Answering Askegg via Twitter part 5

Well Andrew, aka Askegg, has responded to my previous post from last week. I appreciate him taking the time to give a whole blog entry to our discussion. I will do so in kind. My response will again be in red and his original post to which I am responding can be read here.

…and around we go.

// July 13th, 2009 // Blog

Once again Marcus has responded, but seems to miss the point of my arguments so far. In typical deluded theist fashion he has once again failed to give me an adequate explanation for the arguments put forward, and quotes the Bible as if it’s some kind of authoritative source.

The Bible is an authorative source especially when you take it out of context and say it says something it does not say. I understand your arguments and find them wanting.

Marcus raises a few points which I cannot help respond to, but not for the reasons you might think. There are statements in his latest reply which really underline the fact that no amount of evidence or rational, logical constructions will convince him otherwise. He has made up his mind, and nothing will convince him otherwise.

It's not about me being right. God is right.

So this will be my last reply to Marcus, but not because I think he has won or I am painted into a corner. I am slowly learning that people need to come to their senses in their own time, in their own way. My hope with these conversations has always to be to drop that one gem of doubt and questioning into someone’s mind – as happened to me. I realise now that this is largely a pointless exercise. These people are sent for our amusement, and should not be engaged in meaningful debate unless you have countless hours to waste.

Conversing about such things is important. A viewpoint that fails to stand up to scrutiny is not worth defending let-alone believing. Biblical Christianity stands no matter what you or I think. It's only pointless if you do not think about both sides. If you look at our conversations as a waste of time, I'm sorry. I don't. I truly care about you and don't want to see you miss a great opportunity - to know God for yourself. I can't argue into it. That's not my goal. Your assertion is that there is no good reason or evidence to put your faith in the God of the Bible - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The one who spoke our reality into existence. This is plainly not true. I can't allow you to say that without challenging you with the truth.

As usual, Marcus’s responses are quoted below, with my comments underneath.

Yes, Jesus knew He was going to die. And He knew it was going to hurt. He also knew He did not deserve it. He know You and I deserve it. A sacrifice means giving up something that you don’t have to give up. He chose to give up His life and pay for our sins. He paid the penalty of sin for us. That does not mean that He had to stay dead.

It’s the “did not deserve it” part that bothers me here. As I have outlined previously, we are lead to believe that Jesus is God, and therefor he is responsible for the creation of the universe (according to the awful arguments from design, and ignorance). An omniscient being could not help but foresee and predict ever consequence of ever action, ever. God, knowing who would sin first and his punishment, would have also known billions of others since he came to Earth to kill himself would reject him and be sent to Hell. For this we are meant to praise him? Fuck that.

In addition, who says the price of sin is death? Who sets the penalty? Can the penalties be changed? What would an all loving being do – forgive us anyway?

Sin is a tresspass against God himself. He sets the bar and the penalty. Who is any of us to argue that He is wrong. Think about that. If someone steals something from you, don't you have the right demand restitution? Doesn't justice demand it? I have stated that I understand your point about God's omniscience and that He has set all this up. I just disagree with how you have chosen to respond to this. Think about it. Really, think about what you are saying. You are saying that the one who gave you life, the one you owe everything to...everything you are or ever will be is not worthy of your love or worship. If God lowered the standard and gave everyone a pass, how is that justice? How is that fair? A loving God must also be just. A loving God must also be merciful. God chooses to show mercy by saving those who put their faith in Jesus. Setting aside the question on how we come to choose Jesus for a minute...the bottom line is that if we do we are saved. You are consciously and on purpose choosing to reject Jesus and then complain about getting what you deserve. How rational is that? It is not.

Who says you are free now? We are in bondage to sin. You feel it. You know that. You look at the standard in the Bible for what Holiness looks like and you know you can never meet that. Jesus came to free us from our inability to live up to that. He didn’t come to free us from that standard. Is there free will in Heaven? I don’t know. What i do now it’s gonna be better than what we got now.

You are obviously talking about a different kind of free will to the one I am referring to. I have been talking about the freedom to choose as you please. For example: Are you free to eat when you please, or is this an irresistible urge driven by your bodies need for fuel? Are you free to chose what you want to eat, or is that the eventual result of what happens to be available at the time and a incredibly complex series of biochemical reactions in your brain and body?

Is there any decision we could make that would surprise God? If God is all knowing, then the answer must be “no”. We only have the apparent illusion of free will. We think we are free to choose, but it has all been designed, conceived, and set into play by an all knowing being to fulfil some grand divine plan.

I have understood and completely have been using the same definition of "Free Will" you have. And I have stated that we don't have free will because we don't have the ability to completely choose never to sin. That is why we need a savior. This is why we need Jesus. And I agree Jesus is never surprised by any decision we make and I'd argue that sometimes we make descisions that He himself determines - whenever we do somthing "good". And we agree God has a plan to fulfill and there is nothing you can do to mess it up.

The Bible promises that on Judgement day we will see what complete justice and mercy looks like. No one will have any excuse. Everyone will know that God is right in everything He has done. The Bible also promises no tears and no suffering for those who are spending eternitiy with Him that means that we won’t be witnessing the suffering of those who are in Hell. This isn’t conjecture this is what the Bible teaches. If you want take issue with, you have to take it up with God. I didn’t write it. Another thing is true repentence comes from responding to the love of God not from the fear of hell and eternal punishiment.

A little bit of unfounded Biblical assertion as truth, mixed with some Pascal’s wager, and a dash of “nobody knows, but I’m sure she’ll be right mate.”

I didn't say "nobody knows". What I said and you said is that from my Worldview that God knows exactly everything. The best answer I can give is what the Bible says. Thanks for agreeing that I correctly gave a Biblical argument. Coming from you, that makes me feel good. Do you have a better answer? Let me guess because the only answer atheism can offer is that none of imatter because we cease exist when we die and life has no purpose other than what we give it. How is that better? How does that make sense? How do you prove that? You can't. You have no objective proof of the atheistic conclusion.

You still havern’t proved that God does not exist.

You can’t prove a negative.

Marcus, let me try to illustrate. You have not proved Allah does not exist. By your own argument, he therefore must exist. You can’t prove I do not have a diamond the size of a refrigerator in my backyard, but that says nothing about the truth of my claim I do. It’s a stupid fucking argument.

Andrew, the only way you can prove that God, as I understand him, does not exist is to prove that the Bible is a lie. You can't. The Bible and Koran conflict. They both can't be true. Therefore if the Bible is true and the Koran is not, then by definition Allah does not exist. The burden of proof that the Bible is false is on you. As far as the analogy you used we can confirm if you have a diamond the size of a refrigerator in your backyard it can be confirmed by looking in your yard. The Bible's validity can be tested on many points. We've been over this over and over again. You've brought up thing where it's wrong and I've answered each one and showed why the Bible is true and you are misinformed and you have provided no counter. The stupid argument is yours.

God can do whatever He wants to do. He will have mercy on whom He willl have mercy. Read Romans 9.

And those God does not “choose to have mercy on”? What about them?

Another big fuck up here is apparently everything God does is totally moral, just, and perfect. He can (and has) murdered millions, yet his hands are clean. For some reason, God’s morality is not the same as ours (to spite being made in his image). We have built a society where murderers are isolated from the general population, and in some cases removed from the gene pool altogether. Yet, this judgement on God for exactly the same (and worse) atrocities is not allowed. Amazing.

By living and breathing, and not sending you to hell right now, God is having mercy on you. God's morality is not the same as ours. You said it yourself when you admitted that the moral standards and precepts defined in the Bible are higher than anyone could possibly meet. God knows what He's doing and you don't know what He's doing. Again can the clay pot call the potter who made it to the carpet to answer to the design decisions that the potter made? Nope! Read Issiah 55 (by the way, I will continue to use the Bible as an authority since you refuse to refute my refutations on Biblical validity).

No where does God say that anyone, who has the opportunity to accept/reject Christ, get a free pass to heaven. The truth is i have been given too much information…too much light….to get a free pass. He isn’t going to give me a free pass. I’m going to have to live the way He says because I belong to Him. Jesus paid a high price and being aware of that and accepting that brings consequences just as rejecting if bring awful consequences. I’m getting this from the Bible which you can’t prove to be false.

It is trivial to prove the Bible wrong, but centuries of apologetics and a dim mind lets any excuse pass as a rational explanation for the obvious flaws.

If it's so trivial to prove the Bible wrong, why haven't you. You provided many things that you thought were problems in the Bible and I have answered them. If there were points that you thought that I didn't answer why not bring them back up and we can deal with them. Otherwise you stand refutted.

Also interesting that neither of them are supported in the Bible either. Could God had somehow intervened to maskes sure those ideas were squashed? Yes He did.

Oh I see – God suppressed the incorrect religions of the world, but somehow managed to miss Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Scientology, Catholicism, and all other others. He just picked on a few slightly different versions of Christianity that happened to be conflicting with your at one point in history. Riiiiight.

That is not what I said. The two incorret "-isms" you listed were flavors of Christianity, not separate religions. Judgement begins at the house. God is correcting all the false imaginations and religions of the world. He's just not doing it in the way you think He should. But it's not about you or me. He really is in control and doing as He sees fit. You are just rejecting the truth because you don't like it.

Okay, that is similar to how I look at it…almost. The future is not something that God just knows about. It’s something that he controls and guides.

Preciously. So tell me how we escape his control and guidance? The morality God has placed in me judges him to be a complete bastard, and I want nothing to do with him. Thank Christ he does not exist!

What does your morality say about you? If you would damned God, then that means you will surely damn youself and see no redeeming quality in yourself. You would see that you deserve hell. You are no different than anyone of us. I am the worse sinner that I know. You are worse sinner that you know. If you want to be free, you will go to Jesus. If not, you are responsible for your sins.

Yes, Hell will suck and I’m not going because Jesus paid for my sins on the cross so I don’t has to go. Now, I’d be way more worried about these verses if I were you.

First you say that Hell is not described in the Bible, so I show you some verses that do. Now you’re admitting it’s a scary place and I should be worried about it. Pascal’s wager again? Seriously?

I did not say that Hell is not described in the Bible. I said that how you described hell was not in the Bible. You said that in hell that "white hot pokers shoved into their eyes and their intestines gnawed by rats". That is not Bible.

You don’t actively interfere in everyone of your daughters decisions even if you know that sometimes it will cause them pain. If you did, they would never learn from failure. They would never grow. God does the same with us.

So God builds a universal system to inflict pain to teach us a lesson. If you don’t learn that lesson you will suffer in the most unimaginable pain for ever more. Nice guy.

Who's fault is it that don't learn it? It's not God's fault. It's your fault.

There is plenty evidence that the gospel account is the best explanation for the facts that we know.

Hahahahaaaa.

I provided evidence. You never refuted it. Laughing is not a defense.

There are hundreds of supposed events that are not supported by any evidence at all, but you believe what you want.

All you have to do is prove the Bible false and my who arguement collapases. This you have failed to do.

No – you have failed to listen and think.

I did listen. I made refutations. And you have offered nothing in rebuttal. You failed not then Bible.

You know nothing. The Bible says Eve was tricked. Adam was not tricked. He knew what he was doing. Eve thought that she was doing the right thing. Adam damned us. It wasn’t on Eve.

Adam was tricked by Eve. Douche.

Name-calling is the refuge of those who have no argument. Where does the Bible say that Adam was tricked? It doesn't. "Through one man, sin entered the world." (Romans 5:12) and 1 Timothy 2:14 says "And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

You are right. That is not how you get a good number. I only used that number because It seems to me that the Old Testament only covers that amount not that it is the age of the earth. The Bible does not claim that the geneologies in Genesis give the names and ages of everyone. Remember what I tweeted earlier: hebrew geneologies are not exhaustive. They only hit the high points.

So the Earth is not 6,000 years old? I wonder if your estimation is anywhere near the scientific one of 4.54 billion years, which is verified by independent and mutually supporting lines of inquiry? That’s one large magnitude of error, but of course the Bible is correct regardless of any evidence to the contrary – right?

If your claim that “they only hit the high points” is correct, then a notable person does not come along that often. Your error is 756,666 times OFF the actual estimate! So what are we lead to believed happened? Adam started a book and wrote his name in it, then every one worthy afterwards did the same? Or was is that some drugged up goat herder was inspired by the holy spirit to write down a few names? You seriously consider these kind of explanations plausible? No wonder you will believe any old crap told to you.

It's not my estimate. I never claimed to know the age of the earth or universe. The Bible does not give us that information. It's not a Bible error. It's yours. When I was in college I worked out a physics calculation of the age of the earth. You may find it useful Mathematic and Theology - The Age of the Earth.

If this bothers you..the fault is in how people have used the Bible not in the Bible itself.

…and poof! Any error found in the Bible are not errors after all. They are just our misunderstandings of the Bible. The Bible is perfect except where we have shown it is not, in which case the Bible is perfect and we are still wrong.

Idiotic.

"Denial" is not just a river in Africa. You have not proven the Bible is false. You have nothing.

Sunday Quote: Anthony Flew on the Resurrection - Apologetics 315

Again another great quote from Apologetics 315. This time from philosopher Anthony Flew.

“The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It's outstandingly different in quality and quantity.”

- Antony Flew

Why is this important? Anthony Flew is one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century and until very recently was an avowed atheist. He changed his mind and has become a theist in his old age because of the evidence of science coming to light during the recent decades. He has not become a Christian but he agrees that there is a God who created the universe he just doesn't believe the Bible or the Koran correctly describes this deity. I disagree with his conclusion about Christianity, but at least Flew also recognizes that the resurrection has good evidence although he rejects it because of the implications implied by Jesus' resurrection if it were true. This change is a major one. The man has for decades said and taught that there was no good evidence for God and now realizes that he wrong. Hopefully he'll come the whole way to becoming a Christian before he dies.

Sunday Quote: Anthony Flew on the Resurrection - Apologetics 315

Richard Dawkins - 'Why?' questions

Here is a video in which Richard Dawkins explains why he thinks certain questions are meaningless.





The question being asked is about the meaning of life. Dawkins said he thinks that it is a silly question. He equates it to asking what color is Jealousy? I disagree. I does not make sense to to equate the two. There are some questions that don't make sense. For example: What does a four-sided triangle look like? There are no four-sided triangles. By definition, they do not exist. Applying the same logic to the meaning of life - the purpose of life is presupposing that there is no purpose...no meaning. That is dangerous because no once could really honestly say that there is no purpose just because you don't know what it is. It's giving a non-answer to a legitmate question.

Is Calvinism Biblical

James White vs Dave Hunt

Why You Should Be A Christian. Response to Richard Carrier Pt 3/6

A well-written essay is on the internet called, "Why I am Not Christian" by Richard Carrier (on the left). It's long, respectful, and well written. It compels a response. His criticisms of Christians are well founded but his charges against God are mistaken and unfounded. The essay was written in 2006 and is divided into six parts. I'm going to interact with his responses and divide my essay also into six parts. His words will be in black and mine will be red. His Top four reasons for rejecting Christianity are: 1. God is Silent. 2. God is inert. 3. Inadequate evidence for God. 4. Christianity predicts a different universe. Here is my refutation of point 2.

2. God is Inert

The God proposed by the Christian hypothesis is not a disembodied, powerless voice whose only means of achieving his desires is speaking to people, teaching them to do what's right. The Christian God is an Almighty Creator, capable of creating or destroying anything, capable of suspending or rewriting the laws of nature, capable of anything we can imagine. He can certainly do any and every moral thing you or I can do, and certainly much more than that, being so much bigger and stronger and better than we are in every way. All this follows necessarily from the definition of mere Christianity, and therefore cannot be denied without denying Christianity itself.

I think any Bible believing Christian would agree with the above paragraph.

It's a simple fact of direct observation that if I had the means and the power, and could not be harmed for my efforts, I would immediately alleviate all needless suffering in the universe. All guns and bombs would turn to flowers. All garbage dumps would become gardens. There would be adequate resources for everyone. There would be no more children conceived than the community and the environment could support. There would be no need of fatal or debilitating diseases or birth defects, no destructive Acts of God. And whenever men and women seemed near to violence, I would intervene and kindly endeavor to help them peacefully resolve their differences. That's what any loving person would do. Yet I cannot be more loving, more benevolent than the Christian God. Therefore, the fact that the Christian God does none of these things--in fact, nothing of any sort whatsoever--is proof positive that there is no Christian God.

This argument assumes that if God is good, He is obligated to stop pain and suffering. Why? This is not rational. If God did not allow suffering we would not be able to become better that what we are. No one likes it. But for everything that happens that seems bad to us God has a purpose!

¹Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, ²through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. ³Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; ⁴perseverance, character; and character, hope. ⁵And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us. -Romans 5:1-5

If God at least did something, however much we might still argue about what that action meant about his ability, character, and desires, we would at least have evidence (and therefore reason to believe) that a God existed, maybe even the Christian God. And there are many things any god could do. He could make all true bibles indestructible, unalterable, and self-translating. He could make miraculous healing or other supernatural powers so common an attribute of the virtuous believer that they would be scientifically studied and confirmed as surely as any other medicine or technology. He could, as I've already explained, speak to all of us in the same voice, saying the same things. He could send angels to appear to us on a regular basis, performing all manner of divine deeds and communications--exactly as the earliest Christians thought he did.

God did do something!

⁶You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. ⁷Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. ⁸But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. ⁹Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! ¹⁰For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! ¹¹Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation - Romans 5:6-11

God saved us, personally and completely. You can't get mad at God for not saving us the way you think He should have.

The possible evidences a God could provide are endless, though none might be sufficient to prove we have the Christian God. To prove that, this evident God would have to act as the Christian hypothesis predicts. For example, only those who believe in the true Christian Gospel would be granted the supernatural powers that could be confirmed by science; only true Christian Bibles would be indestructible, unalterable, and self-translating; and the Divine Voice would consistently convey to everyone the will and desires of the Christian message alone. But God does none of these things--nothing at all.

God chose not to validate His existence the way you suggest. God has an answer as to why He doesn't do it that way.

¹ If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, ² and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," ³ you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. ⁴ It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. - Deuteronomy 13:1-4

A Christian can rightly claim he is unable to predict exactly what things his God would choose to do. But the Christian hypothesis still entails that God would do something. Therefore, the fact that God does nothing is a decisive refutation of the Christian hypothesis. Once again, a prediction is made that consistently fails to pan out. Instead, we observe the exact opposite: a dumb, mechanical universe that blindly treats everyone with the same random fortune and tragedy regardless of merit or purpose. But that's a fact we'll examine later. For now, it is enough to note that we do not observe God doing good deeds, therefore there is no God who can or wants to do good deeds--which means Christianity is false.

I completely disagree, everything that happens for a reason. Just because things don't go the way you think they should, why assume that God does nothing?!

Excuses won't fly here, either, because a loving being by definition acts like a loving being. It is a direct contradiction to claim that someone is loving yet never does what a loving person does--because the name refers to the behavior. To be loving literally means to be loving. You can't be heartless and claim to be loving. As Christ himself is supposed to have said, "it is by their fruits that shall ye know them." The only possible exception here is when a loving person is incapable of acting as he desires--either lacking the ability or facing too great a risk to himself or others--but this exception never applies to a God, who is all-powerful and immune to all harm. This exception also never applies to any human so absolutely that she can never act loving. Even the most limited and constrained person there is can at least do something that expresses their loving nature. Indeed, if it were ever truly possible to completely prevent this, a truly loving person would probably prefer death to such a horrible existence. And a loving God would be no different. Failing to act in a loving way would be unbearable for a loving being. From having the desire and the means to act in a loving way, it follows necessarily that God would so act. But he doesn't. Therefore, again, the Christian God does not exist.

What gives us the right as created humans to suggest that we should know how God should act. What He should do. Makes no sense. How do you know that what you think is the most loving actions are truly the best decisions for all concerned? You can't because you don't know what the big picture truly is.

Think about it. A man approaches a school with a loaded assault rifle, intent on mass slaughter. A loving person speaks to him, attempts to help him resolve his problems or to persuade him to stop, and failing that, punches him right in the kisser, and takes away his gun. And a loving person with godlike powers could simply turn his bullets into popcorn as they left the gun, or heal with a touch whatever insanity or madness (or by teaching him cure whatever ignorance) led the man to contemplate the crime. But God does nothing. Therefore, a loving God does not exist. A tsunami approaches and will soon devastate the lives of millions. A loving person warns them, and tells them how best to protect themselves and their children. And a loving person with godlike powers could simply calm the sea, or grant everyone's bodies the power to resist serious injury, so the only tragedy they must come together to overcome is temporary pain and the loss of worldly goods. We would have done these things, if we could--and God can. Therefore, either God would have done them, too--or God is worse than us. Far worse. Either way, Christianity is false.

The logic of this is, again, unassailable. So Christians feel compelled to contrive more "ad hoc" excuses to explain away the evidence--more speculations about free will, "mysterious plans," a desire to test us or increase opportunities for us to do good, and stuff like that. And, yet again, Christians have no evidence any of these excuses are actually true. They simply "make them up" in order to explain away the failure of their theory. But once again, even putting that serious problem aside, these ad hoc elements still fail. For there is no getting around the conjunction of facts entailed by the Christian theory. God cannot possibly struggle under any limitations greater than the limitations upon us (if anything, he must surely have fewer limitations than we do), and God loves love--and is therefore a loving being, which means he desires to act like one. These two terms of the hypothesis entail observations, and nothing can explain away the fact that these observations are never made--unless we contradict and therefore reject either of these two essential terms of the theory. So the Christian theory is either empirically false, or self-contradictory and therefore logically false.

In fact, all the "ad hoc" excuses for God's total and utter inaction amount to the same thing: claiming that different rules apply to God than to us. But this is not allowed by the terms of the theory, which hold that God is good--which must necessarily mean that God is "good" in the same sense that God expects us to be good. Otherwise, calling God "good" means something different than calling anyone else "good," and therefore calling God "good" is essentially meaningless. If God can legitimately be called "good," this must mean exactly the same thing when you or I are called "good." And the fact that God is predicted by the Christian theory to "love love and hate hatred" confirms this conclusion, since "loving love and hating hatred" is exactly what it means to call you or I "good." To be good is to be loving and not hateful. And that entails a certain behavior.

This rant is simply wrong. I responded earlier

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is universally agreed to mean giving your neighbor what he needs, helping him when he is hurt or in trouble, giving him what he has earned, and taking nothing from him that he has not given you. It means giving water to the thirsty, protecting children from harm, healing infirmities. Jesus himself said so. He did or said all these things, we are told, and the Christian surely must believe this. Therefore, for God to be "good" entails that God must have the desire to do all these things--and there is no possible doubt whether he lacks the means to do all these things. And anyone with the means and the desire to act, will act. Therefore, that God does none of these things entails either that he lacks the means or the desire. Either way, Christianity is false.

Loving your neighbor as yourself is more that just keeping harm from befalling others. Sometimes love has to correct and rebuke. Sometime love requires chastening.

This conclusion follows because there cannot be any limitation on God greater than the limitations upon us. So God must necessarily desire and have the unimpeded means to do everything you and I can do, and therefore the Christian God would at least do everything you and I do. The fact that he doesn't proves he doesn't exist. Therefore, all the excuses invented for God simply don't work. Because it does not matter what plans God may have, he still could not restrain himself from doing good any more than we can, because that is what it means to be good. He would be moved by his goodness to act, to do what's right, just as we are. God would not make excuses, for nothing could ever thwart his doing what is morally right.

Hence anything God would refrain from doing can be no different than what any other good people refrain from. Children must learn, often the hard way. But that never in a million years means letting them get hit by a car so they can learn not to cross the road without looking. People must know struggle, so they feel they have earned and learned what matters. But that never in a million years means letting them be tortured or decimated or wracked with debilitating disease so they can appreciate being healthy or living in peace. No loving person could ever bear using such cruel methods of teaching, or ever imagine any purpose justifying them. Indeed, a loving person would suffer miserably if he could do nothing to stop such things... or worse, if he actually caused them!

Conversely, any excuse that could ever be imagined for God's inaction must necessarily apply to us as well. If there is a good reason for God to do nothing, then it will be just as good a reason for us to do nothing. The same moral rules that are supposed to apply to us must apply to every good person--and that necessarily includes the Christian God. God cannot have more reasons to do nothing than we do--to the contrary, it must be the other way around: only we have limitations on our abilities, creating more legitimate reasons for inaction than can ever apply to God. So if it is good for me to alleviate suffering, it is good for God to do so in those same circumstances. And if it is good for God to refrain from acting, it is good for me to do so in those same circumstances.

Nor can it be argued that God must sit back to give us the chance to do good. For that is not how good people act. Therefore, a "good" God can never have such an excuse. Imagine it. You can heal someone of AIDS. You have the perfect cure sitting in your closet. And you know it. But you do nothing, simply to allow scientists the chance to figure out a cure by themselves--even if it takes so long that billions of people must suffer miserably and die before they get it right. In what world would that ever be the right thing to do? In no world at all. When we have every means safely at our disposal, we can only tolerate sitting back to let others do good when others are actually doing good. In other words, if misery is already being alleviated, perhaps even at our very urging, then obviously we have nothing left to do ourselves. But it would be unbearable, unconscionable, outright immoral to hide the cure for AIDS just to teach everyone a lesson. That is not how a good person could or would ever behave.

This same conclusion follows in many ways. As a friend, I would think it shameful if I didn't give clear, honest advice to my friends when asked, or offer comfort when they are in misery or misfortune. I loan them money when they need it, help them move, keep them company when they are lonely, introduce them to new things I think they'll like, and look out for them. God does none of these things for anyone. Thus he is a friend to none. A man who calls himself a friend but who never speaks plainly to you and is never around when you need him is no friend at all.

And it won't do to say God's with "some" people--speaking to, comforting, and helping them out--because this means he doesn't really love all beings, and is therefore not all-loving. This would make him less decent than even many humans I know. And it's sickeningly patronizing to say, in the midst of misery, loneliness, or need, that "God's with you in spirit," that he pats you on the head and says "There! There!" (though not even in so many words as that). A friend who did so little for us, despite having every resource and ability to do more, and nothing to lose by using them, would be ridiculing us with his disdain. Thus, we cannot rescue the idea of God as Friend to All. The evidence flatly refutes the existence of any such creature. It therefore flatly refutes Christianity.

Likewise, as a loving parent, I would think it a horrible failure on my part if I didn't educate my children well, and supervise them kindly, teaching them how to live safe and well, and warning them of unknown or unexpected dangers. If they asked me to butt out I might. But if they didn't, it would be unconscionable to ignore them, to offer them no comfort, protection, or advice. Indeed, society would deem me fit for prison if I did. It would be felony criminal neglect. Yet that is God: An absentee mom--who lets kids get kidnapped and murdered or run over by cars, who does nothing to teach them what they need to know, who never sits down like a loving parent to have an honest chat with them, and who would let them starve if someone else didn't intervene. As this is unconscionable, almost any idea of a god that fits the actual evidence of the world is unconscionable. And any such deity could never be the Christian God.

I am going to respond by merely pointing out that it makes no sense to say that God is not acting simply because You don't like what He did. God is better than us because he has no compunctions to do evil. We do. You can't pat yourself on the back for being able to act towards others without compassion because we can do this only because God created us in his image. Furthermore, we often don't act that way because of our own desires and lusts. Bottom line: Carrier does not understand the who God is because he has no relationship with God.