The Geographical Argument against Belief in God

[Copernicus]

Here is an argument against belief in gods: Since humanity is predisposed to invent false gods, any particular human-worshiped god is likely to be a false god. But I'll just confine the chain of reasoning to the Abrahamic (Christian/Jewish/Islamic) God. I've broken it down into 11 steps for easier reference. Bear in mind that this is not a proof that God cannot exist, but that he likely does not exist.

1) God is a true god or a false god. (law of the excluded middle)
2) False gods do not exist. (by definition)
3) Since false gods do not exist, belief in them only spreads by tradition from a local point of origin. (from our knowledge of the world)
4) God wants people to believe in his existence. (general religious belief)
5) If God exists and wants people to believe in his existence, he will act to support credible belief in his existence. (based on the observation that he has allegedly done so through revelation)
6) God could have a reason for appearing not to act to support credible belief in his existence. (for the sake of argument)
7) Belief in God has spread only by tradition from a local point of origin. (from our knowledge of the world)
8) God appears not to have acted to support credible belief in his existence.
9) Either God does not exist or he has a good reason to have made the spread of his religion look similar to the spread of a false religion.
10) God appears not to have a good reason for making the spread of his religion look similar to the spread of a false religion. (Nobody able to think of a good reason)
11) Therefore, God probably is a false god.

 

[Dunemeister]

I may be dense, but I certainly don't see how 11 follows from the conjunction of 1 - 10, nor do I see any good reason to support 8 - 10.

 

[Copernicus]

I may be dense, but I certainly don't see how 11 follows from the conjunction of 1 - 10, nor do I see any good reason to support 8 - 10.

Bear in mind that this is an argument from similarity. Because God behaves like a nonexistent god, it is reasonable to suppose that he is such a god. Let's concentrate on 8-10, then.

8) Do you believe that God has acted to support credible belief in his existence? How has he distinguished himself in that respect from gods who do not exist?

9) If God does not exist, then that would explain his failure to make his existence obvious. The only other reasonable possibility is that he does exist but has an overriding purpose in not revealing his existence in a more obvious fashion than nonexistent gods have. Do you disagree with this point? If so, why?

10) Do you think that God has an overriding purpose that prevents him from revealing his existence in a more obvious fashion? If so, what could it be?

 

[Runlikethewind]

10) Do you think that God has an overriding purpose that prevents him from revealing his existence in a more obvious fashion?

Yes

If so, what could it be?

Love.

Love cannot be coerced it must be freely given or else it is not true love, by definition. If God wants to receive love from us then we must posses the freedom to choose to give our love. It follows then that we would have to have the freedom not only to choose to love but also to choose the opposite, otherwise it would not be a true choice. This would leave God in a position that would require us to know enough about God that we are aware of the choice but not have knowledge in such an obvious manner that would infringe on our freedom of choice which is required for true love. Love, then, is one possible explanation for why God's existence is not more obvious.

Another point that I would like to make is that it might very well be possible, given human weaknesses, to have false belief in a true God. What I mean by that is that all Christians worship the same God but at the same time we all have different ideas of who or what that one God is. This does not make God false, it only means our understanding of God is incomplete or erroneous.

 

[Copernicus]

Love cannot be coerced it must be freely given or else it is not true love, by definition. If God wants to receive love from us then we must posses the freedom to choose to give our love. Love cannot be coerced it must be freely given or else it is not true love, by definition. If God wants to receive love from us then we must posses the freedom to choose to give our love. It follows then that we would have to have the freedom not only to choose to love but also to choose the opposite, otherwise it would not be a true choice. This would leave God in a position that would require us to know enough about God that we are aware of the choice but not have knowledge in such an obvious manner that would infringe on our freedom of choice which is required for true love. Love, then, is one possible explanation for why God's existence is not more obvious.

Thanks for the comments, RLTW. I believe that a loving relationship between worshiper and God is very important in the Christian religion--a central concept--and it is true that love must be given freely in order for it to exist. Sacrifice for the relationship between human and God is necessary on both sides for Christian doctrine to make sense. But I do not think that love helps you much with this argument, and it may work against you. Here is why.

Knowledge is a prerequisite of love, and you seem to acknowledge this when you say that we must "know enough about God that we are aware of the choice". Love and hate are forms of intimacy. The less you know of a person, the less you are capable of either love or hate for that person. And love is something that grows or diminishes over time as one gets to know the person better. So it makes no sense to claim that one's ability to love God is somehow diminished by not knowing for certain that he even exists. Lack of knowledge contradicts the intimacy that is necessary for love to come into being and to strengthen.

Now you do seem to have a reason for believing that absolute certainty of God's existence would be harmful to love. You claim that we must not "have knowledge in such an obvious manner that would infringe on our freedom of choice which is required for true love." How would any knowledge of God infringe on our freedom of choice? I don't get this. Can you elaborate further? It is certainly not the case that too much knowledge of other people infringes on our ability to love them. Indeed, we seem to require more intimate knowledge over time for a stronger bond of love. Do you believe that people who witness divine miracles are less able to love God than those who do not? When people die, and come to know God for certain, do they lose their ability to choose to love him freely? With all due respect, that argument makes no sense to me. Can you help me to understand it better?

Now let's return to the Geographical Argument for a second and look at how it relates the the loving relationship between humans and their creator. God's immanence guarantees that he has been present in all places at all times. So, he had to have been present in the Yucatan peninsula as well as Jerusalem when Christ was sacrificed. Nevertheless, the central event in Christian theology--the crucifixion--took place in one location at one point in time. And awareness of that event could only have spread slowly. People living in the Americas would not learn of it (in principle) until Christians visited the New World. God must have known this, so why would he not also want to spread the knowledge of salvation simultaneously from more than one location across the planet? What the Geographical Argument says is that he chose to spread his religion in exactly the same manner as all the false religions on Earth. Does this not suggest to you the possibility that Christianity is just another false religion?

Another point that I would like to make is that it might very well be possible, given human weaknesses, to have false belief in a true God. What I mean by that is that all Christians worship the same God but at the same time we all have different ideas of who or what that one God is. This does not make God false, it only means our understanding of God is incomplete or erroneous.

True, but I am not claiming that God cannot possibly exist. I am claiming that he most likely does not exist. So, getting back to the Christian God, one would suppose that he would have complete awareness of human weaknesses. The obvious question would then be why he would behave as if those weaknesses did not exist. What purpose is served? You seem to think that the purpose is to preserve the freedom to choose to love him. But how can one have freedom to make such a choice without having some reasonable certainty that the being in question actually exists? What would motivate God to deprive humans of that certainty?

 

[methylatedghosts]

2) False gods do not exist. (by definition)

Wouldn't the idea, the concept of a false god cause that god to exist, at least in the minds of the holders of those ideas/concepts?

3) Since false gods do not exist, belief in them only spreads by tradition from a local point of origin. (from our knowledge of the world)

Or, simple self-creation.

4) God wants people to believe in his existence. (general religious belief)

That's a big assumption - to claim to know what a largely un-knowable entity (being infinite and all etc etc makes it very difficult to know it) wants.

5) If God exists and wants people to believe in his existence, he will act to support credible belief in his existence. (based on the observation that he has allegedly done so through revelation)

Not necessarily. Another assumption to know what a largely un-knowable entity will or will not do.

6) God could have a reason for appearing not to act to support credible belief in his existence. (for the sake of argument)

Perhaps.

7) Belief in God has spread only by tradition from a local point of origin. (from our knowledge of the world)

Or from an internal point of origin - one from self-creation.

8) God appears not to have acted to support credible belief in his existence.

This depends on who you talk to.

9) Either God does not exist or he has a good reason to have made the spread of his religion look similar to the spread of a false religion.

Assuming of course, in the case of the latter, that god has a religion.

10) God appears not to have a good reason for making the spread of his religion look similar to the spread of a false religion. (Nobody able to think of a good reason)

Again, assuming god has a religion.
And perhaps this is what you are suggesting, but simply because one cannot think of a reason, doesn't mean there is none.

11) Therefore, God probably is a false god.

I'm not sure this follows from the above points

 

[Renji]

Here is an argument against belief in gods: Since humanity is predisposed to invent false gods, any particular human-worshiped god is likely to be a false god. But I'll just confine the chain of reasoning to the Abrahamic (Christian/Jewish/Islamic) God. I've broken it down into 11 steps for easier reference. Bear in mind that this is not a proof that God cannot exist, but that he likely does not exist.

10) God appears not to have a good reason for making the spread of his religion look similar to the spread of a false religion. (Nobody able to think of a good reason)
11) Therefore, God probably is a false god.

Hello! First the #10 statement, God has plans for everything that happened or will happened so I think, it is not good to say that. There are false prophets and therefore false religions appear. Did God wanted the false religions to appear? No, but He has a reason and what is that reason? Only God knows. #11 there is a huge difference between the true God and a "god" or "gods". You can tell it by reading the Bible.

 

[Mister Emu]

1) God is a true god or a false god. (law of the excluded middle)

Agreed

2) False gods do not exist. (by definition)

Disagree... In some eastern countries people are picked out as incarnations of gods, these people are worshipped as gods, and they quite clearly exist, but I would classify them as false gods...

3) Since false gods do not exist, belief in them only spreads by tradition from a local point of origin. (from our knowledge of the world)

All religion has spread like this...

4) God wants people to believe in his existence. (general religious belief)

Agreed. But not to the point where we have no ability to deny it...

5) If God exists and wants people to believe in his existence, he will act to support credible belief in his existence. (based on the observation that he has allegedly done so through revelation)

Again not to the point where we have no choice in the matter...

6) God could have a reason for appearing not to act to support credible belief in his existence. (for the sake of argument)

Indeed...

7) Belief in God has spread only by tradition from a local point of origin. (from our knowledge of the world)

Ok...

8) God appears not to have acted to support credible belief in his existence.

Appears being the operative word To you...

9) Either God does not exist or he has a good reason to have made the spread of his religion look similar to the spread of a false religion.

Or it is a natural result of only a small group of people retaining faith in Him that His teachings spread from a small area of the world...

10) God appears not to have a good reason for making the spread of his religion look similar to the spread of a false religion. (Nobody able to think of a good reason)

Even giving that God made the spread of His religion look similar to that of false ones... "Appears" is far from certainty, and we, hypothetically, not being able to think of a good reason is hardly a litmus test of whether a good reason existing...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Love.

Love cannot be coerced it must be freely given or else it is not true love, by definition. If God wants to receive love from us then we must posses the freedom to choose to give our love. It follows then that we would have to have the freedom not only to choose to love but also to choose the opposite, otherwise it would not be a true choice. This would leave God in a position that would require us to know enough about God that we are aware of the choice but not have knowledge in such an obvious manner that would infringe on our freedom of choice which is required for true love. Love, then, is one possible explanation for why God's existence is not more obvious.

I've heard that explanation before, but I don't really get it. Being confronted with evidence that is so compelling that the choice is obvious doesn't imply a lack of freedom.

I mean... as an analogy, I am thoroughly convinced that not sticking my hand into a fire would be overwhelmingly preferable to sticking it in, but that doesn't mean that I'd be somehow restrained from sticking my hand into a fire if it was in front of me; I'd just choose not to.

Another point that I would like to make is that it might very well be possible, given human weaknesses, to have false belief in a true God. What I mean by that is that all Christians worship the same God but at the same time we all have different ideas of who or what that one God is. This does not make God false, it only means our understanding of God is incomplete or erroneous.

I suppose that's one explanation for the various ideas about God that exist in human society, but this broad spectrum is still evidence against the idea that an all-powerful god is doing his darndest to make himself known to humanity, isn't it?

 

[Dunemeister]

8) Do you believe that God has acted to support credible belief in his existence? How has he distinguished himself in that respect from gods who do not exist?

Yes, he has acted to give us credible evidence to support belief in his existence. The resurrection of Jesus is primary in this respect. Of course, there are plenty of gainsayers concerning this, but the gainsays usually say more about the gainsayer than the evidence, IMO.

9) If God does not exist, then that would explain his failure to make his existence obvious. The only other reasonable possibility is that he does exist but has an overriding purpose in not revealing his existence in a more obvious fashion than nonexistent gods have. Do you disagree with this point? If so, why?

It's not so much about an overriding purpose but the limitations imposed by the situation. Christian revelation posits that belief in God is hindered by sin, which boils down to human separation from God, which is in turn caused by a general human disdain or fear of God, not to mention a generous dollop of independent-mindedness that chafes at the notion of a life of gratitude and obedience to God (unless it's on our own terms). People so minded could stare obvious evidence in the face for their whole lives yet not come to believe in God's existence.

There's also the possibility that most people actually believe in God but deceive themselves concerning Him for much the same reasons as I've described above.

10) Do you think that God has an overriding purpose that prevents him from revealing his existence in a more obvious fashion? If so, what could it be?

This is also possible, but I don't know what that reason might be. And failure to have a reason doesn't support the contrary argument.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, he has acted to give us credible evidence to support belief in his existence. The resurrection of Jesus is primary in this respect. Of course, there are plenty of gainsayers concerning this, but the gainsays usually say more about the gainsayer than the evidence, IMO.

IMO, that is not the case. The gainsayers need to be slapped down with evidence that shows them to be wrong. Do you know of any such evidence? Outside of scripture, there appears to be none.

It's not so much about an overriding purpose but the limitations imposed by the situation. Christian revelation posits...

Fair enough, but allegations of non-Christian revelation exist, as well. How are we to know whose claims of revelation are true and whose are false? How are we to know that any claims of revelation are true? The only thing we know for certain is that most such claims are false. Revelation has a rather spectacular record of failure when one looks back at all the false religions that have arisen.

...that belief in God is hindered by sin, which boils down to human separation from God, which is in turn caused by a general human disdain or fear of God, not to mention a generous dollop of independent-mindedness that chafes at the notion of a life of gratitude and obedience to God (unless it's on our own terms). People so minded could stare obvious evidence in the face for their whole lives yet not come to believe in God's existence.

True. Yet, I can't help but point out that such skeptics would be spot on correct in all of those non-Christian cultures, wouldn't they? It is just that, in your opinion, they are dead wrong in the culture dominated by Christian revelation. But should we really blame them? Should God? After all, their record of skepticism has been truly marvelous throughout all of human history. The only time that religious skeptics have failed in their drive to criticize and question has been in Christian-dominated culture. Or has it? :sarcastic

There's also the possibility that most people actually believe in God but deceive themselves concerning Him for much the same reasons as I've described above.

Yes, the possibility exists that believers deceive themselves. How are they to know that they are not deceiving themselves?

This is also possible, but I don't know what that reason might be. And failure to have a reason doesn't support the contrary argument.

Not so fast. We all operate under uncertainty. That is a fact of life. We need to proceed from the perspective of what is most likely true. So let's not get hung up on what is possible. Let's get hung up on what is probable. Is it probable that the Christian God exists? If so, what factors support that belief?

 

[Copernicus]

2) False gods do not exist. (by definition)

Disagree... In some eastern countries people are picked out as incarnations of gods, these people are worshipped as gods, and they quite clearly exist, but I would classify them as false gods...

OK, let me restate (2) then: False gods either do not exist at all, or they are existing beings who are mistakenly thought to be gods.

3) Since false gods do not exist, belief in them only spreads by tradition from a local point of origin. (from our knowledge of the world)

All religion has spread like this...

Exactly. The point is that all religions (but one?) are false religions. One might reasonably expect a true religion to behave differently from false religions, especially if the god of the true religion exists in all times at all places. Why would such a god confine true revelation to one group of humans? That is the same pattern as false revelation.

4) God wants people to believe in his existence. (general religious belief)

Agreed. But not to the point where we have no ability to deny it...

Not sure what you mean here. Why would he want us to be able to doubt his existence? Did not Thomas doubt Jesus? Was his freedom to choose in any way compromised even after seeing Jesus perform miracles? And why would God want to leave anyone with doubts about his existence? This suggests that he is struggling with an emotional conflict--the desire to have his existence believed in and...What?

5) If God exists and wants people to believe in his existence, he will act to support credible belief in his existence. (based on the observation that he has allegedly done so through revelation)

Again not to the point where we have no choice in the matter...

Again, you leave me puzzled. Why would God need or want us to be left with doubts about his existence? You have already agreed that he wants people to believe in his existence. What harm would be caused by certainty of his existence? Please explain.

8) God appears not to have acted to support credible belief in his existence.

Appears being the operative word To you...

Yes. Reality may not be as it appears. Do you not agree?

9) Either God does not exist or he has a good reason to have made the spread of his religion look similar to the spread of a false religion.

Or it is a natural result of only a small group of people retaining faith in Him that His teachings spread from a small area of the world...

You've left me in the dust on this one. You say that one group of people "retained" faith. Why would that group retain it when every other group was losing it? Is it something that God wanted to happen? Did he know it was going to happen that way? And then you appear to say that this contraction suddenly reversed itself, and people came to know their faith in exactly the same way that false belief has spread. I honestly don't see how you find this scenario believable.

10) God appears not to have a good reason for making the spread of his religion look similar to the spread of a false religion. (Nobody able to think of a good reason)

Even giving that God made the spread of His religion look similar to that of false ones... "Appears" is far from certainty, and we, hypothetically, not being able to think of a good reason is hardly a litmus test of whether a good reason existing...

Perhaps, but is not the simplest explanation usually the correct one? There is so little we can know for certain, so we must fall back on what appears to be most likely correct. Or do you disagree with the famous Christian, William of Ockham, on that score?

 

[Wandered Off]

I've heard that explanation before, but I don't really get it. Being confronted with evidence that is so compelling that the choice is obvious doesn't imply a lack of freedom.

Precisely! Lack of proof never enhances free will. If anything, proof would improve free will by allowing us to make an informed decision.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/61358-would-proof-eliminate-free-will.html

 

[Runlikethewind]

Now you do seem to have a reason for believing that absolute certainty of God's existence would be harmful to love. You claim that we must not "have knowledge in such an obvious manner that would infringe on our freedom of choice which is required for true love." How would any knowledge of God infringe on our freedom of choice? I don't get this. Can you elaborate further? It is certainly not the case that too much knowledge of other people infringes on our ability to love them. Indeed, we seem to require more intimate knowledge over time for a stronger bond of love. Do you believe that people who witness divine miracles are less able to love God than those who do not? When people die, and come to know God for certain, do they lose their ability to choose to love him freely? With all due respect, that argument makes no sense to me. Can you help me to understand it better?

I've heard that explanation before, but I don't really get it. Being confronted with evidence that is so compelling that the choice is obvious doesn't imply a lack of freedom.

I mean... as an analogy, I am thoroughly convinced that not sticking my hand into a fire would be overwhelmingly preferable to sticking it in, but that doesn't mean that I'd be somehow restrained from sticking my hand into a fire if it was in front of me; I'd just choose not to.

I think both of you have a similar difficulty with my argument, in fact I was thinking about it later and I came up with a similar analogy as 9-10ths penguin only I had in mind a pot of boiling water instead of a fire. So let me further try to explain my position.

I agree that fundamentally the freedom to choose is not at all effected by the amount of knowledge a person has. But still the nature of the choice is effected, it does change on another level. Using the analogy of the fire fundamentally we can choose to put our hand in the flame or not put our hand in the flame. But if we know that the fire will burn us and we know that burns hurt and we dont want to get hurt then we are not going to put our hand in the fire. If, on the other hand, we don't know that fire will burn or that burns hurt but still desire not to get hurt our likely hood of putting our hands in the fire increase since we don't know that it will have an undesirable result. And so I admit that the freedom of choice is not effected and that I may have been wrong in emphasizing that aspect of it but knowledge does effect likely hood that we will choose one way or another. If we do not want to get burnt then we are forced to choose not to put our hands in the fire, the option to do otherwise, although it still exists in theory, is really not an option at all.

My point in all this is merely to argue that knowledge does affect the choices we make and this applies also to the choice to love God. A more certain and concrete knowledge of God would affect our choice, perhaps even for the better. If we knew that God existed and that by choosing God we would have eternal life and eternal bliss and all that good stuff and we wanted all that good stuff then who in their right mind would not choose God? We would be forced to choose God in the same way that we would be forced to keep our hands out of the fire if we don't want to get burnt.

One thing that I do see emerging in this as I think about it is that desire is an important element. If we desire to have pain then we would want to put our hand in the fire, if we desired pain then we would be in some way forced to put our hands in the fire to obtain the object of our desire.

Anyway I may not be able to make my point very clear so I will put it in the clearest way that I can. My argument was in response to the question "Do you think that God has an overriding purpose that prevents him from revealing his existence in a more obvious fashion?" and my response is simply that more knowledge does in some way affect the nature of the choices we make and the freedom we have in choosing on some level. And this would be a reason for why God chooses not to be revealed in a more clear fashion if that revelation would somehow affect our choice in a negative way. Of course we could then ask how would that affect our choice in a negative way because it would seem to affect it in a positive way but that is were I got in trouble the last time.

 

[drs]

2) False gods do not exist. (by definition)
3) Since false gods do not exist, belief in them only spreads by tradition from a local point of origin. (from our knowledge of the world)


False gods do exist, they are fallen angels(demons) who use false relgion to deceve those away from the truth.

 

[Copernicus]

2) False gods do not exist. (by definition)

Wouldn't the idea, the concept of a false god cause that god to exist, at least in the minds of the holders of those ideas/concepts?

Yes. Anything can exist in one's imagination. I was talking about real existence, not imaginary existence.

3) Since false gods do not exist, belief in them only spreads by tradition from a local point of origin. (from our knowledge of the world)

Or, simple self-creation.

For a false belief to spread, it has to start somewhere. Since it has no external source, it can only spread by word of mouth. True revelation would not be so constrained, since it relies on a source that is external to a human mind.

4) God wants people to believe in his existence. (general religious belief)

That's a big assumption - to claim to know what a largely un-knowable entity (being infinite and all etc etc makes it very difficult to know it) wants.

I agree. Indeed, I consider it unlikely that such an entity would care whether we believed in its existence. However, this is what most believers seem to think, and that is why I labeled it "general religious belief". That is, I would give believers the benefit of the doubt on this one for the sake of argument.

5) If God exists and wants people to believe in his existence, he will act to support credible belief in his existence. (based on the observation that he has allegedly done so through revelation)

Not necessarily. Another assumption to know what a largely un-knowable entity will or will not do.

If God has already used revelation to call our attention to his existence, then that is prima facie reason to believe that he wants us to know of his existence. Do you think it likely that such an entity would communicate with us involuntarily? So I'm thinking that this assumption is a reasonable one.

7) Belief in God has spread only by tradition from a local point of origin. (from our knowledge of the world)

Or from an internal point of origin - one from self-creation.

We are talking about the spread of belief here. There is good reason to believe that such belief does not arise spontaneously, but through communication from other human beings. That would explain why people who are not born in Christian areas tend not to be Christian.

8) God appears not to have acted to support credible belief in his existence.

This depends on who you talk to.

I'm basing this on the observation that belief in God has spread no differently from the way false (i.e. not credible) beliefs have spread--through tradition. If you contend that God has acted to support credible belief in his existence, please support your contention.

9) Either God does not exist or he has a good reason to have made the spread of his religion look similar to the spread of a false religion.

Assuming of course, in the case of the latter, that god has a religion.

That's a puzzling response. What would it mean for God not to have a religion?

10) God appears not to have a good reason for making the spread of his religion look similar to the spread of a false religion. (Nobody able to think of a good reason)

Again, assuming god has a religion.

I just don't understand what point you are trying to make here. What would it mean for God not to have a religion?

And perhaps this is what you are suggesting, but simply because one cannot think of a reason, doesn't mean there is none.

Agreed. I am trying to find out what would incline a person to assume that such a reason exists, however.

 

[Copernicus]

My point in all this is merely to argue that knowledge does affect the choices we make and this applies also to the choice to love God. A more certain and concrete knowledge of God would affect our choice, perhaps even for the better. If we knew that God existed and that by choosing God we would have eternal life and eternal bliss and all that good stuff and we wanted all that good stuff then who in their right mind would not choose God? We would be forced to choose God in the same way that we would be forced to keep our hands out of the fire if we don't want to get burnt.

Thanks for the further clarification, RLTW. I certainly agree with you that knowledge affects how one chooses to behave. But the fundamental problem here is not just that we lack certain knowledge of God. You might try to come up with a reason for why God would want to keep us in the dark on some matters. The fundamental problem posed by the Geographical Argument is that knowledge and belief is so unevenly distributed across the human race. In theory, God could have chosen a more uniform pattern of revelation so that everyone would have roughly the same chance of coming to know God. That did not happen. Instead, what happened--the pattern of distribution of Christian belief--made it look like the idea had sprung up from a central location and spread outwards, just as it has with all the competing false religious beliefs. We can understand why false belief spreads that way. It would be terribly coincidental for the same religious doctrine to arise from two completely isolated points and spread outward. That has never happened with false religions. But, if a true god exists--especially one that is present in all locations at all times--then why make it appear to spread like a false religion? What possible motive could God have for spreading his revelation in just that manner?

One thing that I do see emerging in this as I think about it is that desire is an important element. If we desire to have pain then we would want to put our hand in the fire, if we desired pain then we would be in some way forced to put our hands in the fire to obtain the object of our desire.

I agree, and this gets us into the question of the nature of free will. We always aspire to be free to act upon our greatest desire, but are we ever free to choose our greatest desire? Is the drug addict free to choose not to take another hit? Yes, I think so, but not in the same sense that I am free not to take that drug. Our circumstances always determine our choices, but are we ever truly free of circumstances when we "freely" make our choices? If Christian morality (or any system of morality) means anything, it is to influence us to make the choices that are best for ourselves and those we value. Would not more certain knowledge of God's existence be a stronger influence on us than lack of certainty?

Anyway I may not be able to make my point very clear so I will put it in the clearest way that I can. My argument was in response to the question "Do you think that God has an overriding purpose that prevents him from revealing his existence in a more obvious fashion?" and my response is simply that more knowledge does in some way affect the nature of the choices we make and the freedom we have in choosing on some level. And this would be a reason for why God chooses not to be revealed in a more clear fashion if that revelation would somehow affect our choice in a negative way. Of course we could then ask how would that affect our choice in a negative way because it would seem to affect it in a positive way but that is were I got in trouble the last time.

I agree with you that knowledge affects choice and that God may have an overriding reason to make his doctrine spread in the way it has. I just have no idea what that reason could be. So I fall back on the old Occam's Razor principle: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then...

 

[methylatedghosts]

2) False gods do not exist. (by definition)

Wouldn't the idea, the concept of a false god cause that god to exist, at least in the minds of the holders of those ideas/concepts?

Yes. Anything can exist in one's imagination. I was talking about real existence, not imaginary existence.

Couldn't the entirety of reality be an imaginary existence? Doesn't all of reality get perceived and comprehended within your self (brain/mind, whatever)?

For a false belief to spread, it has to start somewhere. Since it has no external source, it can only spread by word of mouth. True revelation would not be so constrained, since it relies on a source that is external to a human mind.

Not so. One can have false beliefs entirely of one's own creation. It doesn't need an external source. All you need is misinformation, which is easily gathered by observing the world around you from your own perspective. You don't need anyone to tell you to believe about the world in a certain way - you will create these beliefs on your own.

Quote:
5) If God exists and wants people to believe in his existence, he will act to support credible belief in his existence. (based on the observation that he has allegedly done so through revelation)

Not necessarily. Another assumption to know what a largely un-knowable entity will or will not do.

If God has already used revelation to call our attention to his existence, then that is prima facie reason to believe that he wants us to know of his existence. Do you think it likely that such an entity would communicate with us involuntarily? So I'm thinking that this assumption is a reasonable one.

Not so. God may, for whatever reason, want only certain people to know for sure. Or perhaps, it's not so much a revelation, as an internal realisation, a discovery, that not many people attain. Perhaps we're supposed to make the communication, and not It.Perhaps it is continuously communicating with us, only we're not paying attention. Again, very difficult to know, and your assumption is a huge one.

We are talking about the spread of belief here. There is good reason to believe that such belief does not arise spontaneously, but through communication from other human beings. That would explain why people who are not born in Christian areas tend not to be Christian.

You talk of specific dogma, not simply a belief in the existence of God, then?

8) God appears not to have acted to support credible belief in his existence.

This depends on who you talk to.

I'm basing this on the observation that belief in God has spread no differently from the way false (i.e. not credible) beliefs have spread--through tradition. If you contend that God has acted to support credible belief in his existence, please support your contention.

I'm saying that it depends who you talk to as to whether God has supported credible belief or not. I'm making no such judgment calls as to whether there's evidence either way.

That's a puzzling response. What would it mean for God not to have a religion?

I just don't understand what point you are trying to make here. What would it mean for God not to have a religion?

I'm just as puzzled - what makes you so sure God HAS a religion?




Ok.. I was supposed to come back to something as I was typing that... it's all really jumbled because I've been getting distracted and my train of thought got lost somewhere... but I'll leave it at that for now and come back to it later.

 

[Runlikethewind]

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then...

....Its a turkey!!!! No, but seriously I get that it is simpler to take your conclusion. The same can be said of the problem of evil (that is the problem of reconciling the existence of an all-powerful all-knowing God with the existence of evil and suffering) one can come up with any number of reasons why God would allow innocents to suffer but ultimately one cannot prove that they have found the reason, only that God and evil are not somehow incompatible, that is to say there are possible reasons for why God would allow for evil to exist. But it is much easier to say that since there is evil God is not good or does not exist or does not have the power to stop it. (I believe that such arguments are called theodicy.) Ultimately any answer to the question as to why knowledge of God is not more certain and concrete will amount to a theodicy, a justification for why God might choose not to be fully revealed which ultimately leaves it up to the individual as to whether there is a good enough reason for God to allow evil and to allow us to exist in ignorance, if not then they become good reasons to deny God.

 

[Runlikethewind]

I think the geographical argument is looking at revelation too ahistorically. Perhaps God's self revelation is something that cannot be accomplished by God jumping up and saying to all humanity "here I am". Perhaps, due to our nature, revelation is something that must develop slowly over time and as time moves forward so called "false" religion will be replaced by "true" religion until God is ready to be more fully revealed.