I have to say, I can't prove there's a God, but the universe is set up EXACTLY how I would have set it up, had I been God.
I don't mean no suffering. I mean no proof. If one wishes to argue with the theists, then one must at least consider their premise possible for the sake of argument, and address it on those terms. Otherwise one is not arguing; one is reciting one's position and disregarding the other out-of-hand.
So, the premise. If there is a God who created the world to bring forth souls who could chose to love God (or not to love God), and if this God would then take those souls (who choose God) to a perfect and eternal bliss after this life is done, then the question of suffering is put in a very different light. What is my 100 years of agony and torture, set against more than a billion+ centuries of perfect bliss?
It is a fact that the above argument has been used for millennia to reconcile the miserable to their lot. However, that fact doesn't undermine the argument in any way approaching reason. Appeals to injustice aside, the reality (whatever it may be) is a separate concern from the ways people have exploited beliefs about it.
Proof is the main thing. If God wants souls to choose freely, then God would have to leave no hard evidence whatsoever of Godself. If the bolts and seams were showing, if the universe couldn't spin smoothly on its own axles without constant and blatant divine intervention, if people's lives and plights could not unfold in a way that appears natural, that is to say, supernaturally unassisted - well, let's just say that would present a coercive element.
Anyway, like I'm saying, I don't believe it's possible to prove God's existence. But then, it would be in God's worst interest to allow such a thing.
I don't mean no suffering. I mean no proof. If one wishes to argue with the theists, then one must at least consider their premise possible for the sake of argument, and address it on those terms. Otherwise one is not arguing; one is reciting one's position and disregarding the other out-of-hand.
So, the premise. If there is a God who created the world to bring forth souls who could chose to love God (or not to love God), and if this God would then take those souls (who choose God) to a perfect and eternal bliss after this life is done, then the question of suffering is put in a very different light. What is my 100 years of agony and torture, set against more than a billion+ centuries of perfect bliss?
It is a fact that the above argument has been used for millennia to reconcile the miserable to their lot. However, that fact doesn't undermine the argument in any way approaching reason. Appeals to injustice aside, the reality (whatever it may be) is a separate concern from the ways people have exploited beliefs about it.
Proof is the main thing. If God wants souls to choose freely, then God would have to leave no hard evidence whatsoever of Godself. If the bolts and seams were showing, if the universe couldn't spin smoothly on its own axles without constant and blatant divine intervention, if people's lives and plights could not unfold in a way that appears natural, that is to say, supernaturally unassisted - well, let's just say that would present a coercive element.
Anyway, like I'm saying, I don't believe it's possible to prove God's existence. But then, it would be in God's worst interest to allow such a thing.
Comments