Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Why i Am Skeptical About God

Why i Am Skeptical About God

Ratings: (0)|Views: 486|Likes:
Published by holyschmidt

More info:

Published by: holyschmidt on Oct 18, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Why I am skeptical about GodFirst of all, as with any claim, it is the burden of the one making the claim
to prove his claim. It does not make sense to say: “I can fly, prove me wrong”. It
is up to the person making the claim to prove that he can fly.
It has been said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.
Divinity is the most extraordinary claim there is. And yet there is no proof for it.
There are many things that don't make sense to me. Not because I’m too
stupid to understand them, or because I lack the capacity to understand them,but because they form a paradox, a contradiction that cannot be possible.In an attempt to describe my thoughts and reflections, I will go over someof the concepts that expose why I am skeptical.In this first thought experiment, picture your future children.Would there be anything that your kids could do, including; murder,homosexuality, theft, rape, and
not loving you,
that would lead you to chain themin your basement, and continuously torture them in the worst possible wayimaginable, for years and years?For me, there is nothing that my children could do to warrant that type ofpunishment. So how can anyone explain the concept of hell?Does this mean that we as humans are more moral than God? Because Godpromises hell to those who do not love him, do not accept him, or to those whocommit sin.While this does not mean I do not think justice should be served, I believe thatthe punishment must fit the crime. I do not think that our mere thoughts shouldwarrant such an extreme punishment. The tenth commandment states that weshould not covet, or desire, what our neighbor has. So, the mere thought ofsomething we want means that we have sinned, and we deserve hell.
And the angels will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will beweeping and gnashing of teeth
. (Matthew 13:42) To me, the extreme severity and infinite duration of the punishment isincompatible with justice. Should God exist, would it not be unreasonable to forhim to give such flawed and ignorant creatures as ourselves the responsibility ofour eternal destinies?This brings me into the problem of evil. God is said to be omnibenevolent(perfectly or infinitely good), omnipotent (unlimited power) and omniscient (thecapacity to know everything). If he is all these things, how can there be evil? It allboils down to Gods ability and will. This is what Epicurus pondered:Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is
omnipotent.Is he able, but not willing?Then he is
.Is he both able, and willing?Then
is there evil?Is he neither able nor willing?Then
why call him God? 
 Taking this thought further, we realize that among these three characteristics,only two are possible. (you can have 2, but not 3)
God is all-powerful.
God is all-loving.
There is evil in this world.If you can agree that there are malevolent things in this world, it means that Godcould not have created a world without evil, or did not
to create a world
without evil. Aren’t both
valid reasons not to worship him?
It might be said that “God works in mysterious ways”, and that God really is good,but humans’ sense of good is different than what God considers good. If this is
true than we have diverging interests.Consider ants living in a human apartment: humans seem all-powerful, act inmysterious ways, and ultimately in a "good" way from a human perspective.However, he will consider exterminating the ants a good thing, it makes no sensefor the ants to worship or collaborate with him in any way.Let us continue to the paradox of free will.Why is there free will?Is there free will because we don't have a choice? (we are on our own)Or is there free will because God says we do? (irony)Lets think about it:If there is an omnipotent God, there is no free will, because an omnipotent beingcannot cede power.If there is an omniscient God, then there is no free will because God alreadyknows everything you are going to do. For free will to exist, their needs to beuncertainty, as us humans could choose either way. To say that there is only oneway we could have chosen eliminates free will.
Morality. It comes from God right? Well, maybe the bible? Where do we get itfrom?Morality, or our set of rights and wrongs, is a huge issue in which I never reallythought about until now.In this thought experiment, lets pretend that a new leader was coming into power,and that he had 4 new laws that he was going to phase in.1.
Talking on a Friday
Execution (the leader was born on a Friday and didnot speak, so he wants this respected in law)2.
The leader can kill & order killing for any reason3.
Any citizen forced by the leader to commit crimes through mind-alteringdrugs will be severely punished.4.
Parents who commit crimes will have their children killed, and if
nottheir first offence, they will be made to eat their children.These laws would no doubt spark outrage.Law 1 kills people for crimes with no victim.Law 2 makes the leader unaccountable by making his own killings lawful bydefinition.Laws 3 & 4 explicitly punish the blameless, contradict the principle of personalresponsibility, with law 4 adding an obscene element designed to dehumanize.These are definitive cases of injustice. So if we were asked about our objectionsto these laws, we are not confined to say that it is not to our taste. We have non-arbitrary reasons to object.But back up a second. What if this leader has been in power all your life, and youwere brought up to believe that they were morally perfect? We would say thatsuch a leader wouldn't make laws that were unjust, and this would create a majorcognitive dissonance.
(a discomfort caused by holding conflictingideassimultaneously)
.So how would we respond? Perhaps we would invent some context. Maybe wewould say
of course 
its right for someone who has done so much for our societyto make some arbitrary demands. Or maybe we would evade the problem bysaying that their concept of morality was so ahead of ours that we couldn't
understand them. That they “worked in mysterious ways”. But we would be
wrong.Clearly the root of the problem is the morally corrupting idea that the lawmaker ismorally perfect. It corrupts because it causes us to accept unjust laws, leaving usdefending the indefensible. If we remove the idea that the lawmaker is morallyperfect, we can see the laws for what they really are. Unjust.When we accept ideas uncritically, or make them sacred so we don't question

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->