Being an atheist is hard

Post Reply New Topic

You don't know with any degree of certainty that there is NOT a chocolate teapot orbiting the sun. It is not implausible that one could create a chocolate teapot, and as long as it remains somewhere within the solar system, or even within a relatively static position in relation to the earth's surface, like on a coffee table or in a freezer if one wishes to keep it for some time without risk of it melting (I dunno), it remains in orbit around the sun. A chocolate teapot is a physical object and the conditions exist in order for a chocolate teapot to orbit the sun in some sense. So this is really a poor example, if not outright silly. Who are you to say that someone hasn't already created a chocolate teapot? Chocolate easter bunnies come out every year around Easter time, and all sorts of other chocolate animals and objects made of chocolate are made throughout the year. Why NOT a chocolate teapot?


Only if the chocolate teapot is a deity. It is written that we must not make objects for ourselves to worship as gods, so I'd be skeptical of any kind of demands for obeisance to any teapot, chocolate or otherwise. I do like chocolate, though, and I'm sure a chocolate teapot is just as yummy as a hollow chocolate easter bunny...


No. But neither do you.


False assumption. Logically God DOES exist, and all of creation is evidence for God. So, obviously, I should wonder what exactly the nature is of a creative supernatural supreme being, and Yahweh seems to make the most sense as the God of all creation. The Bible paints a fairly clear picture of what God must be like. The Bible accurately describes the observed sinful condition of all humanity. Yahweh is a God one can securely place one's hope in for redemption from sin and the promise of new life. Thus a religion devoted to the worship of Yahweh is to be preferred. So it really comes down to whether one can understand Jesus as being the Messiah and whether the atonement on the cross is sufficient for the forgiveness of sin. I believe we have documented evidence of someone who demonstrated Messianic qualities to be understood as fulfilling that role. Thus Christianity of some form, and from there one must decide if there is a particular church or denomination that best represents biblically-based doctrine. My personal take on this is SBC is one ideal denomination, but there are many denomination with the same or similar views and I condemn none of them.

One of those foundational beliefs is that there are no other gods than Yahweh. So that rules out Thor, Odin, Zeus, Athena, Shiva, Baal, and any other etc. etc. you can come up with. As far as Santa and Easter Bunny go, and maybe even the Tooth Fairy, those seem to be traditions or games parents have adopted that MIGHT have had some origins in real people/things (like the connection of the hare with the appearance of eggs in spring) but aren't intended to mean anything beyond pretend. We don't exactly hide that Santa and EB are pretend. Neither do we leave any room for doubt as to what we DO believe is real and who/what we place faith in.

@Fnord: There is material evidence for Christianity, just probably none that you would find acceptable. Beyond that, it's unreasonable to seek material evidence of something/someone not of a materialistic nature. That's like trying to cut a steak with a water hose.

As to whether my words are empty/without TRUE validity: You seem to be relying on some predefined measure of what validity really is that suits your purpose rather than something more people can relate to. You also appear to be relying strictly on empiricism, and that ignores various non-empirical ways of knowing things.

With that kind of unreasonable standard, your own words are equally as empty and without "true" validity. You cannot provide material evidence that you can think coherent thoughts. So, if I don't have material proof--or to use the preferred term "evidence" in the material sense you are referring to--that you even CAN think coherently, then I have no reason to believe anything you say. Forget about validity--I rather have to question whether your words are actually true at all!

There is no evidence for god because there is no falsifiable theory of god. There simply isn't anything to believe. The whole utterance of 'god' is just nonsense.

This is the problem AngelRho, there are two disciplines of logic, the first is philosophical logic and the second is mathematical logic.

These are real, actual, academically rigorous subjects that you can go away and study. They have exact definitions and rules, when people agree to have a debate based on logic they are agreeing to have a debate based on established rules and definitions.

You seem to think that you can ignore the rules and make up reality as you go along, you have a belief in X and you are determined that nothing will shake your belief in X so you choose to redefine all of reality that could possibly disagree with your delusion to feel happy.

Spending just six weeks studying logic would show you how completely and utterly wrong you are, how absurd, utterly delusional and ignorant your argument is. But of course you won't do that.

Instead you will simply continue to spout rubbish and chose to wallow in ignorance and stupidity to indulge your delusional fantasies that make you feel special.

Looks to me like you're trying to change or avoid the subject. Suggesting that I am somehow undereducated and thus wrong is fallacious and is borderline ad hominem. Level of education is no guarantee that one is necessarily right or wrong, and I suspect my level education is much higher than you think it is. Nevertheless, the question of my education is not enough to make me less right.


False assumption, and irrelevant. As I've already said, you really can take your pick of logical proofs for the existence of God, and you can also take your pick of various ways of coming to the conclusion that Yahweh is that God. There is nothing new or original about anything I've said, and you've cited no "rules" that I've violated.


Whether I do or not, this is completely irrelevant. If you can't show where I'm wrong, why should I believe you? You're making assumptions as to what I have and haven't studied. Moreover, you're under the false assumption that a "rigorous study of logic" necessarily leads to the same conclusions that YOU'VE drawn. What if I could show that I DID study logic for six weeks and still came to the same conclusion? Would I then be right? If I were right, could you admit to being wrong? Or does that mean we are both somehow right? Well, to that last question, the logical law of non-contradiction already provides the answer--that we both cannot be right. It appears that you are rather a victim of your own biases--there is no God because there cannot possibly be. And that conclusion does not necessarily always follow from logic.


Ah, yes... "Stupidity" and "delusional," and I somehow need to feel "special." Those telltale ad hominems that indicate that someone no longer has anything to seriously contribute. Is that something you learned after just six weeks of intensive logical study?

I think that I've noticed a general trend.

Atheism seems to remain "in the closet" until one person publicly states their Atheism, and no god smites them for it. This encourages other closet Atheists to come out, and as more and more do so, it becomes more and more apparent that being an Atheist does not result in plagues, boils, frogs, or the deaths of all first-born children. This further encourages believers to question the doctrines of their religions, leading to Agnosticism. This in turn provokes the religious leaders to denounce the Agnostics as Atheists, and drives them even further from their religious institutions and inspires them to declare Atheism ...

... and everything seems to snowball from there.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, yours may vary.

Ta!

Are you ever going to say something that I disagree with?

Hmm ... how about "Your avatar is ugly"?

Ok AngelRho lets try again. (PS I apologise if my last post offended you, it does read a bit harsh and personal).

You have a belief.
You require no evidence for that belief.
The possibility of the existence of anything that contradicts that belief is impossible.
Therefore you are right.

This is not logic and it is not proof. It is not rational or reasonable and yes I can prove that it isn't.

Fnord believes in Allah.
Fnord requires no evidence for that belief.
One of Fnord's foundational beliefs is that there are no gods but Allah. So that rules out Yahweh.
Therefore he is right.

By your 'logic' Yahweh must both exist and not exist because you must accept as true two mutually exclusive statements for your logic to hold. Clearly this is logically impossible and there is a problem with your 'logic'.

No problem. Maybe at one point in my life I might have had trouble dealing with challenges to my faith, but I think the reason many Christians generally tend to get over-emotional about it is primarily lack of experience. I think of it as a growing process, which is why I'm slow to be critical of those who display lack of maturity in their faith. If I didn't feel I could handle criticism regarding my faith with civility, I wouldn't be here. I've also had to learn that there are other issues, not necessarily faith issues, that are fraught with emotion--I'll just say something like, "Look, this is how I feel about [topic], I don't care to fight about it." There's nothing productive about enraging people regarding things they are passionate about. But as far as what I think, I feel that if you bring something up in PPR, you can't be surprised if it comes under attack. No offense to anyone here, but if you just want validation, go post in the Haven.


Straw man. I've said nothing like that.

Christians DO have evidence for what they believe. Faith, even by the very words of Jesus, is basically "believing without seeing," as He said (paraphrasing), "You see and believe, but blessed are those who do not see and believe." But the problem of believing something out of mere "blind" faith is that means by the same standard you can't really judge anything else as less believable. So how do you really know there is any truth to what you believe? What's the difference, say, between the church I attend and Heaven's Gate? If you don't wish to get mixed up in something like the Manson Family or something equally or worse destructive, you need some reason to believe what you believe.

So it isn't without REASON that someone chooses to accept whatever faith it is they accept. So maybe the initial acceptance of Christ MIGHT be because of upbringing, but ultimately one has to decide whether Jesus is just another Santa, or whether what started out as just going along with the crowd really is the truth and one wishes to genuinely accept it as such. Regardless, "true" religion is not "just because [authority] said so." One ultimately has to confront whatever evidence there is and make the choice to accept or reject it.

So:

1. You have a belief--this is true
2. You require no evidence for that belief--false. There is evidence for what I believe, together with the testimony of fellow Christians and the influence of faith in my own personal experience.
3. The possibility of the existence of anything that contradicts that belief is impossible--Well, this is "sorta" false. To my knowledge there is nothing that exists that contradicts that belief. That doesn't mean that there really ISN'T anything, but rather I have yet to find it. There as yet exists no apparent or forthcoming reason why I should believe otherwise.
4. Therefore you are right--Assuming the premises to be TRUE, I don't think your conclusion follows. Law of Identity: I am right if I am right. But the central problem here is this is not the argument I've made, nor are all of the premises even true.

If I sum up my logic here, try this:
1. Not all that exists in the universe is known to every individual human being
2. Therefore, it is possible that God exists within that which is unknown

Going back to your teapot analogy, you don't KNOW with any certainty that there isn't a chocolate teapot orbiting the sun. It doesn't follow that there IS necessarily, but it DOES follow that for all we know there certainly COULD be. I mentioned earlier that this is a bad example; however, the notion of a chocolate teapot is not inconceivable nor implausible. One need only create a chocolate teapot and, since the earth orbits the sun, so also would the chocolate teapot. If we stick with this example, the creation of a teapot from chocolate is the act of making known that which previously had been unknown to anyone beyond a mere figment of imagination--the realization of an idea. But if someone makes a chocolate teapot and makes it known, they still cannot make you believe that it exists. You could hold it in your hands and still say it doesn't exist.

For example, holding the chocolate teapot might cause all or part of it to melt, and thus it would cease to exist in it's original state. You would conclude that it wasn't a "real" teapot, only a confection.

Or you might eat it, whereupon you'd conclude that it is gone and thus never existed to begin with in any meaningful way.

Or you might note that the chocolate teapot is just chocolate and that whatever shape it takes is irrelevant.

I mean, there are all kinds of ways of looking at evidence and denying whatever conclusion you do not wish to draw from it.


lol Well, no, the straw man you're attacking clearly isn't logic. But, again, you might honestly be misunderstanding what I was talking about to begin with. My earlier conclusion was merely "You don't KNOW that" something ISN'T. My conclusion was never "You don't KNOW that it isn't, therefore it IS."


Well, you're using the same pattern here as your straw man critique of my beliefs. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, so yes, obviously the logic is flawed. Let's revise this somewhat:

1. Fnord believes in Allah
2. Fnord's beliefs are evidenced by Mo's words in the Koran and by the Hadith
3. One foundational belief is that there are no gods but Allah.
4. Therefore, Fnord does not believe in Yahweh.

We have to assume that #1 is true. #2 would also be true, since a belief in Allah would be justified by a study of the Koran, Allah being the name of God primarily understood by Moslems. #3 is true--most kids I know by high school age can recite "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet" if they've had any reasonably good exposure to social studies. So this is a known fact within Islam. #4 follows. Not that in #4, Fnord would conclude that Yahweh doesn't exist, but this says nothing about the actual existence of other gods and whether they exist or not. The denial of the existence of other gods would have to follow from some other type of argument.

My logic is similar
1. I believe in Yahweh and His Son, Y'shua ha Machiach, aka Jesus Christ.
2. My beliefs are evidenced by the writings of those who knew Jesus personally and witnessed those things He said and did.
3. One foundational belief is that there are no gods but Yahweh, as evidenced by the ineffectiveness of the gods of other nations to respond to their people.
4. Therefore, I give no credence nor respect to the existence of other gods.

Once again, #4 has to do with what I do/don't believe, not whether gods actually exist despite my beliefs.

However, the truths of 1-3 might lead me to draw conclusions on the existence of other gods.

5. The claims of Islam are such that it is an Abrahamic religion following in the line of Judaism and Christianity
6. Islam rejects the deity of Christ.
7. Islam rejects that the Jews authentically worshipped God and that Judeo-Christian religion somehow needs to be "fixed."
8. The Bible warns against false teachings and "additions" to the gospel message.
9. The promises of Allah in the Koran are inconsistent with the promises of God the Father and God the Son in His earthly ministry.
10. Therefore, Allah=/=Yahweh.
11. Therefore, Allah=false god.


Well, whether or not you deliberately misrepresented my logic, IF you had accurately stated my logic, then this would be true.

But that's NOT my logic. There are logical proofs asserting the existence of a Supreme Being. That's an easy conclusion to draw. The difficulty is really about who the right God is. By far Yahweh is the most convincing.

Hi, I hope you don't mind if I jump into this... 

AngelRho, am I right in assuming that the quote above accurately represents part of your logic for believing in a deity? 

If so, I agree with you that a god MAY exist within what is unknown. But that logic in no way reveals if there is indeed a god. We might just as well believe that seven prunes and seven kumquats are dancing the dance of the universe and when they stop the universe will turn into a large plum pudding. 

Taking a scientific approach, all we can say is that there are things that are known and there is a lot of stuff that is unknown. We can continue to gather evidence and by examining and interpreting that evidence, we can come to some conclusions about the universe. Some of our conclusions might be wrong, but with further investigation and gathering of more evidence, we will hopefully get closer to an accurate understanding of the universe. 

If science shows there is a god, then that is what we must conclude is the truth. If we keep looking around and never find evidence of a god, it is reasonable to eventually conclude there is no god. We may not be able to say with absolute certainty that there is no god, but we certainly cannot make the argument that because there are still things that are unknown, there must be a god. 

All we can know about the universe is that which we can observe. 

I think where a lot of people begin to draw unwarranted conclusions is when they assume the feelings they have are evidence of a god. I have heard people speak of how once they have faith in a god, the presence of god is unmistakeable. But the human brain is remarkably good at fooling itself. Optical illusions are a perfect, real world example. 3D movies for example, use two 2D images to create the illusion of 3D space. The technique utilizes a limitation in the way humans perceive three dimensional space. Knowing how easy it is to create perceptual illusions, I cannot see how someone would uncritically accept other perceptions without stopping to question, "is this real or is it an illusion?" especially where the perponderance of evidence is against the emotional conclusion drawn from the feeling.

Returning to the idea of god existing in the unknown, if I am standing at the edge of a cliff, I might decide that there is an invisible bridge that will support me should I step off the cliff.  It very well may exist within the unknown.  Should I step off that cliff?

Please do! The OP was, if I understood correctly, about what seems to be unwanted confrontation and perceived threats for being open about being an atheist. We seem to be WAY off-topic, and I just hope that anything I say isn't automatically seen as disrespect.


Actually, no! I believe the strongest evidence or reason for believing in a deity is one's personal experience, what some may call the sensus divinitatis. I don't have a sophisticated argument to that effect, just that I don't believe hard empiricism is sufficient to explain something that nuanced.

However, for the sake of THIS argument, one might summarize God and science as "science doesn't know EVERYTHING." So for now, let's just go with that.




Right.


Not necessarily, though. Is the notion of the existence of God really that absurd? No. However, prunes and kumquats are physical objects. So we might conclude that prunes and kumquats are not made of the "stuff" that would affect the fabric of physical reality in such a way to make it collapse.

On the other hand, let's say you found those prunes and kumquats. Part of the problem would then be that you couldn't say you knew that they were dancing the dance of the universe without testing them to see whether the universe would disintegrate. For all you know, the testing might necessarily involve something that would interfere with that dance. And then what would the consequence be? You'd destroy the whole universe! Some risks just ain't worth taking, but worse for you is who'd believe you? You would then have to decide whether there are non-empirical ways of demonstrating the nature of those particular prunes and kumquats, and by all means keep them dancing!


Right.


Agreed. But what are the consequences of not believing and God DOES exist? This is all well and good for scientific study, advancing our knowledge of the physical universe, and even advancing the progress of humanity in a temporal context. But what about the "world to come," or spiritual existence beyond physical existence? Science cannot answer these questions. Nor does the whole of all human progress make a bit of difference to a person once that person is dead.
 

True, but only if we're talking strictly about the physical universe. Further, what is known about the universe is that "energy cannot be created nor destroyed." Origin theories are useful in some ways but do not sufficiently explain how something can spontaneously come from nothing. What was there before the Big Bang? "We don't know." The idea of an uncaused Cause is not unreasonable and serves as a valid explanation as to why there is something-from-nothing. The intricacies of an ecological system to support life as well as the highly organized structure of organic life forms themselves suggest an omniscient creative Mind carefully pieced it all together. Together with the unlikelihood of life ANYWHERE in the universe, much less right here on earth, it seems the probability of a God is much higher than some give Him credit for.

So, yes, there are observable phenomena surrounding our existence and the greater universe that really does suggest supernatural involvement.


UNwarranted? And how do you know this?


So the brain could fool itself into believing God DOESN'T exist as much as it could fool itself into believing God COULD exist?


OK, but now we're comparing things that are KNOWN to things that are apparently UNknown. You've established that this is an illusion. Why must ALL things necessarily be illusions?


It's foolish to blindly accept anything someone tells you to just take on faith. I've been exposed to several different religions. Comparatively speaking, I could see no rationale as to why I should dabble in something else. If believing in God really is absurd, then how much more so are some of the other religions out there. If I am wrong, the very least I can say at the end of my life is I tried to be as good a person as I could be and helped out a few people along the way. But I don't know about preponderance of evidence. Just because some things are illusions doesn't mean that THIS really IS an illusion.


That all depends. Are you alone in making that decision? If so, what would lead you to conclude that the bridge was there in the first place? If you have no reason to believe that it really is there, then you need some way of testing to make sure.

If it were up to me, I'd want to know whether there have been reports of an invisible bridge at that place, whether people still regularly walk that bridge--and perhaps the most important of all--whether anybody had previously walked that bridge and came back to tell about it.

The bottom line, though, is Christianity teaches certain things, one of those things being that failure to accept salvation through faith in Jesus results in eternal separation from God. What you're saying is there MAY be a God out there OR Christianity may really be all hogwash, but for the time being we need to just leave all this God-stuff alone until we find out for sure that there even IS a God, and never mind attempting to figure out exactly what the nature of that God is once we DO find God. For the Christian, that means that not only are the doubters spending eternity in Gehenna, but they're dragging everyone else with them! So, waiting for something THAT important which may or may not come in one's own lifetime is unacceptable, waiting for science to dictate whether there even is a God and then granting that it's ok to believe in God. It's much safer to believe than not, and I think what is even more absurd is the idea that science can somehow take the soul hostage, however unintentional it may be!

But getting back to MissConstrue's original point, I agree that it can be rather difficult to interact honestly and without reservation when others assume your adherence to a rational, scientific point of view is a personal affront against them. There are some people with whom I feel I can honestly and openly discuss these ideas, but most of the time I do not feel free to discuss ideas that are very intriguing to me simply because someone might take offense.

A lot of people seem to carry around assumptions about what the other person believes and completely ignore anything actually discussed, preferring to listen only to whatever preconception exists in their own mind. (Many atheists do this too, so I'm not suggesting that we are free from blame) The problem is that people can discuss the issues all they like and never be heard if the other person refuses to hear. In my experience, the perception of what an atheist might believe is frequently grossly out of step with what many atheists actually claim to believe. (I have had well educated, highly intelligent friends react angrily and proceed to tell me what an atheist is when I mention I am an atheist. In reality, they understood little of what I actually believe.)

Sometimes it feels like an atheist has to make a choice; have friends or be honest about what they believe. I have a surprising number of friends who are Christians. Only rarely do I admit to being an atheist and even more rarely do I discuss the issue with those who know that I am an atheist.

I'm going to jump in as well. This thread has made me cringe quite a few times, but not enough to warrant posting for most of the time.

Allow me to expand that argument a bit, as you jumped from a single premise to a conclusion with a lot of stuff going under the table.

1. Not all that exists in the universe is known to every individual being (Non-omniscience clause)
2. Not everyone knows the existence of God
-> Therefore, God might exist

Let's rephrase 1, as it is really cryptic. A simpler version is, if something exists, one might not know of it. And now, to predicate calculus!
1. Rephrases to Ex -> Not necessary Kx
2. Not necessary Kx
3. Therefore, possibly Ex

Standard logical fallacy. You don't need to go any further to notice it, and I'm sure anyone who has done any formal logic (even without the whole knowledge-existence predicates) will appreciate it. For those who haven't, take an argument that is exactly similar in structure:
1. If X is called Albert Einstein, then he is a physicist
2. X is a physicist
3. Therefore, he is Albert Einstein

It is not (never, ever, in any form of logic) possible to reverse the two parts of an if->then statement. If and only if, maybe. But that suddenly would void your argument (if and only if something exists, then we must not necessarily know about it).



The big morale of the story of all that is that one should look carefully at what they are saying. Enunciating something in a cryptic manner does not protect against logical fallacies - if anything, it makes them easier to spot.
More on subject, though...even if God existed, and followed exactly the properties given by the old Testament (not gonna include the new one, as it directly contradicts a lot of premises from the old testament)... would you even want to know if such an entity existed? Remember, the God in the old testament is a jealous, possessive and ruthless god, much unlike the forgiving, understanding, all-generous god in the new testament. I'd personally prefer to remain ignorant on the matter rather than to spend my life trying to find an answer. If there is an answer, it'll come soon enough.

Last big hurdle - beliefs. If you want to hold a belief, it'd better be a useful belief. Something which is always true no matter what (and with no empirical basis) is not useful, as it might be mud in your eyes (and, more importantly, it might be flat-out wrong). A belief which is not falsifiable is even worse, as no matter what, it'll be true - there's no situation in which you can say "Falsified it", empirically.
That's the case of the belief that "God exists". To falsify that, you'd need empirical grounds to assert and verify that God does not exist, something which is logically impossible. Theoretically, you could do it in two ways:
- You could scout the entire universe in one time interval (to prevent God from eluding you), which is impossible as it breaks the laws of modern physics
- You could get someone with enough empirical basis to tell you that God does not exist. This is a case of "Turtles all the way down" - how would that person know?
That whole thing does not automatically mean that "God exists" must be true. It simply means that "God exists" is a futile belief - one which might not be verified nor falsified. After all, despite the whole belief, you've never had any direct proof for the existence of God. The existence of God is not needed in your day-to-day life to understand the world. There are much simpler, clearer ideas than "God exists" to justify just about anything.

So, conclusion, you believe what I want. I'll believe what I want. The day someone tries to say that their belief is better than my belief, they'll be met with formal logic.

Truth is not is reasoned; it is demonstrated.

So how about a miracle, right here, and right now?



And while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is sufficient justification of having a reasonable doubt regarding presence.

I am an atheist, but I call myself an "agnostic" is polite company, because of the unfair stigma associated with the word "atheist"

I avoid discussing politics or religion like the plague. I try to change the subject as quickly as possible whenever these topics are discussed in mixed company. I enjoy talking about them with like-minded people though...

Do what you will, but what I said was what I meant. If it is possible to state what one does know, then one essentially can show the boundaries of what one knows while acknowledging that beyond those boundaries lies that which one does not know.

Can you honestly say, for example, that you know all that there is to know? If not, it is entirely possible that the divine merely lies beyond your current knowledge. And I'm not meaning to be confrontational--we just seem to speak different languages and I might be missing something.



There's really nothing recondite in what I stated earlier. I'm not clever enough to hint at more than that (or hide it). It seems what I said was misunderstood to mean this:



By no means does suggesting God MIGHT exist necessarily mean that God DOES exist. So the case for God's existence has to be made from a different argument. I was merely challenging the idea that one could really say that they KNEW God to/not to exist, and I personally feel that at the very least there are clues from the natural universe to show that the reality of God is a possibility, more so than some might readily admit.



How about this: If something exists, it is not necessary to know it? In other words, somehow not-knowing something, assuming that it does exist, cannot somehow make that something vanish. The planets didn't suddenly start orbiting around the sun when Galileo observed them, did they?


Well, admittedly the single premise and then conclusion was more of a summary than a well-thought out argument. I probably could have stated it better by breaking up the premise and conclusion into more premises.


Well, only assuming that is true, though, and that seems awfully biased. For most of my life about all the Bible reading I ever did was at church and obsessively reading Revelation and occasionally the gospels. I've been much more focused in my reading over the last three years, and it seems to me after reading the whole thing thatYahweh of the gospels and Yahweh of the "Law and the Prophets" are really the same. I mean, that's a whole other topic, but that jealous God repeatedly warns His chosen people, always holds out for repentance, grants mercy if at all possible, disciplines when necessary, and provides hope for "the nations" and not just Israel. Any apparent cruelty seems to be a subjective allegation--I don't like it, therefore God is cruel--and really just comes down to a matter of opinion. Looking at it from a divine perspective--caring for a chosen nation--God displays seemingly endless patience and benevolence, though it is necessary at times for that patience to end.


Why should I believe what you want?

Once again, the problem is that the claims Christianity makes do not afford us the luxury of waiting beyond our lifetimes for the answer. The whole realm of science is a continual examination of the workings of the universe that may continue beyond one person's death in the lives of others. But if it is true that there is no coming back, why should someone "wait and see" when people are already accepting the best answer? Science ought not dictate spiritual matters. Moreover, hard empiricism is insufficient for all forms of knowledge, since not all knowledge is empirical. To that end, it would not be unfair for one to say one has a knowledge of God, even if that knowledge is non-empirical.