Replies

"This argument and numerous arguments like it presume the conclusion that all possible Gods would consider belief to be a rewardworthy state of mind. Someone who believes may exclude behaviour from their lives (such as (for the sake of argument) open-minded investigation of the mechanics of the universe) that God might consider more praiseworthy."

So does post #126 qualify as investigating the mechanics of the universe?

"An alternative argument is that God may not care one way or the other whether we believe or not but Anti-God (an inferior but very powerful being who God also doesn't care about) punishes believers only; and in such a situation it is belief that carries the negative payoff."

A very interesting argument, this one bears thinking about. But it shows a lot more speculation on your part that I would care to accept. I'm not sure I'm willing to take that leap of faith. But lets look at this: Why would a god punish people for wanting to seek him out? If nothing else, this "Anti-God" of yours would have revealed himself through some miraculous act, and taken on the role of a god. My argument, is that wanting to obey someones rules should never make someone angry. Therefore wanting to abide by the creator's rules should not make him angry.

"Some faiths are very clear that adherents to rival faiths get worse punishments. Just because you don't believe that of your God it doesn't make it impossible."

Very true, I do agree with you here. If you are say: a Muslim, and you have the opportunity to convert to Chritsianity. And if you refuse, and Mohamed was actually not a prophet, the bible says that you would be cast into the lake of fire. However, I did not argue against that. I am saying that it is better to believe in a god, than it is to not believe in a god. Because these same faiths you refer to, believe it is better to believe in a god than it is to not believe in one. Thats right if I were a Muslim, my idea would be Atheist < Christian < Muslim. A member of any presently known faith would not be: Other Religion < Atheist < Us.

"That may be your belief but I am not aware that the bible has anything to say on the matter"

It's in one of Paul's letters I believe. I'm a little to lazy to look it up right now, but if you're really interested in fining out, try all the books in the new testament that begin with the word: PAUL.

"You cannot choose your beliefs. They happen to you."

How can you "not choose your beliefs," if they're not forced on you? If someone is really interested in seeking the creator, and they are not compelled by some other force to accept a canned god, they are entirely free to choose their faith by what they find convincing. Beliefs are not like a disease, in much the same way whether being a conservative or a liberal or a moderate is not like a disease, it's what you are convinced of. You can be convinced otherwise. An example of this would be a conversion from one belief system to another. People are free to choose their faiths.

Also, lets play with this analogy of yours. Believing in a god would be like choosing to eat. In some instances the food may be poisoned, but if you refuse to eat, then you're going to die anyway. Or perhaps, you are deathly allergic to all but one type of food, and you don't know what that food is. However if you still refuse to eat, you're going to die anyway.

" You can't make yourself believe something."

Sure you can. I do it every day. You need to bear in mind though when I make myself believe something I rarely change my mind, but I am quite capable of believing something else.

does post #126 qualify as investigating the mechanics of the universe?

I am not sure. In any case I was not saying that a belief in God precludes one from physical investigation of nature. But some religions certainly do. It is not possible for a Young Earth Creationist to open-mindedly investigate the data and retain their literal biblical interpretations for example unless they adopt the nihilistic philosophy of omphalism (and at least two Creationists I know have indeed done so in the face of the overwhelming data that they now accept).

If nothing else, this "Anti-God" of yours would have revealed himself through some miraculous act, and taken on the role of a god. My argument, is that wanting to obey someones rules should never make someone angry. Therefore wanting to abide by the creator's rules should not make him angry.

My hypothetical Anti-God is a malevolent being who enjoys punishing those who have faith in God (who hypothetically doesn't care). To reveal itself would be counter-productive to its aims because it wants there to be as many believers as possible. It doesn't have the power of God but it has some kind of supernatural ability to harvest souls and punish them. You argument really amounts to the fact that you don't want such a being to exist and being a nice person you cannot understand the motives of such a creature (and no-one else does either), but our desire that such a creature not exist and our inability to comprehend its motives is not proof.

It's in one of Paul's letters I believe. I'm a little to lazy to look it up right now, but if you're really interested in fining out, try all the books in the new testament that begin with the word: PAUL.

Corinthians II 5 10 may be what you were thinking of, though it doesn't seem terribly specific to me. Perhaps you have a more detailed schedule of crimes and punishments elsewhere in Paul in mind.

Continued discussion about the volition of belief.

I think we are just going to have to agree to differ on this one. I don't buy any of your physical analogies of doors, or choosing to eat I'm afraid. The reason why I analogised with choosing what was for dinner was to point up that choosing physical acts is completely unlike what happens with beliefs.

You accept that beliefs can be chosen. I don't. Further discussion of that issue is unlikely to be fruitful.