On Logic.

(This post is mostly directed to BBBats)
I'd like to make a statement here about 'Logic'. The word was used in whole or in part 8 times in the comments of the super-post 9000.

Examples (all mostly direct quotes):
1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Just as the enlightenment can rise out of a state of tyranny so to is it logicly possible that Gods creation could develop a more just system of ethics than the creator."
2-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Just as a german soldier who would face execution for refusing to participate in the holocaust was considered to be obligated to die rather than to follow orders so to logically would all of us considering pascals wager be obligated to risk eternal damnation rather than support a biased corrupt tyrant who orders genocide, punishes those that disagree with it and rewards those who agree."
3-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Say the god of the wager is Camasotz or one of the other bloodthirsty human-sacrifice demanding gods?
Should people tear the hearts out of others and willingly have their own heart torn from their living chest in fear of the gods displeasure or in hope of its reward?
The same logical principle applies to the christian god too."
4-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The capacity for basic intellectual empathy (as not everyone is born with intuitive empathy) where a person says 'It is wrong to do to others the EQUIVALENT for them of what I do not like done to me' is easilly a rational basis for morality which has as its inevitable logical consequences the principles of Human Rights."
5-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think we need to be fair to Christians and honest with ourselves about these questions, and I think it is fair to agree that IF the Christian Universe is true, THEN it is also Just - it is practically tautological."
6-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But as people can experience things done to them by others that they do not like is that then not the basis logically for all that follows?
7&8---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said, not all people are born with intuitive empathy or with the instinctive theory-of-mind skills that enable them to recognise that others are both reasoning and feeling beings like themselves and yet different and seperate beings capable of thinking differently.

But these things can be reasoned logicly even if they are not felt instinctively.

And once such conclusions are held does not the rationality of empathy as a guide of behaviour then follow logicly?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I just noticed the mention of Camazotz which coincidentally is the name of the dystopia in 'A Wrinkle in Time'. (see last post)

So I point these out because we all seem to agree that what we are talking about is very important. It is so important that we really can't afford to be careless with our words, much less so with what we think they mean. When someone says "If A is possible then logically B is possible", I take them to mean that using a series of irrefutable statements, I can get from A to B, or B follows from A. If B doesn't follow from A, then the statement "A follows B" is 'non-sequitur' which is a logical fallacy. (Notice my statement is a logical statement).

So then, statement 3 above, is non-sequitur.
You suppose that the god of the wager is Camazotz
you say:
because Camazotz is a bloodthirsty tyrant
we should reject the wager
then logically,
if the Christian God is the god of the wager,
we should reject him also

Now this I suppose works for you because you assume that the Christian God is as bad or worse than Camazotz. I do not assume that. I'm not sure how anyone who has actually read the Bible would walk away with a picture of a Camazotz god as the God of the Bible of Christianity.

What Toups ( I think) is trying to point out that (Although I'm sure he would not say it like this)
(A) If someone believes the cosmology of Christianity

(B) Then they believe that God sent Jesus(who is God) to die for people who did not deserve it in order to have a relationship with them.

(C) If (B)

(D) then God is very gracious to offer us something that we do not deserve and could not otherwise obtain.

If (D)

(E) then not only should we serve God, love Him with all our being, and obey him, but it is good to do so.

If (E) is true

(F) then (E) is true irrespective of any personal suffering

For the Christian, the fact of the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection is the proof that God is a loving God who kept his covenant (that he need not have made except for his love for us) with Abraham of the old Testament despite the frequent rebellion and breaking of the covenant by His people.

So then, you can't 'prove' that Christianity is wrong by saying "if Christianity were different, then you wouldn't believe it", and most of your statements are basically of that nature.

Finally, is not Christ's Incarnation, Suffering and Death the highest possible form of empathy? God becoming man, suffering as a man, dying as a man --and of course the account of his suffering is beyond what most people ever endure. You don't seem to consider this when talking about the Christian God.

Suffering

Recommended reading: The Problem of Pain
and (a lighter book) A Wrinkle in Time

Now why do I recommend these books. The issue of suffering has been raised and is adequately addressed in the first book (PoP). The second book (WiT) is delightful and much easier to read but takes truths from PoP to their natural conclusions. The thesis of PoP is many-fold. Lewis starts with the idea that in an existence with only a Creator and a created being where the created being has free will implies the possibility of pain. He then discusses scenarios where the Creator attempts to remove the possibility of suffering, but the result is necessarily the removal of the free will of the created being.
This is borne out in WiT when the children find themselves on a planet that is entirely controlled by one mind. All suffering, mistakes, pain etc are removed from this society because all beings actions are controlled by the mind until their wills, having been forced into alignment with the mind, operate automatically. Any creature whose actions go against the mind is immediately destroyed. This planet is more a dystopian hell than the creation of a loving Creator, and yet, it is very similar to what BBBats laid out as the actions of a better God.
Next, Lewis argues in PoP that the fall, while being a necessary possibility for creatures with free will, was not a necessary outcome of creatures with free will. Lewis also very carefully discusses the idea of possibility and impossibility as it applies to God. People often pose questions or make statements that "God could..." but non-sense is still non-sense when applied to God. So while some things are impossible to man, but possible to God, some things are "intrinsically impossible". Thus if it is 'intrinsically impossible' for creatures to exist with free will and without the possibility of pain, then that applies to God.

So I've tried to briefly address here the problem of suffering that BBBats has raised as well as the question of God's omnipotence and other characteristics. I can only post in limited times so I can work.
Let me know if you are familiar with these books. I know that Toups knows WiT.