Hi Yuyutsu

Thank you for your comments, and contributions to this thread.

Jesus did indeed call on disciples to be like children, but I don’t think he meant us to be naïve or literalist. He made the comment in response to the disciples asking him who is greatest in God’s kingdom. Childhood in the ancient world was hard and dangerous: about half of newborns did not survive to adulthood. Children were vulnerable and dependent, without power or status. I think Jesus is proposing a model of discipleship based on humility and service, not the conventional values of status and power

AJ: <<I don’t know what it would take to convince me that a god exists. But what I do know is that if a god does exist, then it would know what it would take to convince me of its existence. Which means either one of two things:

1. this god isn’t interested in revealing itself to me in any way that could be considered rationally justifiable, or;
2. it doesn’t exist.>>

I agree with << if a god does exist, then it would know what it would take to convince me of its existence>>

However, this argument cannot be used to justify not reading the scriptures. It presumes an understanding of what the scriptures say about the purpose of our existence and this requires the scriptures. Secondly, you acknowledged the need to assess the strength of evidence offered by scriptures. In your words:

AJ: "Sorry, grateful, but the evidence you have provided is pretty weak given the alleged power of the being that we’d be talking about here."

Furthermore, I disagree with << this god isn’t interested in revealing itself to me in any way that could be considered rationally justifiable>>

A rational justification for not revealing himself directly would be that he wants you to choose without compulsion.

For there to be no compulsion in religion requires that God not reveal himself directly (lest the choice be self-evident) and that we have an existence that is independent of our physical existence so our choices cannot be predetermined by the ‘environment’ or chance.

In the Qur’an a non-believer is one who rejects faith implying accurate understanding of the options and the ability to discern.

grateful: A rational justification for not revealing himself directly would be that he wants you to choose without compulsion.

This is not Compulsion?

Quran 2:191 SLAY THE UNBELIEVERS WHERE EVER YOU FIND THEM
Quran 3:28 MUSLIMS MUST NOT TAKE INFIDELS AS FRIENDS
Quran 3:85 ANY RELIGION OTHER THAN ISLAM IS NOT ACCEPTABLE
Quran 5:33 MAIM AND CRUCIFY THE INFIDELS IF THEY CRITICIZE ISLAM
Quran 8:12 TERRORIZE AND BEHEAD THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN SCRIPTURES OTHER THSN THE QURAN
Quran 8:60 MUSLIMS MUST MUSTER ALL WEAPOBS TO TERRORIZE THE INFIDELS
Quran 8:65 THE UNBELIEVERS ARE STUPID; URGE THE MUSLIMS TO FIGHT THEM
Quran 9:5 WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY ARISES, KILL THE INFIDELS WHEREVER YOU CATCH THEM
Quran 9:23 MAKE WAR ON THE INFIDELS LIVING IN YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD
Quran 47:12 DO NOT HANKER FOR PEACE WITH THE INFIDELS; BEHEAD THEM WHEN YOU CATCH THEM

That wasn’t necessarily an excuse to not read scriptures, grateful.

<<I agree [that if a god does exist, then it would know what it would take to convince us of its existence]. However, this argument cannot be used to justify not reading the scriptures.>>

It can, actually. But if you really must know, the main reason I don’t read the Qur’an is because, from what little of it I have read, it appears to be excruciatingly boring. The Bible was a painful enough slog for me as it was (though I would never have admitted to that at the time). Another reason I won’t read it is because there is no reliable evidence for this god that it claims exists.

<<[Your argument] presumes an understanding of what the scriptures say about the purpose of our existence and this requires the scriptures.>>

My argument only presumed that a god would be knowledgeable enough to know how to prove its existence to me. Nothing more. What ‘purpose’ has to do with that, one can only guess.

<<…you acknowledged the need to assess the strength of evidence offered by scriptures.>>

I acknowledged no such thing. I said the evidence you'd provided for the Qur’an being the word of a god was weak. Where you’re getting the element of necessity from, I don’t know.

<<A rational justification for [God] not revealing himself directly would be that he wants you to choose without compulsion.>>

So, here we have this god who wants people to choose to believe in him without the “compulsion” that reliable evidence would engender, but if they don’t believe, then they’ll go to hell.

That’s not rational. If such a severe punishment exists, then he is obliged to either reveal himself or change his rules.

<<...we have an existence that is independent of our physical existence so our choices cannot be predetermined by the ‘environment’ or chance.>>

I didn't ask what the purpose of the soul was (though I haven't heard that one before). I asked how exactly the soul performs this function given that brain injuries contradict your claim.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324124
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324162

Grateful - "A rational justification for not revealing himself directly would be that he wants you to choose without compulsion. For there to be no compulsion in religion requires that God not reveal himself directly (lest the choice be self-evident.)"

I see where you're coming from here. I think you've expressed it quite well.

What would you say in response to my rebuttals then, Dan?

<<I think you've expressed it quite well.>>

I did, after all, demonstrate that God not wanting to be imposing or not wanting to compel people to believe in him was neither gentlemanly nor rational, given that he’ll send people to Hell if they don’t believe.

How does yours and grateful's claim gel with:

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6

Even if you’re one of these modern theists who believes in Annihilationism (as if that were so much better), how is it gentlemanly or rational of God to allow certain family members and friends, of those who will live in an eternity of bliss with him, to disappear into eternal nothingness?

How would an eternity anywhere be bliss if there were loved ones that you would never see again? Forever! I’ll tell ya what: if there is anyone you care about who doesn’t believe in this god of yours, and this god does in fact exist, then whoever it is that goes to heaven won’t be you. Not entirely, at least.

What if your son eventually decided he was an atheist? (Certainly not unlikely nowadays.) Would the person living in bliss for an eternity without his son still be you?