Which statement do you identify with the most? 1. If God is a God of love, he would never be punitive in nature towards me. 2. If God was a God of love, then he would act in a punitive manner towards those who have wronged me.
Neither, a god who created all of time and space should not concerned with passing merciless judgment on the beings on a single planet, orbiting one of 400,000,000,000 starts in the Milky Way, which is just one of hundreds of billions or galaxies. Narcissism: the belief that all of this was created just for us.
Your assumption is that all things are equal. If so, then you may have a point. However, consider other possibilities. What if God has direct control over every aspect of the universe EXCEPT for our free will. If so, would that not garnish the most of his attention and interest?
The universe is made of matter, as are we and our minds. There is no reason to believe that our mind is separate and untouchable from a being capable of creating everything. There are evils that occur outside of free will, my point stand regardless.
Love is the connection between the material world and immaterial world. In and of itself, love does not exist in the material world, rather, it is simply a bunch of complex chemical reactions in the brain. However, as human beings we crave it and are destinies are held within its grasp. That is pretty amazing considering it does not really exist. In short, love trumps the entire material universe altogether. There is no comparison. The material universe was only created for love, not the other way round no matter how "massive" the material universe may be.
Science is a study of the material universe. However, science will never impact your life anywhere close to how love can and will. Furthurmore, science has next to nothing to say about love. So science shows us that bad things happen to people. Does this mean that love does not exist?
From a secular point of view, bad things to good and bad people for either no reason or the product of the choices we make, the lives we live, the geographic area of which we reside, reside. From a theocratic point of view, if there is a god, all powerful, all knowing, it is evil. The nature of god is not all good, but also partially evil for allowing horrific things to occur on the supposedly sacred planet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil Actually, will and love are products of the brain. The brain is a physical and observable object. Therefore within the realm and grasp of science. Love does exist and human suffering to the extent of what I mentioned is anything but love. Can love be defined? Yes, science can make a determination of what is right and wrong. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTKf5cCm-9g"]Sam Harris: The Moral Landscape - YouTube[/ame]
Love does exist, as do all emotions. They are the products of our brains. We crave feelings and substances that make us feel good, holding your girlfriend while watching a good movie would be one of those feelings we crave.
My computer does not have sound currently. So tell me in your own words, how does science define what is right and wrong?
So at best, God is partially evil? Who else is or was partially evil? Hitler perhaps? If God is not partially evil, then how could evil exist? I think that is the question because not everyone is suffering, are they? If everyone was suffering then it could be a slam dunk that he is all evil, so at best God is partially evil. Biblically, evil is defined as darkness, and for good reason. Darkness does not exist, rather, darkness is merely a term to describe the absense of light. Do you follow?
Love is not a mere emotion. For example, many people crave things that make us feel happy, but by in large do not fill a void in our collective souls. Love is a different animal altogether. For you see, we often do things that "put us out" and are not pleasant in order to serve those we love.
Love is the release of endorphins in the brain, we do the things that put us for the sake of the other person. There isn't anything divine about the nature of love. Through neuroscience we are beginning to better understand the brain, the way the mind works, and the nature of our emotions. Through this we can better determine what is right and wrong, i.e., removing moral relativism from the equation. Ethics can be built around science, religion is not needed to live a good life. Any attachment to evil is a major blow against the "all loving" definition of god. Millions are starving, where is the salvation? Such a being may not just be incompetent, but malevolent.
Most people identify love with spirituality. To see it as a mere emotion is an obvious flaw in your philosophy. Science will never be able to come to terms with it because it is no more significant, physiolically speaking, than me passing gas.
So is it wrong or right to have an abortion? Is it wrong or right to kill? Is it wrong or right to lie? Tell me how you decide such things using science. As for me, I would take Christ over Dawkins any day of the week.
Evil is merely the absence of God. That is why the Bible refers to evil as darkness. In and of itself, darkness does not exist. The term merely describes the absence of what is real, which is light. So the "evil" we see in the world today is merely the absence of God in the lives of people since the fall of mankind.
