Thanks for saying that, Betsy. That kind of pinged me but I was in a rush to get to work so I didn't comment.

Oh, I really didn't mean it that way, Betsy. If the proof had been one for the nonexistence of God, I would have switched the points of view but not the wording - my point was simply that people tend to scrutinize more heavily things they're not predisposed to believe. The same is true for everything, not just God. Some atheists may grasp for straws to prove the proof wrong, but some theists may commit the equal crime of ignoring obvious holes and using the proof to thoughtlessly justify their beliefs. Different fallacy, but a fallacy nonetheless.

Of course, in this case, the proof isn't airtight, but it is very well done. So there's no need to grasp at straws OR ignore obvious holes - both sides are validly arguable. Thus, the statement really becomes more "theists are more likely to argue the reasonable 'it works' side, while atheists are more likely to argue the equally reasonable 'it doesn't' side, because they fit with their preconceived notions." Which is what I should have said, and I apologize if my wording came out offensively somehow. I was mostly agreeing with Jessica (or was it Jesse?)

ETA: As somebody who has been both a monotheist and a convinced atheist at different times in my life, and struggles with the confusion every day, I have the utmost of respect for people that believe either. Please accept my apology, again, at my confused wording.

The thing is, if you logically prove the existence of God, you have to answer the Problem of Evil: Why is he so MEAN?

If you're working from faith, one answer is "It's ineffable", meaning that the answer is inherently outside the realm of human reason. We have faith that God does have a plan, and that somehow the wrong will be right.

I don't see how you can possibly prove from first principles that a just God allows evil in the world. And I'm not just talking human free will -- I'm talking apes that kill one another, for instance, because of territorial bounds.

"Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown." Sorry. Been waiting to say that for years...just looked like a good opening.

You know, working all weekend does nothing to alleviate the Mondayness of Monday.

Don't work all weekend next weekend, okay? I decree it.

Wrod. From the bottom of my shining nape.

The thing is, if you logically prove the existence of God, you have to answer the Problem of Evil: Why is he so MEAN?

But isn't that assuming that you've proven *characteristics* of God, rather than simply *existence*? I hesitate to get too much into this without having seen the material Gris is starting from, and I seem to remember from the last time we discussed this that the proof did suggest the characteristic angle, but I also seem to remember finding that really unconvincing.

t grasping at straws

t kidding

argh. Burny scalp. Stupid bleach. Stupid pink hair. MUST SCRATCH.

But isn't that assuming that you've proven *characteristics* of God, rather than simply *existence*?

But I'm not talking about the characteristics of God -- I'm talking about the characteristics of the world that He created. Which is full of cruelty.

Well, the problem of evil wasn't addressed in this book. Hatcher has some other works that probably go into that, but I haven't read them and am not 100% sure I'm interested in doing so - as his arguments got steadily less convincing for me towards the end of this one, I'm pretty sure I would just get frustrated if I kept reading.

However, the answer implied by this proof is exactly the same as the one working from faith. "It's ineffable." In fact, as Hatcher defines God, consciousness, and understanding, it's actually logically impossible to understand all of the effects (actions) of God.

But let's be clear: this proof doesn't argue for a just God. It doesn't even argue for a conscious God, or a God that has any choice in the matter, or a God that has any qualities that we associate with humans at all. There is some stuff AFTER the proof that tries to do that, but I found it incredibly unconvincing as presented. The proof itself literally argues for God as something infinite and eternal that caused all of reality. The unique "first cause." God is a variable necessary for consistency in the system, in the context of the proof.

Which means one could argue that calling it "God," then, is actually a bad idea as this concept doesn't necessarily map directly to most human notions of God. In fact, I've argued that perspective before, and recently. Maybe this entity should just be called the universal cause. It's still a single entity that caused all of reality. Does it still have religious power, in and of itself? I'd say "no." It's just an interesting way to look at cosmological meaning that may or may not map to our own perspectives of religion.