Philosophy Now Forum

With reference to another topic of this forum, “Could god make an argument so circular that...”, I’ve decided to avoid adding the Godly trait of giving us revelations, or certain knowledge. This points too much towards personal and unverifiable notions of God or claims of knowing God (almost solipsism) which cannot be easily accepted, even by one's friends.

I also want to avoid absolutes, hyperbole, and superlatives (like “omnipotence”) in the definitions, and the traps of semantics and logic they lead to.

Therefore, I’ve made a list of traits that should be recognizable and acceptable to Christians and also perhaps Jews and Muslims, but with simple and testable definitions. Surprisingly, this exercise has led to what I think is a pretty convincing demonstration regarding the existence (or not) of the classical Christian God.

Introduction to the Demonstration

While this is a demonstration that the classic Christian God does not exist, it is not a demonstration that there is no God. Those who accept the validity of this demonstration, however, may be motivated to reconsider what God is like, assuming He/She/It exists.

The demonstration is based on a list of the traits usually associated with the God of Christianity, along with simple, concrete definitions of those traits that have clear and testable implications. That is, it will be shown that these traits strongly imply consequences that would be obvious and observable in everyday life. Then it will be claimed that those consequences do not hold. As a result, by contraposition it will be concluded that the God of Christianity cannot exist.

List of Traits of the Christian God, with Definitions

The Christian God is assumed to have all of the following traits:

1. Has enough power to prevent calamities which cause human suffering and death -- calamities such as earthquakes and hurricanes, which are beyond human control.

2. Has enough knowledge to prevent such calamities.

3. Loves humanity enough to seriously consider the prevention of such calamities.

4. Is the Creator of humanity, or at least the conditions which made human life possible.

5. Is just -- at least to the extent that He/She/It desires to take responsibility for having created human beings.

6. Is trustworthy -- at least to the extent that He/She/It can be counted on to take responsibility for having created human beings and to act accordingly.

Note that these definitions do not rule out absolute power, knowledge, love, and so on. The demonstration itself, however, does not depend on such strong and (arguably) ambiguous versions of those characteristics. This avoids the difficulty of dealing with superlative and absolutes in arguments that purport to rely on the principles of logic.

Demonstration

a. The above traits, taken together, strongly imply that if the God of Christianity exists (having all of the above traits, by definition), this God would protect human beings from suffering and death caused by calamities over which human beings have no control. This is the most important aspect of my demonstration, and perhaps the most controversial. I hope you will give it fair consideration -- think of all of the traits together, and how a being that possessed all of them might act.

b. Such calamities -- Hurricane Katrina and the recent earthquake in Haiti, for example -- actually occurred, as widely witnessed indirectly or directly and agreed upon by many, many human beings of presumably adequate intelligence and powers of perception. These calamities caused suffering and death of human beings, even of little children.

Conclusion

By contraposition, one or more of traits 1-6 does not hold, and hence the God of Christianity does not exist.

Invitation to Refutation

I invite counter-arguments. I’ll try to present some of my own, if I don’t hear from anyone. Just remember, I do not claim to have disproved the existence of a God of some other reasonable or attractive type, rather the existence of the familiar Christian God we hear so much about.

Reasons to Remain Optimistic

There is, however, still reason for optimism, even among Christians. One of these reasons is based on the hope (albeit unverified) that each human being has an eternal soul that will survive biological death -- this lets their God off the hook, so to speak. For if God does not protect our human bodies, He may still preserve our souls, presumably according to some grand, benevolent plan.

Another reason appears more realistic. Human beings have been gaining knowledge of and power over disease, famine, bad weather, and other causes of human suffering. This has been the result of scientific research resulting in practical applications: Vaccines and improved medical practice, safer pain killers, heating, air conditioning, plumbing and water treatment systems, increased food production, reduction of toxic waste, quake-resistant buildings, better weather prediction and evacuation plans, and the like. ln a manner of speaking, God, if He exists and still has the trait of being our Creator and being at least fond of us, has given us the inherent capability to learn how to take care of ourselves. The hope is that, in time we will even eliminate self-inflicted suffering, such as warfare.

One might say that the God who might exist may not fit the job description of the classical Christian God. But such a God may have given us the means to “act in the Spirit” of the mythical Christian God, just as we act in the Spirit of Santa Claus at Christmas by giving each other presents.

Go on.

Nothing up your sleeves I hope!

Ahh you missed one trait that will upset the apple cart. Is Good. I suspect good is fundamental to even love. How can something evil love anything?

Let us not deny the calamities occurred.

Counter argument incoming.

You have left a vital trait out to any list of traits in the God type being you have defined. This trait is 'Good'. How can a non good being love anything? How can we trust a non good being? How can a non good being be just? Are these rhetorical questions evident enough that good needs to be on the list?

Now how does good change the dynamic?

Deep breath....

1) It is the Christian belief that a good God does not tolerate evil. Were evil to enter Heaven God would cast it out. This understanding of goodness is why Christians believe the wages for sin are death. Sin puts us in a state of 'not good' and 'not good' is basically logically equivalent to 'being dead' in the eyes of God.

2) Death is not obliteration. Immortally created beings don't die and I suspect that God has promised us a good gift of immortality even for the wicked. So what can a good God do with an evil eternal wicked being? You know it's Hell, a place created where God will not dwell for those that are not good.

3) Adam & Eve sinned and are found guilty by a good God. The only penalty is to have them be cast out of God's domain. But what's a good, loving God to do with his creation. Well we know what he did he expressed his love in the form of mercy for them and us.

4+) Yada, yada, Jesus! More to be said but the theology is long and we need to work out if you are comfortable with steps 1 - 3. Plus I want to address more of your post.

What hope does any have that their souls will be safe if their bodies weren't? You recognise as much with the word 'may'. It violates principle 6 above.

That seems like unmitigated optimism to me! But more importantly I am not sure how doing it all for ourselves implies anything about a hope that God will help us later?

There is more to be said about acting in the Spirit than that!

Thanks for your interest, Wootah. Yes, I did leave out the trait of goodness. I would say that it's implied by love, justice and trustworthiness, but here's my attempt at a simple definition, similar to the first 6 traits: 7. Is good enough to recognize She is responsible for our very existence and thus has some desire to protect us.

Just a first try. With this definition or without it, it still appears that the strong implication of those traits, collectively, still holds: That God would protect us from calamities over which we have no control (not necessarily things like war), and my demonstration still holds up.

Please, if you have a definition of "good" that would take away God's motivation to save us from calamities, contradicting "just" and "loving" and "Creator of humanity", and refuting the implication that God would be protecting us, let me know. In the meantime, I'll try to come up with a counter-argument to my demonstration that is different from, and maybe a bit stronger than yours.

I'm quite familiar with Christian theology, particularly the idea that all human beings are sinners and need a savior. Here's why I question that idea: We would not exist if God had not made that possible. God is responsible for us being here. So if God has great power and knowledge, love and goodness (not even the superlative versions are required), why would God create a less-than-good (or even less than perfect) race of humans, which presumably are the main focus of his attention and love? Not just to play games with us, I hope. If God loves us and existence and life and wants our companionship, what's He waiting for?

Your point that I may be too optimistic about human beings taking care of themselves is well-taken. But if there is a God who exists, who also created us (and thus feels responsible for this) and is even somewhat fond of us, then we should have the inherent capability to do so. Granted, such a God may not exist, or may not have created us and thus feels no particular responsibility or liking for us. Then we truly are on our own. Then we'll just have to "grow up" and work hard and do scientific research and discover life-affirming applications and learn to treat each other with kindness and respect in order to make our lives better together, just as if the Christian God were there to help!

Let's just hope, after we're living in harmony with each other and the environment, that a huge asteroid doesn't hit the earth and wipe us out, like one did to the dinosaurs. That's pessimism, and I don't want to go there too often.

Just a quick note that I believe I have a counter-argument to my demonstration of the non-existence of the "Christian" God. It involves assigning two more traits, having to do with "Creator" and "wisdom" (a type of seasoned or deeper goodness, maybe).

My counter-argument, however, with its newly assigned traits for God, may require an expansion of "Christian" concepts and theology. It may also place the current human race in a more modest position -- not as the pinnacle or the finished product of God's creation. Remember, in the Hebrew Bible, God in effect had to back-track on his earlier work (Noah and the flood, for example). And if, like many modern Christians, you accept that God uses evolutionary processes to create new life forms, my new traits for God will be easier to accept.

Also, for the benefit of other readers, not necessarily yours, invalidating my previous demonstration of the non-existence of the Christian God does not prove Her existence, due to principles of logic. To fail to disprove a hypothesis does not establish it. (Check me on this).

I'm not ready, however, to spell out the counter-argument, but barring my being hospitalized from shoveling out of the huge snowstorm we're having here, it will appear.

Also, I don't know how interested you might be in the Philosophy of Science forum, but I invite you to check out my recent contribution to the topic, "On Time and Archaeology".

Given my age, the cursing I did while shoveling snow today, and my questioning of the existence of the Christian God, I’m surprised that God hasn’t killed me yet. My only two requests are that, on Judgment Day, (1) our Lord will explain to me why I’m going to hell, and (2) will allow those of my dear friends and family who make it to Heaven to come and visit me periodically and tell me of their wonderful experiences.

I promised to give a counter-argument to my earlier demonstration of the nonexistence of the Christian God (see the first post, introducing this topic). That argument is based on defining God in terms of the usual traits, but avoiding troublesome superlatives, like “omniscience”. Instead, the traits are defined simply, in relation to the idea of God taking care of humans; the traits strongly imply consequences that can easily be observed and verified in everyday life. If the reader accepts the implied consequences and then agrees that the consequences do not happen, by contraposition the existence of the Christian God is refuted.

Observations Preliminary to the Counter-Argument

C. S. Lewis wrote a wonderful book, “The Problem of Pain”, to explain why human suffering from calamities beyond our control may be part of the Christian God’s plan for humanity. So I feel as if I might be repeating Lewis’s arguments. Nonetheless, I believe I have presented it in clearer terms, with some new aspects, and therefore my argument countering my earlier demonstration may be easier for the reader to understand and evaluate than that of C. S. Lewis.

What Lewis was engaged in is called, “apologetics”. So now I’m going to try to be an apologist, which whimsically I think of as “apologizing for God”. Lewis, I believe, tried to explain why the Christian God, with His commonly-ascribed characteristics of being our Creator, with great power, knowledge, love for humanity, goodness, justness, and trustworthiness, allows human pain and suffering.

I don’t intend, however, to go quite as far as Lewis in “apologizing”. My counter-argument to my earlier demonstration of why the Christian God cannot exist will instead augment somewhat the traits we might reasonably assign to the Christian God. The aim will be simply to counter my earlier refutation of the hypothesis of His existence. That is, I will attempt to show that my earlier argument fails to prove the nonexistence of the Christian God by making “reasonable” alterations to the list of His attributes. Of course, because of the principles of logic, this is not a proof of His existence.

Counter-Argument to Strand’s Demonstration of the Christian God’s Nonexistence

Let’s add one more trait, number 8, having to do with “wisdom” and modify trait number 4 concerning God as our Creator. This results in a new list of traits, as follows.

The (new conception of the) Christian God is assumed to have all of the following traits:

1. Has enough power to prevent calamities which cause human suffering and death -- calamities such as earthquakes and hurricanes, which are beyond human control.

2. Has enough knowledge to prevent such calamities.

3. Loves humanity enough to seriously consider the prevention of such calamities.

4. Is the Creator of humanity, or at least the conditions which made human life possible. But Homo sapiens is not necessarily the ultimate goal of God’s creation - His creation is still in process.

5. Is just -- at least to the extent that He/She/It desires to take responsibility for having created human beings.

6. Is trustworthy -- at least to the extent that He/She/It can be counted on to take responsibility for having created human beings and to act accordingly.

7. Is good enough to recognize She is responsible for our very existence and thus has some desire to protect us.

8. Is wise, knowing that to achieve Her creative goals, humanity needs, for its own ultimate good, further molding and change.

Note that traits 4 and 8 may, but not necessarily do, involve God’s use of an evolutionary process involving natural selection, and hence human struggle with each other and the environment would continue into the future, at least for some time.

We now see that traits 4 and 8, which do not necessarily contradict the other beloved characteristics we think of as associated with the Christian God, are the key to the counter-argument. If these can be accepted as consistent with Christian theology, then the possibility of human suffering from calamities beyond our control must be admitted and does not refute the new characterization of the Christian God. Human suffering may be seen as needed to improve the human race, through challenge and struggle. This process will eventually make us, or some species of which we will be a common ancestor, stronger, kinder, more intelligent, and fitter for companionship with God.

The significance of the earlier demonstration of nonexistence and this counter-argument is as follows: Not only do these arguments show that an older, perhaps inadequate characterization of the Christian God need not and perhaps cannot be maintained, but replaces it with one that many Christian thinkers should be happy to accept: Francis Collins, for example -- the distinguished human genome mapping leader who writes about why both evolution and God can coexist.

Again, we realize that none of this proves the new hypothesis to be true. And personally, I feel that traits 4 and 8 are a bit of a stretch, like bending over backwards in some ways, and will be contended by a subset of faithful Christians. But I hope that subset of folks will look at my original (Strand’s) demonstration of nonexistence and have second thoughts about the old definition, and perhaps even give the theory of natural selection (or one like it) more serious consideration.

Finally, let’s not lose sight of simpler and possibly more telling hypotheses for human suffering: No God, or a God who doesn’t really care. These may be countered at the risk of appearing naive or overly optimistic, as in my train of thought. But at least we can try to be deliberate and logical about it.

I write here representing a friend who has countered my counter -- that is, he has a good argument for why, even with the eight new traits, the fact of human (Homo sapien) suffering from events beyond our control refutes the existence of the Christian God.

His argument, as I understand it, with him looking over my shoulder, is that humans have enough appeal for God, who is still responsible for our existence and loves us, that God would find a way to continue with creation other than to allow us to suffer from events like the Haitian earthquake. I have to agree, since the alternative is too similar to the old German Nazi program to develop a master race. The eight traits, taken as a whole, imply that God would have pity on Homo sapiens and, using His love and knowledge and power, would have a way to mold humanity without putting it through trials and tribulations as input to a biological evolutionary process based on natural selection. Since we still observe human suffering from calamities, my new hypothesis for the Christian God is effectively refuted.

I have to applaud my dear friend's insight, and hope he doesn't have to endure persecution from any believers in God, because he really is a kind and respectful sort of chap, and I'll defend him on Judgment Day, if that day ever comes.

So where does humanity stand? If God exists and is Nazi-like (albeit in a sort of benign way), as my eight traits unfortunately suggest, then we should try to "surprise" God by striving and acquiring for ourselves the knowledge, power, and goodness to live a better life and overcome human suffering, both self-inflicted (warfare) and from natural causes. If the adorable Christian God actually exists, or if a God exists who is indifferent to us, or even if no God exists, then we might as well do the same: That is, act in the spirit of the Christian God to help each other live a better life and improve our chances of survival. This is a good and worthy enterprise, whether God of any stripe exists or not!

At the end of the day, perhaps the whole question of God's existence is irrelevant to the issue of human welfare, unless God is a being who is actively trying to hinder our progress to the better life, or to destroy us. That is, it would seem that only a hostile God would be a practical object for us to try to discover and understand, for the sake of self-defense. Any thoughts on this conclusion?

I think love and good are separate: We might love the taste of lollies but we know that eating lollies as our diet is not good.

Now I would still challenge your point 7. A good person should have no desire to protect a wicked deed. A good parent does not protect their naughty child but actually disciplines their child. As such protection can be a good thing and indeed there are many verses in the Bible where we are told to see protection in God but at no time does God ever offer protection for the wicked.



I would wholly assert that natural calamities are not a logical issue that pertains to the Christian God. They are an emotional issue.

1. My first evidence is my previous paragraph. A good parent does not protect their naughty child but actually disciplines their child. As such protection can be a good thing and indeed there are many verses in the Bible where we are told to see protection in God but at no time does God ever offer protection for the wicked.

2. My second evidence is my understanding God as Good and not tolerating evil. When we sin, God has two choices: abide with us and allow evil to abide with him or send us to Hell.

3. Now what do we know from the Bible that God actually did. He chose a 3rd option. He did not confine us to Hell he took a 3rd course of action and allowed the corruption that sin creates work its way through the universe. In a very clear way he compromised his nature for a time by choosing this 3rd way. This shows several things. That he love us to give us this chance. It will also show that God will win regardless of evil, God's plan will be completed regardless. But this stay of execution has to be temporary. If it is permanent then God really is not being Good.

So which attribute of God has God violated in this framework?

1. Omnipotence - no. He could stop all the calamity but is not doing so because to do so would be to end what chance we have of being saved.
2. Omniscience - no. He knew we would sin and knew that he would be coming as Jesus to rescue us.
3. Love - no. The just option was to end us but he showed mercy and love by not ending us.
4. Creator - no. This isn't challenged.
5. Justice - no. The bad will be separated from him and the wise will ask for mercy and receive it.
6. Trustworthy - no. This isn't really challenged. You need to weigh more issues and see whether we can trust God in what is happening now.
7. Good. At best you can say he is violating being Good by allowing this state of affairs. But personally I am glad he is tolerating this sinful world so I have a chance to be saved. But I do not expect God to tolerate this permanently.

In essence your point 7 and tying protecting us to being Good is valid only when we ask God to protect that which is good. You cannot ask a good thing to protect an evil thing. As such God has chosen a 3rd course to protect those that wish to abide with that which is good.

Now the above is what I would mainly appreciate you addressing. It is not possible to reply to your other posts without discussing your definition of point 7 and my challenge to it.

OK let's reply to this.

Let's see what your friend has to say.

Your key point here is pity or mercy? The reply to this objection has to do with love.

Suppose I stood over your shoulder and demanded that you love me. Or even worse suppose I guided and molded you to love me. Would either situation create a creature that could really love? God could of created robots and then it would be rather silly to go through saving them via Jesus when he could program them not to sin, but would they be good, would they be worth loving and be able to love others?

Given the framework you defined, I feel your friend is not supporting point 3 in asserting that a a good God would not allow us to sin because if a God takes this step then there is no love at all.

Moving on.

Of course it is. When you are lost at sea I would both pray and start paddling. Human endeavor is not precluded by God and I'm not sure of its relevance to the topic.

Well if God is evil then what defense would you construct against God and if God can be defended against then was it really God? Many people are quite happy in their lives without God so perhaps that is evidence of God being irrelevant to the issue of human welfare. But personally I have found my heart to be more at ease with God. So I suspect these types of arguments are subjective opinions and not part of working out the logic of God.

Once again, Wootah, I'm grateful for your interest and attention to my thoughts. Your posts have given me pause, and I believe we should spend more time on listing the attributes or traits that define the Christian God. I think I moved ahead too soon with arguments and counter-arguments regarding the existence of the Christian God.

You have raised the issue of the time-honored and deep theological concept of human sin. It would appear that this doctrine is so thoroughly entrenched in the Christian faith that any hypothesis or definition or list of traits referring to the Christian God should give serious consideration to the inclusion of the idea of human sin or brokenness or evil. Would you agree?

Therefore, as you suggest, let's focus on what you say here, with the aim of coming up with a better list of traits:


With this thought in place, let's review my latest list of eight traits, modified (traits no. four and eight) for the sake of my friend's objection to the idea of God using evolution to further improve the human race (which smacks of Nazi master-racism). We want to reconsider trait 7, as you suggest, and also see where we might work in the doctrine of human sin:

Characteristics or Traits of the Christian God, Mod. 1:
1. Has enough power to prevent calamities which cause human suffering and death -- calamities such as earthquakes and hurricanes, which are beyond human control.
2. Has enough knowledge to prevent such calamities.
3. Loves humanity enough to seriously consider the prevention of such calamities.
4. Is the Creator of humanity, or at least the conditions which made human life possible.
5. Is just -- at least to the extent that He/She/It desires to take responsibility for having created human beings.
6. Is trustworthy -- at least to the extent that He/She/It can be counted on to take responsibility for having created human beings and to act accordingly.
7. Is good enough to recognize She is responsible for our very existence and thus has some desire to protect us.
8. Is wise, knowing that to achieve Her creative goals, humanity needs, for its own ultimate good, further molding and change.

Let me show how I would further modify this characterization to account for the concept of human sin, for your review:

Characteristics or Traits of the Christian God, Mod. 2:
1. Has enough power to prevent calamities which cause human suffering and death -- calamities such as earthquakes and hurricanes, which are beyond human control.
2. Has enough knowledge to prevent such calamities.
3. Loves humanity enough to seriously consider the prevention of such calamities, while allowing humans to exercise free will.
4. Is the Creator of humanity, or at least the conditions which made human life possible. In creating humans, God gave them free will.
5. Is just -- desires to take responsibility for having created human beings, which may involve punishing humans for their sins.
6. Is trustworthy -- can be counted on to take responsibility for having created human beings and to act with justice.
7. Is good -- recognizes She is responsible for our very existence and thus has some desire to protect us, and also to deal justly with human evil.
8. Is wise, knowing that to achieve Her creative goals, humanity needs salvation.
9. Is merciful, by providing a plan for salvation of humans from sin.

Wootah, I've indicated in italics the changes I think will accomplish the desired incorporation of the doctrine of human evil. I suggest we mull over this new list of traits before proceeding with an examination of its adequacy as a description of the Christian God, its internal consistency, and its implications. You may want to help me polish it up, and I welcome your ideas.

You'll probably recall that in a previous posting I've expressed reservations about the doctrine of human sin. The reason for this is my struggle to distinguish a good and powerful creator God from church or other means of God-worship -- human institutions or practices we've developed with attached doctrines, to study and recognize God. I often suspect that the concept of human sin comes out of human traditions, fears, and the human desire for control and power which go way back in human history. Such human tendencies may simply be a natural consequence of our being mammals struggling for survival. So as a courtesy to you and other readers, I want to inform you that later on I may have something to say about the internal consistency of this new characterization of the Christian God, with its new material to account for the doctrine of human sin.

Oh well it's a fun game and being played pleasantly.



Personally I hope I haven't thrust sin into the equation unnecessarily.

For example, with the concept of good I felt I was able to differentiate between love and good to warrant adding good to the list of traits. Similarly I felt that a good protector need only protect good things and would definitely not protect evil things. So unless there is a reason to expect a good God to protect wicked in his creation I am not sure we should expect it to. All I regard sin as is logically equivalent to evil or not good, the thing a good God should not be expected to protect. I am not fussed whether we are innately sinful or just neutral and can do good or evil or whether that is entirely relevant.

Your question, I would expect, is whether we are that evil thing that should not be protected. I mean in Heaven I would pretty highly surprised to see an earthquake that hurt anyone.

I'll review your post again tomorrow with other points but please don't let me add anything that you don't think I should or that was added unnecessarily or in an ad hoc fashion!

OK, Wootah. On whatever level you like, we should at least consider definitions of the Christian God that include the idea of human sin and see where they lead. More later, I hope -- I see you are busy in many topics and forums. Good luck!

Whatever level you like. I just don't want you to feel that I do anything or suggest anything that isn't justified! What did you think of my response to your friends feedback?

Welcome back, Wootah! I'm glad you and I are keeping this topic alive. Please check out the new topic, "God -- than Whom ..", which I'm using as a sounding board to encourage participation from others in this one.

You had some comments about my friend's argument:


If God created us and God is powerful, knows a lot, loving, good, etc., then he knew what he was creating and would approve of it. Since he knows what they are going to do and how their going to act (help each other, hit each other, love each other, hate each other, you name it), his traits imply that whatever he creates and whatever his creatures do, he approves of it -- they are his own creation! Sin then becomes a human construct (and a good one, in my book, so we can learn to avoid it) -- activity that hurts another human being and makes our lives together unpleasant. But God knew this stuff would happen the moment he conceived of our existence! Assuming eventhat he gave us free will (thus leaving us free to do "evil" things), he loves us and approves of us in every way. This is implied by the traits we've assigned to a Christian God.

Now I hope I've made clearer my problem with the doctrine of human sin. I think it just might be a human doctrine, albeit a practical one for us, in order to help us learn to treat each other better (Golden Rule). But I don't think our Christian God, who made us and knows us inside-out, and who we have assumed loves us despite our self-imagined "warts", is worried. Thus the doctrine of salvation also becomes debatable, except as a metaphor about how we need to try to "save" ourselves; that is, find ways to improve our chances of survival as a species, using the capabilities God gave us when she created us.



My idea here was the vague possibility of an intelligent race from another planet who started life on Earth, as an experiment, perhaps. They may be so advanced as to appear god-like to us, and we might have to defend ourselves against them. But I was being more whimsical than serious.

The idea of the Christian God is, I believe, extremely relevant to human welfare. The idea may give us the motivation to gain knowledge and power and learn better to treat each other with kindness and respect. This in turn will help us overcome the negative aspects of our environment (e.g. bad weather and earthquakes), better protect it and each other, and help each other live the good life. What may be irrelevant is determining whether or not such a God exists. We know Santa doesn't exist, but we still enjoy Christmas when we give each other warm wishes or presents.

Now then, what do you think about my list of nine traits, Mod. 2, above? Should we come up with Mod. 3, by a more careful consideration of "sin", and the idea that it may be our notion, and not God's?

In this approach of using practical definitions for the traits of the Christian God which have testable consequences, there is a hidden axiom, which applies to those traits. That is, it is assumed that the traits assigned to God are of the same nature or essence as in human beings (assume this is a consequence of God creating humans in God’s image), and are associated with the same feelings and actions in God as in human beings. For example, God’s love for us is like a mother’s love for a child -- associated with a desire to protect the loved one.

I also prefer a characterization that avoids reference to human sin (at least as holy doctrine) and God’s threat to punish us for it or desire to save us from it. In my view, if you assume God created us and also has great power and knowledge and loves us a lot, God creating humans who need to be punished is a contradiction: God knew what she was creating, and how we would act, and must be OK with it. And we don’t want to assume sadistic tendencies in the Christian God. This is not to say humans can’t be stinkers, but that is by our own standards, in order to remind ourselves to keep the peace and avoid hurting or destroying each other.

The Pesky “Suffering is Good” Trait
This led me to consider a special trait defining the Christian God that has real potential to refute any demonstration of the Christian God’s nonexistence based on human suffering due to events beyond human control. This “pesky” trait is: God allows human beings to suffer from such events because it gives people the opportunity to become more as God intended people to be -- more loving and sympathetic and respectful and helpful toward other human beings. In other words, the occurrence of human suffering due to events beyond human control, even the suffering of children, is assumed to be actually better for people on balance than the lack of such human suffering would be. This trait of allowing humans to suffer from events beyond human control might be specified as a component of God’s love, a trait that any characterization of the Christian God would include. Thus the fact that we observe human suffering does not demonstrate the nonexistence of a Christian God defined as having this special trait.

Is this so-called “Suffering Is Good” trait, by which God is assumed to allow human suffering from events beyond human control for the good of humans, consistent with widely-held conceptions of the Christian God? Affirmative, if you take as a valid basis for the trait the apostle Paul’s giving thanks for his trials and tribulations and their resulting benefits (cite the passage in the NT).

To summarize, here is the corresponding Christian God-characterization:

Characteristics or Traits of the Christian God, Including the “Suffering is Good” Trait
1. Has enough power to prevent calamities which cause human suffering and death -- calamities such as earthquakes and hurricanes, which are beyond human control.
2. Has enough knowledge to prevent such calamities.
3. Loves humanity enough to cause or allow events which are for the good of humanity. This may be protection in some cases, and allowance of human suffering in other cases.
4. Is the Creator of humanity, or at least the conditions which made human life possible.
5. Is just -- desires to take responsibility for having created human beings.
6. Is trustworthy -- can be counted on to take responsibility for having created human beings and to act with love and justice.
7. Is good -- takes responsibility for our very existence and acts accordingly.

Here’s where I stand:
a. The fact of human suffering is one of the most effective arguments against the existence of the Christian God.
b. The “suffering is good” trait can reasonably be used to define the Christian God, in view of the apostle Paul’s sentiments. After all, Paul was crucial to the founding of Christianity.
c. Trait 3 can be simplified by eliminating the “suffering is good” reference, and still be reasonable, depending on your view of Christianity: “Loves humanity enough to want to protect us”.

I prefer the simpler version of trait 3, without the “suffering is good” reference. This means that I must reject the hypothesis of a Christian God who is, briefly put, protective, since human suffering, even from events beyond human control, obviously occurs. It also means that I cannot reject the hypothesis of a Christian God who, briefly put, allows us to suffer for our own good.

I think this is almost exactly where the C. S. Lewis fans would like me to be. I think they would like me to believe in a Christian God who allows human pain for our own good. I remind them, however, once again, that my failure to reject that characterization is not proof of the existence of a God who allows us to suffer for our own good. And once again, the followers of C. S. Lewis should remember the two concepts that are just as valid as the “suffering is good” concept -- there isn’t any God at all , or God basically ignores us, both of which imply we are on our own, and both of which allow for human suffering of all kinds.

What is your opinion? Are there even better testable characterizations for a Christian God than the two I’ve outlined? I believe such characterizations will have to avoid the use of human suffering as a test, which I’ve just about run into the ground, but I may be wrong.

OK a fair bit of work required here. I have grabbed some paragraphs that stood out and that I wanted to directly speak about. if there is a paragraph that I have neglected that you want comment on directly let me know.



You are suggesting here that knowledge of our actions implies consent. But do you approve of everything your children do? Do you by virtue of producing them consent to their actions? I just don't see any connection between creating something and approving of what it does. I currently can't see enough proof on your side to maintain the idea that creation of X = consent to whatever X does.

I respectfully cannot reply to this paragraph due to my issues with the one proceeding it.



I can accept the above paragraph if you can show how 'not punishing' does not violate principle 5. As such punishment is not so much a trait of God but more of a consequence of 5. Until you can reasonably prove that your concept of God can maintain 5 and not punish evil then I recommend that you need to adjust to accommodate that punishment for injustice is neither sadistic (which is irrelevant) nor is it a contradiction with the currently stated traits.

It is entirely hard to address further paragraphs in your posts as the two that I have quoted contain issues to discuss.

Looking good. My next post will contain my suggestions to them.