Not all atheists are stupid, but this is a good example of stupid atheism. The author here is trying to explain why God, if He exists, is immoral, needy, and irrational.
a.) God is omnipotent and omnipresent b.) God created man with the capacity for free will c.) Free will allows man to commit sin d.) Sin is the cause of evil. Conclusion: God can prevent sin and chooses not to.
Um, okay? So how does that make God immoral, irrational, or needy? If God creates man, gives Him a choice, and God doesn’t stop him, that makes him immoral? This is rather inconsistent with humanistic moral reasoning, what with the fact that usurpring the free will of another human would conflict with their worldview of freethought. Not to mention why the author, judging God’s actions based on humanistic morals, isn’t able or willing to demonstrate why God (not human) is obligated under humanistic morals. Next:
a.) God wishes us to love Him freely. b.) God will reward those who love Him freely. Conclusion: God requires love from man.
No explanation again is given as to how this is immoral. You might be able to label it needy, but you would have to operate under the assumption that God requires love because He needs it.
a.) Not loving God is a sin, and therefore evil. b.) God cannot allow sin to go unpunished. Conclusion: God punishes man for evil that God chose not to prevent.
The author here keeps harping on the “God won’t prevent evil but can” argument and it really makes no sense. To prevent the evil, God would have to trounce all over the basic human rights of free thought that humanists hold so dear, which the humanist would also see is immoral. Of course the author later explains that God is hypocritical for not stopping evil from occurring while damning man for not preventing evil from occurring. In regards to choice, the author concludes by breaking down the “consequences” of this choice like this:
- God is immoral, because he allows us to commit evil solely so that some us may freely choose to love him.
- God is needy, because he created us solely so that some of us would choose to love him.
- God is irrational, because he damns us for using reason instead of faith.
- God is duplicitous, because the choices he gives us are not truly free.
- God is jealous, because he punishes us for not loving Him.
- God is hypocritical, because he would punish man for giving the same choice to others.
Well first of all, if God exists, He is in no way obligated to the human race at all. For Him to be immoral, there would have to be an obligation first. Its illogical for humanists to declare God immoral if He exists based on a moral code centered entirely around the human race. The humanist first has to show why God is obligated to them at all. God’s morality is centered around God. Humanistic morality is centered around humans. Humanism as shown here is condemning God essentially for the same reasons God condemns man. Second, God does not condemn anyone for using reason, as reason has led many Christians, including this one, to Christ. Its an assumption that reason had nothing to do with it and an arrogant one, since the vast majority of the human race has “reasoned” its way to one supernatural being or the other. Third, if God’s choices aren’t “free”, because there are consequences, than there is no such thing as free will with or without God. Fourth, God is jealous, but God declares that Himself. Humanism doesn’t even declare that to be immoral in general and God only gave that command to humans. Fifth, God can’t be a hypocrite because He gave a set of rules to the finite creatures He created that don’t apply to Him. They only apply to Him in regards to this argument because humanists want it that way.
In conclusion, the humanist is unqualified and ill-equipped to declare God immoral in any sense, as the humanist hasn’t given an explanation as to the obligation of God do humans. If God exists and created humans, what reason does the humanist have to expect any treatment from God whatsoever? Why is He obligated? The humanist can argue how humans are obligated to one another all day but how is God bound by humanist rule? There has to be an obligation, and once an obligation is established, a moral law behind it. And for a moral law, a moral law giver. Christianity has filled in the blanks of that formula, and humanism has done the same. But humanistic/atheism in this case is trying to still hold a humanistic worldview even in the event that God, the creator of humans, indeed exists, which if philosophically impossible.