What if the God of the Bible is real?

[juan2003]

Hello all. I've posted before in GQ, but I'm new to GD.
Anyway... I was browsing the internet and I came across an interesting question for atheists: "What if you're wrong and the God of the Bible is real?" I thought about how I'd answer the question. Never mind that the evidence and thought that would logically lead one to think otherwise; this is a hypothetical question.
The Bible we have today is not totally self-consistent and therefore cannot be inerrant. Furthermore, I would expect that over thousands of years and hundreds of generations with many telling and retellings, translations and mistranslations, summarizations and elaborations, not to mention deliberate revisions, additions and omissions that the truth would be diluted somewhat if not lost completely.
A god that is consistent with the Bible would certainly not be the typical omnipresent, omnipotent, omni-benevolent, omniscient being that most Christians have in mind. I think both of us would be surprised.

[transitionality]

It's not clear to me whether you're challenging atheists with Pascal's Wager, or challenging Christians with the inconsistency of their source text. I think you're doing both.

[Paco]

See you guys in hell. :(

[RoundGuy]

"What if you're wrong and the God of the Bible is real?"
Then I would have a whole lot of questions for this God. For example:

1) If you really created the universe in six days, why did you fake the evidence for a universe that is billions of years old?
2) Why did you tell us that a rabbit chews its cud when it doesn't?
3) What is your justification for the genocide of innocent Amelekite infants sucking at the breast of their mothers?
4) Why did you have to impregnate a young, innocent, unmarried Jewish girl to give birth to your son?
5) Why couldn't the inspired writers of your gospels get their story straight?
6) How can you justify an eternal torment in hell?

And on, and on, and on.......

[John Mace]

What if pigs had wings? If I found that either of those were true, I'd be thrilled. New knowledge is always fascinating.

[El_Kabong]

I was browsing the internet and I came across an interesting question for atheists: "What if you're wrong and the God of the Bible is real?"

That all depends on a) what evidence is presented that such a deity is real; b) what the deity itself has to say about how literally the various texts of the Bible should be taken; c) whether the deity insists that I worship it or not, and whether punishment is threatened for failure to worship it. IOW, without further information, impossible to answer.

[panache45]

Someone once said that if the existence of God could be proven, it would be the end of religion. It might be a good trade-off.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Which Bible, The Hebrew Bible or the Christian Bible? Which conception of God? The wargod Yahweh with his genocidal demands or the NT God of Love?

If the fundy God of Hate was real, I'd have to give him the beat down he's got coming to him. If some more abstract God of Love was real, I'd have lots and lots of questions-- not necessarily challenges but just everything I'd ever wondered about.

[Roches]

This question is very typical of the sort of thing theists hope to convert people with. It may work against a teenager who decided not to believe in God because their parents do, but it isn't really all that threatening or thought-provoking.

Transitionality immediately observed that the question is a form of Pascal's Wager. The idea is that it's 'safer' to believe in God than not to, 'just in case' God exists.

Pascal's Wager is, I think, one of the least valid arguments for belief. Here's some flaws:

1. Believing in the wrong god. The Wager assumes that the god in which one is considering belief may or may not exist, but that all other gods certainly do not -- which is impossible to know. Therefore, one must also ask oneself, "What if the Allah of the Koran is real?", "What if the Zeus of Hesiod's Theogony is real?", and so on for all gods yet described by humans -- and all other possible and unknown gods. If you choose to believe in a god, you must also choose to believe in the right god.

2. Being punished for believing in the wrong god. The consequences of being wrong by believing in a different god than the real one might be greater for believing in no god at all.

3. Grace. If a God or gods exists, he/she/it may be willing to forgive unbelievers. It's possible (see 2) that forgiveness may not be extended to believers in certain other gods. For example, a loving, graceful God may forgive atheists but punish believers who practiced human or animal sacrifice.

4. Insincerity. If God rewards only true believers, then someone who arrived at the decision to believe in God because of Pascal's Wager would not be rewarded, because their belief arose from an attempt at self-protection rather than true faith.

5. Increased quality and/or length of life due to lack or presence of faith. Pascal's Wager assumes that belief in God is an effortless process that does not change the course of one's life. In reality, lack of belief may improve the quality of one's life -- you get more free time on Sundays (or Fridays or Saturdays or whatever), for one. You might also be less inclined to do dangerous things (fight in an unjust war, for example) if you don't believe in an afterlife. It could also be argued that faith improves one's quality of life via a sense of comfort afforded by belief, but, in reality, nonbelief can be affirming and comforting as well.

That's a few of the issues. There's more at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html (bias warning: non-theist site).

So, in response to the question in the title: see #1.

And if he's real, then I think my first question would be why he created so much evidence against his existence (errancies in the Bible, the hypocrisy of many believers, DNA sequences, fossils, and innumerable other pieces of evidence pointing to evolution as the origin of life, etc.). If it's all just to test my faith and find true believers, why did he give me a mind that is more inclined to believe in the truth of objective physical evidence rather than ancient texts? And why did he permit science and technology to become so successful at improving our world if they were leading it away from the Truth?

[Askance]

If God was omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, his existence would be so obvious doubt would be impossible.


Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? (Epicurus)

[juan2003]

I'm disappointed. This is not going where I hoped it would go. Did anyone bother to read the OP? What I meant to ask was, "Even if we were to assume that the ancient source was true, could we reasonably expect to learn anything from the vastly different modern version of the Bible?"
I say that it's impossible to extract the original message and therefore the Bible is useless to tell us anything about God. The same logic could be applied to other ancient texts.
I hoped to spark an intelligent debate, but instead I get sarcasm. I'm sorry I made this post now. I'll go back to lurking.

[John Mace]

Juan:

The problem is likely that those who believe in God already have a concept of what he is like. Those who don't believe in God find the hypothetical situation to be so far fetched as to be meaningless. Maybe you should try to probe the nature of God or some specific atribute of him in debate rather than the enormously hypothetical situation you posed. Good luck.

[transitionality]

The gist of the modern version of the Bible is not meaningfully different from what it must have been like in the original.

Old man in the sky makes man in his own image, tricks him into falling from grace by giving him a companion whom he knows (by way of omniscience) will disobey him, then continues to kill, maim and otherwise hurt his beloved creations in new, original and bloodthirsty ways, while claiming to be forgiving, loving, benevolent, and all that ooey gooey stuff.

And oh, while all this happens, he creates heaven and earth and everything on earth, including natural disasters, cancer, and Tori Spelling.

Really, it's all very consistent and a thrilling read.

[MEBuckner]

Which conception of God? The wargod Yahweh with his genocidal demands or the NT God of Love?
Or, conversely, the compassionate God of the Book of Jonah, or the infinitely vindictive God of Luke 12:5 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LUKE+12:5&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) and Revelation 14:9-11 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=rev+14%3A9-11&NIV_version=yes&language=english)?

[dnooman]

Originally posted by juan2003
I say that it's impossible to extract the original message and therefore the Bible is useless to tell us anything about God. I hoped to spark an intelligent debate, but instead I get sarcasm. I'm sorry I made this post now. I'll go back to lurking.

First off, I think that a great many of the clergy who are rooted in reality would agree with your first point, "it's a guidebook not a textbook". I also fail to see the sarcasm that you refer to, I see valid points and questions generated by your post. They mean to inform, not criticize. Lastly, do not be sorry that you made this post. Learn from the way that people misconstrued your post, and benifit from it. Lurking gives you less than half of the knowledge you might obtain if you asked questions that meant something to you.

There is no such thing as a stupid question. Unless it has already been answered here, or is easily answered by a quick Google search. That is all.

[T. Mehr]

Originally posted by dnooman
"it's a guidebook not a textbook".

This is exactly it!
Even for an agnostic who doesn't belive in shit, it contains a lot of good ideas. As a history book it's of course useless.

[ambushed]

Originally posted by dnooman
"it's a guidebook not a textbook".So are:

How to Be Your Dog's Best Friend: The Classic Training Manual for Dog Owners (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0316610003)

How To Pick Up Beautiful Women In Nightclubs or Any Other Place: Secrets Every Man Should Know (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0964160307)

and

It's Potty Time (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6301982711)

All in all, the Bible's doesn't have quite as many good ideas and isn't quite as good reading as the above.

[T. Mehr]

It's Potty Time is a video, what did you read? The cover?
And it was better than the bible?

[Kalhoun]

Okay, Juan...I think I know what you were looking for in the OP. I'll take a stab at it.

If the biblical god was the real McCoy, I wouldn't change my opinion of him, because he doesn't seem like a very nice guy to me. He's manipulative and misleading. He's sadistic. He doesn't use his powers for good, i.e., pain and suffering for all of mankind.

Once we knew he existed, we'd all have to believe in him, so everyone would automatically go to heaven and live for eternity, so that part wouldn't be an issue. But I still wouldn't like him.

[jjimm]

What if you're wrong and the God of the Bible is real?Well I'd feel a right charlie then, wouldn't I?

Thankfully, I'm 99.999 recurring % sure that He isn't, so I'll just have to wait until I snuff it to find out (or find out that He isn't, but one of the thousands of other deitites is).

That is, if the Rapture doesn't get me first...

[dangermom]

It's Potty Time

All in all, the Bible's doesn't have quite as many good ideas and isn't quite as good reading as the above.Hah. Obviously you have never had this video inflicted upon you almost daily by your toddler-in-training. It's Potty Time is Evil in its purest form--Hell itself in a convenient box format.

:D

[FriarTed]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Which Bible, The Hebrew Bible or the Christian Bible? Which conception of God? The wargod Yahweh with his genocidal demands or the NT God of Love?

If the fundy God of Hate was real, I'd have to give him the beat down he's got coming to him. If some more abstract God of Love was real, I'd have lots and lots of questions-- not necessarily challenges but just everything I'd ever wondered about.

Diogenes, maybe that's what the Crucifixion was all about- Yahweh getting the smackdown & when He recovered three days later, He learned His lesson & has been much nicer & no less mysterious ever since.

*G*

Ha! You'll debate yourself into being a Christian yet!

[Rashak Mani]

Well... since we are atheists... many of us havent read much of the Bible or given it much attention for a good while... so many wouldnt know much about the "God" of the Bible.

Why does it have to be that specific god too ?

Since no one answered your question I will attempt to do so:

If God exists and presents himself... besides seriously doubting it first... I would be pretty happy actually. It would mean that the horrible bloodshed, disaster and total fuck up that is Earth has some reason or at worse SOMEONE responsible for it.

It would redeem humankind and me of course from fucking up Earth. God did it for us... for his reasons.

Since I havent robbed, maimed, killed or done anything bad I would go to heaven probably too... nice... if it existed of course. So in the end not much difference I suposse.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by FriarTed
Diogenes, maybe that's what the Crucifixion was all about- Yahweh getting the smackdown & when He recovered three days later, He learned His lesson & has been much nicer & no less mysterious ever since.

*G*

Ha! You'll debate yourself into being a Christian yet!
:D

[CharlesW]

Paraphrasing from Douglas Adams Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

God exists on faith, if you have faith he exists then he does. Now if you can prove that God exists then he won't. By definition you can't have faith with proof. Having faith means you belive in something you can't prove. Now you have proof that God exists so now nobody can have faith that he exists, and because God only exists on faith he can no longer exist.

So if you can prove to me God exists, then I don't have to worry because he dosen't.

I love Doglas Adams for making the hard things in life so easy.

[GodlessSkeptic]

And God vanished in a puff of logic.

[Radon]

The Bible we have today is not totally self-consistent and therefore cannot be inerrant

Your deduction does not follow from your premises. The Universe could be contradictory and illogical. Logic could be faulty in it's essence. God who created the Universe and Logic could have created them in any way he pleases, we have no authority to require human inconsistency of the diety or his creations. We should be very grateful for the consistency that does exist.

It might be easier to teach calculus and quantum mechanics to a dog than to teach a human to understand as God understands.

Also

Furthermore, I would expect that over thousands of years and hundreds of generations with many telling and retellings, translations and mistranslations, summarizations and elaborations, not to mention deliberate revisions, additions and omissions that the truth would be diluted somewhat if not lost completely.

For the Bible to be accurate it would take a Miracle. But Miracles are just what God does. So there is no such problem. Well, it isn't the same problem you've posited. There are still disputations as to which text is the inerrant text. But the existance of an inerrant text is not a problem for the suitably religious.

Also, to AndrewT who quoted Epicurus. The Bible does say that God does Evil to the Children of Israel (I can't find the exact citation). Good and Evil are both creations of God. Yet somehow both are "Good" in some sense that is not perceptible to humanity. One theory is that evil must be a genuine option in order for goodness to be real goodness.

One of the problems is that Goodness in a religious context is usually defined as God's will, or as obeying God's commands. Under the definition of God's will, everything that happens is somehow good, and under the definition of obedience, God can be neither good nor evil.

There is no question among most Judeo-Christian types that hurricanes, earthquakes, diseases, infections, arthritis, crime, punishment, pain, addiction, fire, flood, famine, plague, beestings, heart attacks, cancer, software bugs and the common cold are the creation of God, and therefore in some sense Good. Even if they are also in some sense bad.

[ralph124c]

I would argue-YES!
And I'll tell you why:in Genesis, God decides NOT to obliterate the human race..he tells Noah that he willnever again cause a great flood.
In the NT, God has decided that the old (Hebrew) Law is no longer necessary..he also lets slip that his followers need not expect any more (direct) communication from him.
So (to recap): God has indeed changed his mind; and he has restored (in a limited way), our Adamic pre-eminence over nature!
And, he has (apparently) left us alone, free to choose himor not!
I don't see why we should complain about his course of action!

[GodlessSkeptic]

Originally posted by Radon
Your deduction does not follow from your premises. The Universe could be contradictory and illogical.

If this were the case then the whole discussion is pointless because we can know nothing.The only reason we can know anything about our universe is because it has constraints/limitations.


Logic could be faulty in it's essence. God who created the Universe and Logic could have created them in any way he pleases, we have no authority to require human inconsistency of the diety or his creations. We should be very grateful for the consistency that does exist.

That makes absolutely no sense.Why would you bother posting such a thing at a message board if you cannot be sure whether you were actually typing a message or stepping on ducks?Trying to rationalize how rationality may not be possible or trying to make a logically consistent argument that logic may not work will not get you far.

It might be easier to teach calculus and quantum mechanics to a dog than to teach a human to understand as God understands.

The thing is, we CAN teach and understand mathematics adn physics.To equate an inability to understand God with difficulty in understanding QM, you must first make the case that God himself is likely.We have no reason to think so.

Also

For the Bible to be accurate it would take a Miracle. But Miracles are just what God does.

Allegedly.We have no more reason to assume this to be true than we have to assume that Ogres snatch children from their beds and eat them.This is a circular argument.


So there is no such problem. Well, it isn't the same problem you've posited. There are still disputations as to which text is the inerrant text. But the existance of an inerrant text is not a problem for the suitably religious.

What you mean to say is that anyone predisposed to believe a given text is inerrant can find evidence to support this conviction and use bizarre rationalizations and twists of logic to keep doubt at bay.

Also, to AndrewT who quoted Epicurus. The Bible does say that God does Evil to the Children of Israel (I can't find the exact citation). Good and Evil are both creations of God. Yet somehow both are "Good" in some sense that is not perceptible to humanity. One theory is that evil must be a genuine option in order for goodness to be real goodness.

Then you have painted yourself into a corner because according to the above rationale, "evil" is actually "good".Hence there is no such thing as evil adn anything anyone does is actually good(child molestation, rape, murder etc.).

One of the problems is that Goodness in a religious context is usually defined as God's will, or as obeying God's commands. Under the definition of God's will, everything that happens is somehow good, and under the definition of obedience, God can be neither good nor evil.

There is no question among most Judeo-Christian types that hurricanes, earthquakes, diseases, infections, arthritis, crime, punishment, pain, addiction, fire, flood, famine, plague, beestings, heart attacks, cancer, software bugs and the common cold are the creation of God, and therefore in some sense Good. Even if they are also in some sense bad.

then again, we should not seek to prevent crime or cure disease since these things are necessary to our existence.The child rapist as as good as the pastor because they both provide valuable life lessons or "goodness".

[Svt4Him]

would expect that over thousands of years and hundreds of generations with many telling and retellings, translations and mistranslations, summarizations and elaborations, not to mention deliberate revisions, additions and omissions that the truth would be diluted somewhat if not lost completely.

Then you need to do some research on the job of a scribe, and how much weight they put on copying the manuscripts, as well as see how the manuscripts found with the dead sea scrolls compared to the ones we have today. To know how religious they were would help understand why I believe this quote is false.

As for evil, I see now that the fight against ignorance takes so long, because no one plays on the same field.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? (Epicurus)

Why does God allow evil men and women to live? Should He instead kill them before they do evil deeds? Should He judge murderers and rapists now? What about thieves and liars, adulterers, fornicators, those who lust, and those who hate? If God judged evil today, all unconverted men and women would perish under His wrath. Thank God that He is patiently waiting for them to turn to the Savior and be saved from His terrible wrath.

As for the rabbit, this statement is made in Leviticus 11:6, where the Hebrew literally means "raises up what has been swallowed." The rabbit does re-eat partially digested fecal pellets that come from a special pouch called the caecum. Bacteria in these pellets enrich the diet and provide nutrients to aid digestion. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica: "Some lagomorphs [rabbits and hares] are capable of re-ingesting moist and nutritionally rich fecal pellets, a practice considered comparable to cud-chewing in ruminants ...The upper tooth rows are more widely separated than the lower rows, and chewing is done with a transverse movement."

[RoundGuy]

and be saved from His terrible wrath.
And you worship this God? Out of fear? Nice.
As for the rabbit
A rabbit is not a ruminant, it just looks like it chews its cud. The author of Leviticus got it wrong. The Bible is not inerrant.

Nice try though.

[BrainGlutton]

The God of the Bible is an abomination. Be He the true God or be He not, He is an abomination. May he burn in His own Hell!

[Svt4Him]

Nope, not out of fear. I'm thankful that I don't have to pay the price for my sin. And it looks like Encyclopedia Britannica got it wrong too, but please give me a cite for where rabbits were called ruminant. Thanks.

BrainGlutton- see what I mean about the playing field with an argument like that?

[RoundGuy]

cite for where rabbits were called ruminant
Lev 11:6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.

All animals that chew their cud are ruminants. Rabbits chew their cud (according to the Bible), therefore, rabbits are ruminants.

As usual when debating fundamentalists, you wish to ignore the commonly understood meaning of the term, how it is used in every other instance, and say that it doesn't count for rabbits. The meaning of the word suddenly, miraculously changes when we talk about rabbits.

Sheesh.

[Polycarp]

Just for the record, I was taught 30 years ago, when reference to this stuff came up, that the beast to which that passage makes reference, though rendered "coney" (=rabbit) in the KJV and hence translated rabbit in some versions, was in fact the hyrax (also called coney). Unfortunately, the hyrax is not a ruminant either, though one of its habits is to chew in a way reminiscent of a ruminant chewing its cud.

However, the questions "Is the Bibl literally true and inerrant?" and "Is there a real entity which corresponds more or less to the God it describes?" are obviously two distinct questions. "Finding Bible Errors for Fun and No Profit" is an interesting exercise; any number can play. But it's not addressing the OP.

[Svt4Him]

you wish to ignore the commonly understood meaning of the term

True enough, I'd rather use the originally understood meaning of the term. Got me there.

[transitionality]

Originally posted by Polycarp
However, the questions "Is the Bibl literally true and inerrant?" and "Is there a real entity which corresponds more or less to the God it describes?" are obviously two distinct questions.

They are corollaries. The Bible is purported to be the word of a perfect God. If it is imperfect, then its author -- God -- is also imperfect, therefore fundamentally at odds with how he is described in the Bible. Nobody will worship a buffoon who cannot properfly classify creatures he supposedly created.

[RoundGuy]

I'd rather use the originally understood meaning of the term.
Ah, you're an expert on ancient Hebrew now, eh? Cite please.

[jongri]

Originally posted by RoundGuy

1) If you really created the universe in six days, why did you fake the evidence for a universe that is billions of years old?
2) Why did you tell us that a rabbit chews its cud when it doesn't?
3) What is your justification for the genocide of innocent Amelekite infants sucking at the breast of their mothers?
4) Why did you have to impregnate a young, innocent, unmarried Jewish girl to give birth to your son?
5) Why couldn't the inspired writers of your gospels get their story straight?
6) How can you justify an eternal torment in hell?



From the Desk of the Almighty

1) I'm eternal, do you have any idea how long one of my "days" lasts? What you think I'm on a 24hr cycle?
2) Cud is just my way of saying "carrot". I'm God, I can do that.
3) I just started the ball rolling, I don't know where or if it's going to stop or how or if it's going to get there.
4) That's her story and she's sticking to it. Do you know what they did to adulturous women in that day and age?
5) That story is obviously just humanity's first and somewhat awkward attemt to explain the world around them. Jeez, try to develop some perspective. I've never even read that book.
6) What hell?
;j

[kelly5078]

I'm going to try to get back to the intent of the OP: What if the Bible was true. That isn't the question that was posed, but it's what the OP's elaboration was getting at.

I see only two possibilities. Either we would be forced to conclude that the Bible really is as inconsistent as it appears, or that our yardstick for consistency is incorrect.

If the latter is true, then our logic is useless to us. If we cannot use our logic to answer questions, or to ask them, we are in a comletely helpless position. All thoughts and actions are futile, including being saved through Christ.

If, on the other hand, the Bible is truly inconsistent, then consistency has no real value in this world. If this is the case, then once again all thoughts and actions are futile.

There is an apparent third option, that the gyrations performed to make everything appear consistent have merit, and that the cultural selectivity that stresses certain passages of the Bible while ignoring others is valid. In that case, we would all be compelled to believe what the apologists have to say. I say this is an apparent option, because really, logic is once again thrown out the window, and we're back where we started.

[juan2003]

I'm not asking what if the Bible were true; I'm asking what if the God described in the Bible's original source were true. The Bible suffers from "pearl in the dung" syndrome.
Even though Biblical scribes may have been very dedicated to copying the holy texts, they were only human. They could've made mistakes. And who says the first person to receive God's Word could read and write? Almost certainly it was passed down through the generations orally. If you've ever played "telephone", you know how radically different the final message can be from the original.
At best, we have a warped caricature of what God wants from us, but I think we're just picking out patterns in static.

[kelly5078]

What original source do you have in mind, then? God, I guess, would be the original source, but he's not taking questions.

[juan2003]

By original source, I mean that which was made known to whomever was special enough to have communicated with God.

[transitionality]

The very philosophy of the Bible is self-contradicting. A benevolent, loving God who knowingly, intentionally and willingly created natural disasters, cancer, AIDS, and George W. Bush, is self-contradicting.

[Roches]

juan2003: You might also consider that several groups of humans decided for all time which books were the inspired and inerrant Word of God out of hundreds of possibilities. The Catholic canon was not decided until 1563; it was 1647 for Protestants.

Of particular interest is the book of Revelation, upon which the whole of Christian end-times prophecy and the 'Left Behind' series depends. There were many apocalpyses available to early Christians, and one cannot help but wonder how one of them ended up being the canonical end-of-the-world scenario.

[kelly5078]

The OP question is clearly unanswerable. If one wishes to take a stab at what the deity wants, perhaps it would be best to look at what is common among most scripture.

The closest I can come is what Christians call the golden rule. The Christians say "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The somewhat more constrained Jewish formulation is "what is hateful to you, do not do to others." If there is anything that the deity has in mind for humanity, that's got to be it. As Hillel said, "all the rest is commentary."

[SAustinTx]

When debates such as these arise (ie. is Yahweh real or not?), why isn't the position ever considered whether it would be ethical or immoral to believe in such a deity in the first place? In other words, is there any amount of evil one person can commit in their lifetime that justifies the concept of eternal damnation? Why would anyone believe in or support a God that would treat his creations in such a way? And please, no "the Lord works in mysterious ways" horse swill.

[SAustinTx]

When debates such as these arise (ie. is Yahweh real or not?), why isn't the position ever considered whether it would be ethical or immoral to believe in such a deity in the first place? In other words, is there any amount of evil one person can commit in their lifetime that justifies the concept of eternal damnation? Why would anyone believe in or support a God that would treat his creations in such a way? And please, no "the Lord works in mysterious ways" horse swill.

[Franko]

As it stands, religon is a crapshoot. Of all the worlds religions, is
yours the only door to God? It's like Let's Make a deal, is God
behind door #1, #2, #3, #4 ? And if you pick the wrong door,
you just blew eternaty! All that praying,and good deeds nothing.
Are you sure your faith is the only way? How much serious study
of the other world religions have you done? Could it be that they
are all praying to the same God, and don't know it.

Franko

[FriarTed]

Even if there was absolute proof for the existence of God & the identity of said God, that would not negate the need for faith. Knowing that someone exists does not necessitate trusting that person.