You seem to have an inbuilt denial of God's existence with your preconception of what you feel God could, or should do.
I can appreciate that. But let me say this:
If you support your opinion of God's non-existence by citing the poor state of things, then I ask that you afford me the same privilage. I could say the very opposite; that in spite of everything, there is so much love and good-will about me; so much joy to be had, for so many. And from that positive outlook, I can just as easily infer God's existence in love, as you can infer God's non-existence from evil and suffering.
Who has the better opinion? I ask. And really, that's all it is, an aesthetic opinion.
Truth is, we can project onto the universe any opinion we want, but in the end, it will have no effect on God's existence in actuality.
Penumbra certainly doesn't need me to defend her statements. Truth for truth, she can obviously do a much better job at that particular task than I can, anyway. But since this is an open forum and since I was passing by, so to speak, reading the posts, I thought I'd point out there doesn't appear to be any basis for some of your conclusions.
Now, perhaps you are basing your thoughts, quoted above, on some previous posts or a previous discussion/debate. But, to an outside observer, we don't really see what you're talking about, since you are responding directly to the following:
Originally Posted by
Penumbra
If there existed a god that cared one way or another whether I believed in it, then I would believe in it. It wouldn't be a difficult matter. It could tailor an appropriate set of proofs to fit each individual person.
A god that wants people to believe in it but does this bad of a job making itself known is pretty weak and likely shouldn't be given the title of a god. A god capable of making itself known but for whatever reason doesn't feel like it is fine I guess, but the question becomes less relevant.
Nowhere in that post do I read that she supports her opinion regarding God's existence, or lack thereof, due to the "poor state of things". She said quite directly and quite clearly, I thought, that her lack of belief in God derives from a lack of evidence for Him, a lack of communication on His part--communication he could appropriately taylor for each individual given God's supposed omnipotence. She clearly states that if a god wanted people to believe in its existence, then it is doing a horrible job at making itself known. She didn't say anything about 'evil and suffering'. It very well might be true that those things are a basis for her 'non-belief', but she didn't state that in the post to which you responded.
I certainly mean no offense to either of you. I just thought you might want to know how your reply appears to an outside observer. It seems that you are missing the point.
I too believe it would be weak reasoning to hold that God can't exist simply because there is evil and cruelty in the world. But beliefs formed from lack of evidence, from an overwhelming silence from God, from a starkly noticable refusal on His part to state definitively beyond question, "Here I am. This is what you must do to please me. Do it, if you will." --nonbelief based on the lack of that assurance from God seems obligatory, in that we should be obliged to refuse anything that a supposedly good God demands on blind faith. Because, let's face it, we have no idea whether it truly comes from God or some powerful devil just trying to make us think he is God.
Ehh, just my humble opinion.
If you are not searching then you will find you are already home.
