Appendix C: Conversations with Atheists

C1:  Conversations with Glen – March 2002 (Glen’s comments are in bold black print.  I hope I’ve done them justice in summarizing our many emails.)

 

Mike, 

Thank you for taking the time to read this email and hopefully taking the time to respond to it.  I'm on a crusade of sorts and am hoping you can help me. You see, I am an atheist to the core.  However, I'm trying to understand why such a large percentage of the world believes in God. So far as I can tell there are several possibilities for this.

 

1. God exists, but he hates me and wants to see me suffer in hell. (see John 12:39,40, John 10:11,26, Matthew 11:25,26, Acts 13:48, Romans 9:19-24)

2. Most of the world is insane

3. I'm insane

4. There may be other possibilities that I haven't thought of as well.

 

I have come up with a challenge for the God of Christianity to help me determine which of the above is true. Maybe you can help me find flaws in this challenge?  It consists of four statements, then my challenge.

 

1. God loves all of his creatures and does not want to see any of them punished or go to hell.
2. The only way to avoid being punished or going to hell is to believe in and love God.
3. God is omniscient and knows what it will take to prove his existence to me in a way that I can understand and accept.
4. God is omnipotent and is capable of doing whatever it takes to prove his existence to me in a way that I can understand and accept.

Challenge:  The only way I will be willing to believe in and love God, and thus avoid being punished or going to hell, is if he proves his existence to me in a way that I can understand and accept.  Either God proves himself to me in which case I will then believe he exists, or he doesn't in which case I will continue to believe that he does not exist.

Consider the consequences, however, if he does exist yet does not prove himself to me so that I will believe in and consider loving him.  God will have shown at least one of the following is true:


1. That he does not love me.  If he loved me then he would accept my challenge as an opportunity to bring me into his grace.
2. That he wants to see me punished.  Since I will not love a God that does not prove himself to me then it follows that if God does not prove himself to me that I will not love him, and therefore, by his rules, I will be punished.  However, since I gave God the opportunity to prove himself and he chose not to, he must want to see me punished.
3. That he is not omniscient.  Maybe God doesn't know what it will take to prove his existence to me.
4. That he is not omnipotent  Maybe God doesn't have the power necessary to prove his existence to me.
5. God made me incapable of loving him. If that is the case then I am the equivalent of the proverbial rock that God made that he could not lift.  Some scripture does indicate that this is a possibility, but then that contradicts the statement that God wants all his creatures to love him. Surely an intelligent God would not want all his creatures to love him and then deliberately create some that were incapable of doing so. I suppose it could be an accident, but would that mean God made a mistake?

 

As you can see, this is an important issue. The favor of your response is requested.

 

Thank you again for your time.  Glen

 

Glen.
   I updated my book-on-line with an extensive answer to your questions.  See, http://www.nasamike.com/main/book/b4.htm.  But first let me suggest that You do believe in a God (ie a First Cause, Who alone is eternal).  I suggest that what you are really asking is whether or not that First Cause is personal 
   If God can think, then He is personal.  That said, let's get into what might be His rationale for our existence.
   I agree that no one can be held accountable for responding properly to something that is not logically understandable.  Therefore, if we are obligated in any way with respect to God, we ought to be logically able to understand the details.

Nasa Mike

 

Interesting ideas - not quite the answer to my question, which literally was "why doesn't God come to me and say, 'hello', such that I'd know it was God?"  But it's not the first time my question hasn't been addressed and probably won't be the last either.  You said, Even though we die, yet He can give us individually everlasting life in heaven with the angels, if we individually choose to have a relationship with Him.  (emphasis added)”

 Here we get back to my original question. Where is God and why hasn't he said, "hello", to me in a way that I will understand and accept?  I'll be friends with God if he comes by and says, "howdy".  But he hasn't yet. Does that mean I'm stubborn?  Maybe it also means God is stubborn too (assuming he exists).   [I can see it's going to be fun discussing these issues with you.  Also, I'd like to thank you for responding to my original email so quickly. The others I sent the question to haven't even acknowledged me yet.]

  p.s. I'm not a Christian so putting my answer in the Questions from Christians section isn't appropriate. Perhaps a new section titled Questions from Atheists is called for here?

 p.p.s. I've considered your suggestion that I believe in God as first cause and decided against it. Yes, this Universe exists. Does that mean something created it? Maybe. It could have created itself just as easily. Since both options mean that something created itself (either the Universe or the creator - if any) I opt for the Universe doing the job as an impersonal God.

 

God cannot intervene against our free-will or He will violate the demo.  Hence, He does not chat with you as you'd like. 

However, in heaven that's exactly what God will be doing - conversing with all of His created beings one-on-one via His Image, Michael.

In this world there is something else going on, ie the Sin Drama that I explained.  Until this issue is resolved there is neither perfection nor happiness in heaven.  There is "war" in heaven.  Again, if the demo is to successfully resolve the War in heaven problem, then God must impose certain restrictions on Himself as it plays out.  As I said, free will of the players is paramount and must not be violated, because the question of free will is the root cause of the need for Proof and the Sin Drama.

This is the rationale:  God knows the ultimate outcome, because He has seen it play out in previous creations – remember how long He has been around and what He must have been doing all that time.  Yet, God does not know how His free-willed beings will individually choose along the way.  (See the analogy to the ultimate chess computer in section 6e ).  These beings are learning as they make these choices and the audience of angelic beings are learning as well.  The human players are learning to “Trust God” while the angels are learning the nature of sin.   

Mike, you also said, “The scenario requires Him to create a surrogate universe of humans, a little lower than the angels, who would elect to sin and then pay the eventual consequences, while all the angelic beings watched and learned all about evil.” 
  This implies that God wanted Adam and Eve to sin and in fact designed them that way. It also implies that humans are like bacteria in a petri dish - or maybe monkeys in a cage is a better analogy. There are some interesting Garden of Eden implications as well where either God lied to Adam and Eve about eating from the Tree of Knowledge, or had fully expected them to eat from it - in which case, why punish them?
            God is not punishing anyone.  That is a Medieval concept based on guilt and fear.  God lays out two choices, relate to Me or hide from Me.  Yes Adam was made from the dirt (symbolizing that he was made with the design that would perish over time, eg via bacteria).  God had His salvation plan from before He created Adam.  These facts indicate that indeed God knew Adam would sin, ie choose to try to know evil by doing evil. 

            Yes, that is the reason for creating Adam in the first place, when He already had superior angelic beings.

Yes, this is an experiment, where God knows the end results already.  The angelic beings need this demo to learn about evil. 

Yes, this Earth is very much like a petri dish.  It was indeed made in the Image of the pre-existing angelic universe and we in the image of angels. 
This universe of ours is a temporary creation, designed for the purpose of resolving the free will issue that always leads to sin and unhappiness until it finally ends in self-destruction.  With this creation, God is going to enable His free-willed beings to finally live happily ever after in the angelic universe (the perfect kingdom of heaven) as He originally intended (see sections 6c and 6f).

 

I have some questions about your bullets under item 2 in your response: 

The First Cause wants “companionship” so He creates thinking beings, who He can communicate with via thought.

1) Why would a perfect being want anything?  Doesn't that imply less than perfection?

Even perfection does not eliminate boredom.
  
God is all alone in His universe.  I believe He creates intelligent beings for companionship.  He created situations for them to experience and to relate to Him about.  He does this without violating their free will.  If all He wanted were robots, He would have made more grass.  Free-willed beings generate infinitely more experiences than robots.  God can keep them alive by thinking of them and yet not pull their strings.  They are and must be free to make their own choices.

   Free willed beings cannot remain perfect unless they understand both good and evil.  They can be created perfect (without sin), but they must learn about evil to know they are choosing good.  They can learn about evil either by doing evil (sin) or by watching others do evil.  The wages of doing sin are eventual death via self-destruction.  God must set up a scenario where the angelic beings He created can learn about evil without doing evil. 
 
 The scenario requires Him to create a surrogate universe of humans, a little lower than the angels, who would elect to sin and then pay the eventual consequences, while all the angelic beings watched and learned all about “evil”. 

 

 

2) This brings up the question, "Why didn't God just give his angelic companions the knowledge of evil?" with a counter question of, "How did God learn about evil?"

 Robots could know evil by design.  Free-willed beings must choose good over evil, therefore they must "learn" evil

   Free willed beings cannot remain perfect unless they understand both good and evil.  They can be created perfect (without sin), but they must learn about “evil” to know they are choosing “good”.  If God just created them with the knowledge of evil, He would be violating their free will to learn of it themselves.  That is because this “knowledge” must be a collection of their own experiences as consequences of their own independent choices, so they can relate to them.  If God just gives them those experiences, then they were never free to acquire those experiences.  I think this Plan of God’s is the kind of perfect and total solution that our eternal God can accept.  Why contrive something less, when He has eternity to do it right?

 

 Good” consists of all that enhances life, while “Evil” consists of all that is self-destructive. 
 God knows what works and conversely what does not work, because He has learned this by watching the consequences play out to their final end in previous scenarios.  Therefore God knows both "good" and "evil" and yet He has never done evil. I wonder if God can actually do good or evil, since there is nothing outside Himself to act on.  Everything He “does,” happens in His mind, so I contend that He inherently learns by watching, not by doing.

 

3) This one I still don't get.  
Robots could know evil by design.  Free-willed beings must choose good over evil, therefore they must "learn" evil. God knows what works and conversely what does not work.  Therefore God knows both "good" and "evil".
 You're saying two distinct things.
1. No free-willed being can know evil without learning about it on their own.
2. God knows evil without having to have learned about it on his own.
 
Logically putting these two things together you end up with the conclusion that God is not a free-willed being. Either that or statement 1 is false in which case God "could" implant the knowledge of evil in any of his creatures. Just because they have the knowledge doesn't mean they have to act on it.  You probably have knowledge that would allow you to build some sort of ICBM device, yet you probably choose not to use that knowledge.  I have knowledge of how to do "evil" things, yet I choose not to use that knowledge.
 Again, God has been around forever.  He has had numerous scenarios play out where He creates perfect free-willed beings only to watch them self-destruct over enormous time spans.   All the while that "perfect" heaven He intended to create has been unhappy.  He knows evil because He has watched it.  Sin is the result of acting on poor choices and over time it gets worse and worse until it self-destructs.  God has not sinned but He understands evil, ie He understands what is destructive and why.  His created beings need to learn this as God Himself has learned it, ie by watching others play out the Sin Drama.


4) I still need proof of God’s existence to believe any of this.  You said,

“God cannot intervene against our free-will or He will violate the demo.  Hence, He does not chat with you as you'd like.“  So God is willing to let me go on as an unbeliever who will end up not having everlasting life simply because I choose to ask for proof of his existence rather than go on blind faith?  Also, if God can't talk to me - even if I ask - then how was he able to talk to Moses, Abraham, Joseph, and all the other folks mentioned in the Bible? It would seem to me that God had to talk to someone to get this experiment started. It would also seem that if there are folks out there (like me) who steadfastly state that until God proves himself they will not believe in him that God should be willing to listen to and acknowledge their request.
 
 Knowing God exists is inherent in all of us.  We must fight to deny it.  What we do is to choose other gods, who did not create us to put our faith in.  [eg technology, brotherhood of Man, ET, inner self, spirit guides, masters of the universe,...]  Our relationship with them gets us what we wanted in the end, but not everlasting life.  No problem here.  There is no eternal punishing, only getting what you chose.

   Notice from the Bible how God talks to the Biblical figures.  No one around them hears His voice in most cases, only the target, who hears because he is listening.   It happens in their mind via thought.   It is then up to them to "test the spirits".  Is this the real God or some alternate god?  They must sort this out based on the content involved.
   Now recognize that even when God was dramatically clear about His existence, eg with the plagues of Egypt and parting the Red Sea during the Exodus, etc, still His chosen people quickly forgot.  How is this possible if they actually got what you are now asking for?  It is because they would not listen with their heart.  They found other explanations for those astounding events and were then able to pass them off as explainable and not indicative of a real personal God.  What a bummer. Where does God go from this point?  Still He must not force Himself on His people.  They must be allowed to make their own choices.  I believe that God has seen this sort of reaction in previous angelic scenarios.  Hence, He knows what will happen in our Human Sin Drama, too.  However, these angelic beings now need to understand that as well, so He is playing it out yet again for their benefit.  If they learn what He knows about evil, the sin will never rise again.

5) You say, God is not punishing anyone.  That is a Medieval concept based on guilt and fear.”
 At least now you've made Pascal's wager a really easy choice for me. I will continue being an atheist because I will die either way and will not be punished either way. Besides, if I did take the wager, who is to say that God wouldn't see right through me and consider it false belief in which case I'd still "lose".
 No problem.  Enjoy life now, because that's all you'll get.  Why would you want anything more anyway?  You cannot see a reason to relate to a God Who does not talk back to you a certain way, so the only god you'll ever know is one who tells you what you want to hear.  Look into the occult.  There you'll find many such gods.  The real Creator God does talk to us, but we need to listen - ask the birds and the beasts and look at the heavens.  You'll see the handiwork of this God at the macro and the micro levels. This is your proof of His existence and you don't even need a Bible or a religion to realize it.  Then talk to Him and you'll recognize His responses.

 

I can see it's going to be fun discussing these issues with you.  Also, I'd like to thank you for responding to my original email so quickly. The others I sent the question to haven't even acknowledged me yet.
I believe most religious people, unfortunately, have no clue about much of this.  They are simply following their own brand of passion,  "If I believe this with all my heart, I should be okay in the end".  The terrorists say the same thing.  Problem is in telling when you're flat out wrong.  The entire Big Picture must hang together logically and make sense - especially if you are to believe it with all your heart.  I believe this Big Picture enables us to understand a myriad of otherwise illogical beliefs, and thus to sort out “truth” from “error”.

 

The entire Big Picture must hang together logically and make sense - especially if you are to believe it with all your heart.
That's for sure. And until it makes sense I won't believe it.

I did not believe it either until I saw the fit.  God will help you in your quest and you will find Him when you seek for Him with all your heart.

 

March 2002

 

ß  back     home    next  à

For more on this and a response to any questions, please email any comments to nasamike@nasamike.com