I went forward and took part in the "Battleground God" part of the website. I did not run into a "bullet" until question eleven. What is interesting to note is that the notice stated that I did not, in fact, contradict myself in any manner that they could percieve. The question was along the lines of "Do you believe that people dying of disease do so for some higher purpose?". I answered "yes". From what I could gather, they just seemed not to understand what that higher purpose could be and therefore could not believe that it existed.
In the very next question, again, I've come across another bullet. Simply put, the question was "Do you believe that God has the power to reverse things so that sin is right and right is sin?" I answered "Yes". The bullet had apparently come this time with the shocking news that I was somehow contradicting myself.
You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. What this means is that God could make the reduction of suffering a sin... yet you've said that God must want to reduce suffering. There is a way out of this, but it means biting a bullet.
The problem is that although God
could make sin to be considered morally good, God has, so far, not done so. Furthermore, if God were to invert the world, suffering would not be suffering, but in fact, enjoyment.
On forward to question 14 which came along the lines of, "If no evidence exists to prove that God does not exist, then is Atheism a matter of faith?". I answered "Yes" and came up with another bullet.
Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.
In this case, the two questions are incomparable. My belief that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist due to lack of evidence is still a matter of faith just as it is for atheists who feel the same about God. There is absolutely no evidence in either case with exception to the lack thereof, so therefore any judgement made is a matter of faith and perception. With the question of Loch Ness Monsters, the subject in question is a biological organism that could only exist within the small confines of the Loch and on the bordering shoreline. With the question of God, it is generally believed that the subject, were God to exist, would have unlimited power and all of that, therefor God's existence cannot be as easily dismissed due to lack of evidence as it were to dismiss that of the Loch Ness Monster.
Onto question 16. "Can God make circles have four sides and 1+1 = 72?". I answered "Yes".
In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.
This I can agree on, somewhat. Again we run into "If God could do
X then our world would not make sense and blah blah blah blah blah." The problem is that God did not do make circles with four sides and did not make 1+1=72. Furthermore, if God were to change the math, 1+1 would still equal 2, in a relative sense, because our free will created the language to express God's measurements. In the end, however, it is only through feeling that one can determine whether they believe or not. All of the discussion and debate in the world will only bring you to a point where to search your inner feelings for the truth.
----- It goes on and on. I could debunk their crap all day. I get more challenge out of CFC-OT'ers. -----
On question 17. Something like, "It is justifiable to believe in the existence of God despite the lack of evidence in the external world." I answered, "Yes". Again...
Earlier you said that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction, but now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!
Again, they are trying to fit God into what they view as the external world. They apparently feel that if God exists, he must do so within the "external world" before any other place. Again, I say God is not limited to existing within his own creation. That is just silly.
My overall opinion of website is as follows:
-- There are holes in their rationale(s) big enough to fit Jerome Bettis through. I get more challenge from a CFC-OT'er.
-- They want you to believe that God must exist within and under the laws of his own creation (Earth, the Universe, etc). Even most Athiests here must agree that this is not required for God to exist.
-- In the end, what I can conclude about these people is that they believe that if they cannot understand God and God's rationale, that God must not exist. I find this highly condescending. It tells me that they think too highly of themselves. "If I cannot understand it, it must not be true."
