Have you read the Bible?

One of the things I hear a lot about "freethinkers" is that they prefer logic to sentimentalism. I don't like sentimentalism, which is judging things by how you feel about them instead of how they really are. But when I see actual works by freethinkers, I see that they actually are quite sentimentalists. For example, you rest your whole case on God being "egotistic" and "self-serving". Because having a big "ego" is an unattractive trait in humans, you somehow equated that word with the feeling of wrongness, such that simply thinking of that word becoming associated by Person X would make you dislike Person X. You fail to even attempt to analyze why we find egoism undesirable in the first place, and whether that reason could actually apply to God.

I hope you don't mind if I, the bumbling pie-in-the-sky-believing fool, try to do your job of logical analysis for you. We find egoism undesirable in a human because (1) human beings are quite obviously highly-limited and imperfect organisms and it would therefore be foolish for them to think too highly of themselves, and because (2) the self-interest of a single human being does not necessarily coincide with the needs of all men.

Now we have to ask: would the above objections against egoism apply to the Christian God (if he existed)? (1) The Christian God is the immortal creator of the universe, and so by definition would be less limited than the universe and therefore would have the unique privilege of deserving a large ego. Also, (2) the self-interest of the Christian God obviously coincides with our highest interests because he is the source of our very existence and our ultimate happiness.

Ergo, there is absolutely nothing wrong with God (if he existed) thinking highly of himself; it is what is expected of him given what he is. There is no moral obligation to complain of God's ego because his interests are the same as our ultimate interests. Your objections against God are therefore sentimental rubbish disguised as rational thought, but then that's really how most freethinkers roll when it comes to theological discussions. Hey, you do get what you pay for, after all!

If God does not exist then the world should have been the best it can be as far as the notion of 'best' for us humans is concerned. For the best of all wisdom has already been with the human race ever since the beginning of rationality. And that there has no other greater wisdom than that of what the human mind can ponder. I say there is God for the world is the best but through our human rationality alone, we can't understand how it has been the best. And that only that Divine Wisdom can truly reveal the truths which could prove the world being the best it can be.

'improbably' should have been 'improbable'.

In this post, to clarify, you are arguing that the existence of the Bible God is improbably given the existence of sin. Right?

Benji, God is a logical rational and moral being. When the Bible says that we were 'created in His image and likeness' it simply meant that we, unlike animals, had the ability to perceive these transcendental concepts.

There are some things God cannot do; He cannot create a circle that is a square; Likewise, such a thing is 'logically impossible' (God is a logical being, remember?).

So to answer your argument about the improbability of the Bible God given the 'Evil' in the world:

1. Firstly, God wants to create a HOLY and MORAL people
2. Morality is DEPENDENT on free-will
– There is a reason why we don't call a tree morally good for providing fruit to its owner – its not as if it could withhold its own production of fruit. Generosity is moral act, and as such is dependent on free-will.

3. God *logically* cannot accomplish #1 without giving us 'free-will'
4. Evil in this world is not evidence of an error on God's part, but evidence that He has successfully created a FREE-WILL agent.

If you would like to debate me, or have something you want to ask, I'm more than willing to answer or clarify anything.

i myself have long thought along your reasoning. but what's the point of having free will when you can't exercise it? i reap what i sow. cause and effect how scientific.

Leo

Re: Science, not all. Atheists are obviously free thinkers. You can't generalize. I would guess though that most would believe that science can explain lots of things in the universe – and even if science has limits, it is not an excuse to use religion as the source of the explanation.

So it isn't true that atheists only don't believe in Catholicism's God but also to all the gods of all known religions like Buddhism, Islam etc.?

Oh also, if atheists don't believe in the existence of a divine being (or a religious entity), do they believe that science is the ground zero of everything that exist?

I'm really just curious, this discussion is making me think hard.

A more secular approach of course makes the gray area and the concept of "right" a bit broader. Some atheists (and some religious people) may find any of these things "right" – divorce, abortion, stem cell research, same-sex marriage etc — and obviously, the judgment was made on the power of personal analysis of a given concept (not just basing it on what a church or a book said).

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of a divine being – most commonly referred to as a god. The reasons are varied through out the atheist population. The term "atheist" is a general term so expect quite a lot of differences between people who claim to be atheist.

This is an honest question, sorry. I really have no idea what it's all about. In 1 sentence, what is an atheist?