil.

The difference being that the harm Stalin caused was clear and obvious. What harm would I be causing by adopting my own set of moral principles, based on doing the best I could for people around me, rather than God's arbitrarily dictated morality that isn't really beneficial to the lives of anyone?

What about if God revealed that the true religion was ultra-Orthodox Judaism or Salafi Islam and required a major lifestyle change and had some teachings that went directly against your current morality.

Something like strict separation of the Sexes would be undeniably a command of God, would you object to it on the grounds that your morality disagrees?

Since I've already said I would happily disagree with God's morality and adopt my own regardless, I don't really see the point in asking this question. The answer is obviously "yes".

So you would say 'God, when you flooded the world to kill the sinners, probably made a mistake there chap'?

Yep. Or, more accurately, "Doing that was immoral considering you have the power to literally do anything you want and yet decided on a cause of action that caused incredible suffering for no gain whatsoever, and that makes you an immoral monster and you should be ashamed of yourself you sadistic jerk."

If you accept God as real, you have to accept that this was the objectively correct thing to do.

Why?

It had a logic that you don't understand.

So why do I have to illogically jump to the conclusion that it was right before that logic is sufficiently explained to me? I already said I would adopt God's morality if God communicated the reasons for it and they were superior to my own.

Sometimes children don't agree with their parents telling them 'no' because they don't understand the logic behind it.

The difference is that a parent will still generally EXPLAIN their decision to their children. They don't just tell them "I shot your dog in the face for reasons I will never tell you and you'll never understand so don't both trying and just accept that it was the right thing to do". That's terrible parenting, and it's also terrible morality.

Even in the real world, human rationality is vastly overrated when seeking to see the 'big picture'. We really understand very little about complex systems and when we try to influence them we always get unexpected consequences.

But it's still the best we have. I'm not going to adopt God's standard unless I have a very good reason to, and I don't see any reason to throw away my human capacity for reason in deference to a God who's just going to tell me what to think. What would be the point in giving humans a logical brain and a moral compass if God's just going to dictate what we should think anyway?

Given that human knowledge of complex systems is very limited, and that global human society is a complex system, is it not unbelievably arrogant to assume you know more than a perfect all knowing God about something you factually know very little?

If God knows so much, then God should communicate their reasoning clearly to us. They shouldn't just tell us to follow their demands unquestioningly. I don't see why it's unreasonable to expect an all-knowing being to provide convincing reasons to adopt their moral system.

I would totally agree you are correct, now, but incorrect given the new information that confirms Gods existence and reveals the true form of Christianity to you it would be ridiculous not to have a major revision of your moral compass.

Why? You don't seem to have addressed the problem that God simply isn't a good or reliable determinant of objective morality.

In this situation, where you knew God was real and you knew factually the best form of Christianity to follow, the true Church, would you not create a new model framework based on the guidelines of this church? You would certainly know more about the difference between good and evil.

No I don't, I just know the Christian God exists. My understanding of the Christian God is that they are a largely immoral, sadistic bully who determines their morality to be the best morality for no good reason. I wouldn't need to revise my moral compass at all.

Let's say you knew indisputably that God was real and the Catholic Church was the true church. God told you to take your moral cues from them.

Would you oppose contraception?

No.

I think it is immoral to oppose contraception now, but in this hypothetical new reality, I would have to say that opposing contraception was the morally correct thing to do as there was a divine reason for it.

"God says so" isn't a reason, it's just a demand. God has demanded human and animal sacrifice in the past, and justified slavery, genocide and rape. I don't trust God's demands as an accurate description of objective morality. If God is truly moral, then God would understand and accept why I don't adopt their clearly malevolent dictatorship.

You would have the strongest possible evidence to base your decision on and not doing so to stroke your own ego would be both irrational and immoral.

I'd rather stroke my own ego than Gods. My morality is still superior.

Or alternatively, what if God told you the Salafi Muslims had it right, would you become a conservative Muslim?

Again, no. Since I've already told you I wouldn't change just because God demands me to, why do you think my answer to this question would be any different?

This is probably a better example as it would require a more radical lifestyle change to comply with God's will. (assuming, of course, you were in no doubt as to God's objective existence)

If God appeared to you right now and told you to kill your family, is that the correct and moral thing to do?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In this situation, where you knew God was real and you knew factually the best form of Christianity to follow, the true Church, would you not create a new model framework based on the guidelines of this church? You would certainly know more about the difference between good and evil.

The existence of God would be a fact that informs my views in general including moral views, like other facts. That's it.

Let's say you knew indisputably that God was real and the Catholic Church was the true church. God told you to take your moral cues from them.

Would you oppose contraception?

Have you actually read Humanae Vitae? I have. It's based on a logical fallacy (inference from apparent design) and applies its argument in an inconsistent - IMO hypocritical - way (the argument it gives condemns cars and treadmills as strongly as it condemns birth control and artificial insemination). It wouldn't be true or valid even if God existed.

BTW: did you understand the point I made in my last point? Your reply had nothing to do with what I said, so I'm really not sure if you did.

 

[Thanda]

Again, how? God's morality isn't determined by what is best for society. God just decides what is right because that's what God decided is right. Owning slaves is harmful to society. Stoning adulterers is harmful to society. Forcing women to marry their rapists is harmful to society. God doesn't seem to care whether or not their standard is actually good for society or not.

And there is your problem. You have made an assumption that, while you think about what is best for society when coming up with your morals, God just tosses a coin. The far more logical and fair thing to conclude (in the spirit of being charitable to your adversary) is to start by assuming that their intentions are in the "right" place as you would have us assume of yours. Having done that you would have to then ask, on a balance of probabilities, who is more likely between you and God to know what is best for humanity? In fact since God is the creator of the whole universe we would also have to take into account that God's intentions are likely for the good the entire universe (that would include animals plants and whatever other life there might be).

Secondly, there is there is the question of knowledge. You want to do what is best for humanity, so does God. You don't even know a fraction of humanity. God knows each person's heart and name and knows how many hairs are on their head. There are two implications to this: First that means that even if you wanted you can't and don't love everyone - that seriously handicaps your ability to build morals that will be for the best of humanity. Secondly you don't know what every one wants and needs which is another serious handicap to your ability to build superior morals.

Another aspect of knowledge is the afterlife. With God in the picture the after life becomes a reality. So far one of the pillars of your morals has been based on the fact that this life is it: people need to enjoy their lives as much as they can while they are still alive. The introduction of an after life means that you need to balance what will be good for you in this life with what will be good for you in the life to come, especially in light of the fact that the life to come will be infinitely longer than the present life. Thus your morals are again found to be seriously deficient. It is like a kid coming up with a policy for how to have as much fun at school without taking into account many years he will spend outside of school. A kid who decides to base his school conduct on the desire to enjoy his whole life will have a superior school-conduct "morality" than the child who considers only his school days as being relevant.

In the final analysis, therefore, words like "stoning adulterers is harmful to society" are empty unless we have the proper facts about the effects of adultery on the whole society (meaning all the hurt that it causes to wives, children and the offenders themselves both in this life and the next) vs the effects of not stoning them. You make the assumption that, regardless of any facts you may not be aware of, your knowledge of what is good and bad for society is better than God's and your morality is therefore superior. This sounds like you're saying "my morality is better than God's because I came up with it".

If that is what you're saying then that is like a child arguing with a teacher who marked a certain answer he gave as wrong. When the teacher asks the child why the child thinks his answer is right he replies, "because it is my answer".

 

[Thanda]

The difference is that a parent will still generally EXPLAIN their decision to their children. They don't just tell them "I shot your dog in the face for reasons I will never tell you and you'll never understand so don't both trying and just accept that it was the right thing to do". That's terrible parenting, and it's also terrible morality.

Note that the parent usually explains AFTER the child asks for an explanation

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And there is your problem. You have made an assumption that, while you think about what is best for society when coming up with your morals, God just tosses a coin. The far more logical and fair thing to conclude (in the spirit of being charitable to your adversary) is to start by assuming that their intentions are in the "right" place as you would have us assume of yours.

Are you serious? When a dictator enacts mass genocide, do you "in the spirit of being charitable" assume their intentions were in the right place? Can you honestly say that?

Having done that you would have to then ask, on a balance of probabilities, who is more likely between you and God to know what is best for humanity?

Just because you know what is right doesn't mean you are DOING what is right. The God of the Bible is well known for being dishonest or manipulative with the truth and for changing their mind about what was moral and what wasn't. That means anything God tells us is still up for debate - especially since the God of the Bible is known for constantly testing his creation. Even if none of this were the case, I would still oppose God's morality until such a time as he chose to explain to me why it is superior. I'm not going to blindly assume they're right when all reason and logic indicates to me that what they are doing is wrong.

In fact since God is the creator of the whole universe we would also have to take into account that God's intentions are likely for the good the entire universe (that would include animals plants and whatever other life there might be).

And that is an assumption on YOUR part. I'm not making any assumptions other than "until such a time as God can show me that their morality is justified, I will continue to believe that it isn't."

Secondly, there is there is the question of knowledge. You want to do what is best for humanity, so does God.

Another assumption.

You don't even know a fraction of humanity. God knows each person's heart and name and knows how many hairs are on their head. There are two implications to this: First that means that even if you wanted you can't and don't love everyone - that seriously handicaps your ability to build morals that will be for the best of humanity. Secondly you don't know what every one wants and needs which is another serious handicap to your ability to build superior morals.

I know for a fact that a being who loves everyone would not drown them all in a flood. I know for a fact that a being that loves everyone would not give children cancer. If my inability to comprehend how these acts help humanity, then I'm not the one with the severely handicapped morality.

Another aspect of knowledge is the afterlife. With God in the picture the after life becomes a reality. So far one of the pillars of your morals has been based on the fact that this life is it: people need to enjoy their lives as much as they can while they are still alive. The introduction of an after life means that you need to balance what will be good for you in this life with what will be good for you in the life to come, especially in light of the fact that the life to come will be infinitely longer than the present life. Thus your morals are again found to be seriously deficient. It is like a kid coming up with a policy for how to have as much fun at school without taking into account many years he will spend outside of school. A kid who decides to base his school conduct on the desire to enjoy his whole life will have a superior school-conduct "morality" than the child who considers only his school days as being relevant.

This is just a round-about way of stating that morality is for personal gain. It isn't. I don't give a toss about the afterlife, and I think any God that grants anyone eternal punishment or eternal reward for finite deeds is substantially less moral than I am. Again, this is all pending explanation, but I refuse to assume that something that I find morally abhorrent is justified without reasons and explanation.

In the final analysis, therefore, words like "stoning adulterers is harmful to society" are empty unless we have the proper facts about the effects of adultery on the whole society (meaning all the hurt that it causes to wives, children and the offenders themselves both in this life and the next) vs the effects of not stoning them.

So what is your opinion? Is not stoning adulterers more harmful to society than stoning them?

You make the assumption that, regardless of any facts you may not be aware of, your knowledge of what is good and bad for society is better than God's and your morality is therefore superior.

But I make that assumption for good reasons. Your assumptions that God is good, however, and that all of their actions MUST be necessarily justified is utterly baseless.

This sounds like you're saying "my morality is better than God's because I came up with it".

No, my morality is superior to one which says "God is right regardless of what they say". I can't judge my standard against God's accurately until God explains their standard to me. Until then, I feel free to judge their standard as inferior to my own, and the standards of anyone who blindly accepts God's standard as good to be SEVERELY inferior to my own.

If that is what you're saying then that is like a child arguing with a teacher who marked a certain answer he gave as wrong. When the teacher asks the child why the child thinks his answer is right he replies, "because it is my answer".

And your attitude is one of accepting whatever the teacher says regardless of whether or not it is properly explained or makes any sense whatsoever. If a teacher tells you that the best way to show love to humanity is to kill almost all of it in a flood, I think it's perfectly reasonable to raise your hand and ask the teacher "Where did get your teaching qualification, exactly?"

Note that the parent usually explains AFTER the child asks for an explanation

Wrong. A good parent will usually explain why something is wrong almost immediately. In any case, I'm not saying I wouldn't ask.

 

[Thanda]

Are you serious? When a dictator enacts mass genocide, do you "in the spirit of being charitable" assume their intentions were in the right place? Can you honestly say that?

Yes. Take Saddam Hussein for example. No doubt he ruled his people with an iron fist. America went in to "liberate" the people. They gave them the "miracle cure" of all societal problems: democracy. The people have been killing each other ever since. So it turns out that Saddam was not so dumb.

Just because you know what is right doesn't mean you are DOING what is right. The God of the Bible is well known for being dishonest or manipulative with the truth and for changing their mind about what was moral and what wasn't. That means anything God tells us is still up for debate - especially since the God of the Bible is known for constantly testing his creation. Even if none of this were the case, I would still oppose God's morality until such a time as he chose to explain to me why it is superior. I'm not going to blindly assume they're right when all reason and logic indicates to me that what they are doing is wrong.

True. But you have no credible reason why God wouldn't be doing what is right. Your belief that he would do the wrong thing even when he knows what is right is baseless. That God has done things you don't approve of is no proof that God does the wrong thing when he knows what is right. You don't know what's right (in the universal scheme of things) and you therefore can pass no credible judgement on whether or not God is a hypocrite.

You are like the man who knows nothing about business who accuses a business man of being heartless for retrenching half his workforce when in reality he just saved half his workforce from being jobless in the near future. The prudent thing is to always ask first before passing judgement.

And that is an assumption on YOUR part. I'm not making any assumptions other than "until such a time as God can show me that their morality is justified, I will continue to believe that it isn't."

Yes I notice that you are only willing to make assumptions that God is evil.

I know for a fact that a being who loves everyone would not drown them all in a flood. I know for a fact that a being that loves everyone would not give children cancer. If my inability to comprehend how these acts help humanity, then I'm not the one with the severely handicapped morality.

Why wouldn't he? When a student continually fails at a university do they not dismiss him from the university? I know what you're thinking, "But it not the same the university students doesn't die". Well, neither did the people in the flood. Their simply left their bodies. They are still very much alive today as you and I are.

Your inability to understand how pain and suffering ultimately benefit humanity is actually surprising. You seem to be of the opinion that great people are made from pain free lives. Do yourself a favour. Look up all the great people in history that you know (those who are great according to you standards) and try and do a calculation to check how many of them had problem free lives. And though correlation is not causation most people recognize that without adversity people would never become great.

This is just a round-about way of stating that morality is for personal gain. It isn't. I don't give a toss about the afterlife, and I think any God that grants anyone eternal punishment or eternal reward for finite deeds is substantially less moral than I am. Again, this is all pending explanation, but I refuse to assume that something that I find morally abhorrent is justified without reasons and explanation.

No you got the wrong end of the stick. I'm saying God's morality takes into account people's post earth life. Yours only takes into account their earthly existence. Therefore you model is missing at least one very important variable.

And it is not about what one grants or doesn't. A university grants / awards people degrees actually people either qualify for degrees or they don't. The university awarding it is a mere formality. God grants eternal reward or punishment to those who qualify themselves for either.

So what is your opinion? Is not stoning adulterers more harmful to society than stoning them?

My opinion is irrelevant - I want what is best for humanity in the long (eternal) run. I have no means by which to judge what that is by myself.

But I make that assumption for good reasons. Your assumptions that God is good, however, and that all of their actions MUST be necessarily justified is utterly baseless.

You think your reasons are good. You don't know what good reasons are and aren't. My assumption is that both you and God are doing what you think is best. Whether it is good or not I cannot judge with my limited knowledge. But what I know is that God has more information with which to judge what is best than you do.

No, my morality is superior to one which says "God is right regardless of what they say". I can't judge my standard against God's accurately until God explains their standard to me. Until then, I feel free to judge their standard as inferior to my own, and the standards of anyone who blindly accepts God's standard as good to be SEVERELY inferior to my own.

And yet despite your confession that you can't judge God's standard you actually have already judged both it and him repeatedly in our conversation.

So a child who obeys his parents despite not understanding (even when parents explain a child will not always understand) all the reason for all their rules has an inferior standard than the kid who does only what makes sense to him? And yes, in comparison to an all knowing being you are a child.

And your attitude is one of accepting whatever the teacher says regardless of whether or not it is properly explained or makes any sense whatsoever. If a teacher tells you that the best way to show love to humanity is to kill almost all of it in a flood, I think it's perfectly reasonable to raise your hand and ask the teacher "Where did get your teaching qualification, exactly?"

My attitude would be one of curiosity and asking the teacher why my answer is wrong. If Stephen Hawkings told me one plus one isn't actually two - I would be all ears to hear what explanation he is about to give. My first assumption would not be that he is crazy and wrong, but rather that he is about to teach me some wonderful new mathematical principle I had not understood before.

Wrong. A good parent will usually explain why something is wrong almost immediately. In any case, I'm not saying I wouldn't ask.

So you would pray then?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Yes. Take Saddam Hussein for example. No doubt he ruled his people with an iron fist. America went in to "liberate" the people. They gave them the "miracle cure" of all societal problems: democracy. The people have been killing each other ever since. So it turns out that Saddam was not so dumb.

You realize you've just openly equated your god to a genocidal dictator, right?