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.

I'm gonna leave to go shopping now. But the book is "Minimalism: A Bridge between classical philosophy and the Baha'i revelation" by William Hatcher if anybody wants to check it out. It really is interesting, though very dense and difficult to get through.

And that's all I'm gonna say about that.

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.

But isn't that implicit in needing an explanation for that? (I'm not trying to be argumentative, btw, I just feel like I'm missing a key step in your question.)

The unique "first cause."

To me "first cause" is a massive assumption. We don't know that our sense of causality means anything outside our Universe and there is no reason to think it does.

To me "first cause" is a massive assumption. We don't know that our sense of causality means anything outside our Universe and there is no reason to think it does.

ITA. If the proof fails for me, that's where it happens. There is a LOT more justification and argument for it than I'm giving, though, so don't take my bad summary of it to be the whole.

And I really am leaving now.

I think we need bob bob.

Since we're talking about religion... I have a question for the Christians out there.

As some of you might remember, I was raised Lutheran (Missouri Synod) and went to a private Lutheran grade school. The Missouri Synod is the most conservative branck of Lutherans - we were taught a literal interpretation of the Bible. So one thing I picked up was the belief that if you were not a Christian you were going to hell. There's a passage where Jesus says, "No one comes to to Father but by me," which we were taught meant that you had to believe in Jesus to get to heaven.

Over the years I've been surprised to run into Christians who don't believe this - that you can get into heaven if you're not a Christian. That confused me, as I always saw that as one of the central tenets of Christianity. Now I'm wondering how widespread these various beliefs are. So, do most Christians believe that all non-Christians will go to hell?