Atheists....

[Redzeppelin]

No need to be snide. You being a believer, I thought you might have a better idea what to expect from an omnipotent deity.

No snideness intended. You said this: "No, generally people just realize that either is exactly what we'd expect from a Godless, indifferent universe."
So, I assumed that such a statement implied a knowledge of what a godless universe looked like. To know this, one must have an idea of what is missing. To turn it back to me struck me as a way of avoiding an answer. My apologies if my reply was offensive.

Can I assume there would be any discernible difference between a universe controlled by an all-powerful, all-loving God and one without? Am I naive to think that this Being would protect His creatures from harm? That the innocent would not suffer? Isn't that what prayers and submission and belief are all about?

To answer your question would take many very lengthy paragraphs. In short: God gave His creatures freewill - as such, the presence of freewill brings with it the potential for suffering, because human beings are free to choose evil instead of good. To stop humans from exercising their free choice would be to deny freewill. Now, if we assume that God is all-benevolent and morally perfect (as the Bible describes Him), then we must assume He has a valid reason for making the world in the way He has; that is not meant to justify the fact that good people suffer - it merely explains that the existence of suffering does not negate the existence of God. For God to prohibit the exercise of men's freewill would ultimately be to limit free thought (since thought precedes action); God won't do that - He desires His creatures to be free. Prayer is not "all about" just getting things we want - it is about communication with God and the development of a relationship with Him. It is His prerogative (as an all-knowing, all-powerful Being) to answer prayers in a number of ways - one of those ways being "no."

The mere fact that the innocent DO suffer should make us wonder whether belief in the all-loving-all-powerful God isn't wishful thinking. Because then we have to create ad hoc explanations for why the omnipotent Being, no doubt in His infinite wisdom, allows such random brutality in His creation.

Only if God is merely an exaggerated version of a human being. He's not. If He is all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing as He is described, then we must assume that He has good reasons for the way He allows what He allows. Just like children who don't always understand the complexities of the adult world that influences adults to make the decisions they do, God's decisions are far beyond what we - with our limited perspectives - are sometimes able to understand. We see only now - God sees the entire picture.

I invoked Occam's razor, because it's relevant to this dilemma. Is the universe amoral and indifferent because that's just the way it is, or is it because God is trying to make us think that's just the way it is? Are we being honest with ourselves about the tragedy inherent in the suffering of the innocent, or merely trying to rationalize it away by pretending it's not really tragedy?

It is tragedy; it is suffering. Saying that it exists and that God has reasons for allowing it to exist is not "rationalizing" it so much as framing it in a way that suggests that there is a reason for its existence.

In other words, is there actually a good reason to think there's an all-powerful-all-loving God overseeing the universe? How would the universe look if there weren't an omnipotent Being controlling everything?

Two good reasons exist: 1) God sacrificed His own Son - Jesus Christ - to redeem all of humanity from the consequences of sin - Christ who was sinless paid the price for the sin of all humanity; as such, God freely has given us Grace, and we all may have eternal life if we choose; 2) God's kindness and compassion shows up in the people of this world who choose to serve Him by trying to alleviate suffering wherever they can.

In a godless universe, there is no need for good to exist at all.

[cuppajoe_9]

In a godless universe, there is no need for good to exist at all.

Bah, and again I say bah. 'Good', almost by definition, is an excellent way to meet certain basic human needs, such as the need to not be murdered. That's a good enough reason for me, quite independant of the existence of any God or gods.

[ennison]

'But you're really not accepting it if you think it's all part of "God's plan," are you? Either you accept that tragedy and happiness are part of our existence, or you relinquish the right to see anything as tragic, since God has His reasons for making or allowing it to happen.'
Well as a matter of reality I do accept it. If I get caught in the rain (as I often do) then I get wet. Whether I like it or not I have to accept it.
And as I said The Fall explains things for many of us - at least up to the limits of our understanding.
The question of evil could be seen as a consequence of darkness which I take to be not created by God but the thing/condition from which God separated life/ Creation and which The Fall allowed back in to Creation.The fourth verse of Genesis 1 seems clear to me that Darkness is a negation of God's work. Evil belongs to darkness. Darkness is in us, as it was not in Adam and Eve at the start.
And yes I do see your point about 'Why doesn't an omnipotent God etc?' but what benefit is it to me to take such a line which can leave individuals who have suffered loss as embittered, angry and unconsoled? Unless, of course, you want us to be supermen. There have been and are some who claim such status.

[HannibalBarca]

I may be a deist, but i'm definitely not an atheist.

[Redzeppelin]

Bah, and again I say bah. 'Good', almost by definition, is an excellent way to meet certain basic human needs, such as the need to not be murdered. That's a good enough reason for me, quite independant of the existence of any God or gods.

I didn't say it wouldn't exist or couldn't exist - I said there is no need for it to exist at all and its existence would be a chance occurrence that we might/might not find usefull.

There are plenty of situations where bad/evil is the more expedient, practical or convenient way to protect myself and my interests.

[cuppajoe_9]

There are plenty of situations where bad/evil is the more expedient, practical or convenient way to protect myself and my interests.

Granted, but I submit that doing the good/virtuous thing pays off better in the long term, in the sense of helping to create a society in which the good/right thing is the norm. (I am aware that this reasoning is a bit circular, as I'm defining the good/virtuous thing as that which creates the 'best' society, if everybody did it. Oh well.)

As an aside: "is it", in your opinion, "pious because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is pious?"

[Redzeppelin]

Granted, but I submit that doing the good/virtuous thing pays off better in the long term, in the sense of helping to create a society in which the good/right thing is the norm. (I am aware that this reasoning is a bit circular, as I'm defining the good/virtuous thing as that which creates the 'best' society, if everybody did it. Oh well.)

This is workable as long as people possess the maturity to look at the long-term picture (which I would suggest is not necessarily the norm; consider our current levels of credit card debt and the housing disaster in North America where people got into houses they couldn't afford during the low-interest boom of the last 5 years - we are now looking at record foreclosure numbers due to rising interest rates - the examples go on and on that we're pretty much "I want it now and don't care about tomorrow - bill me").

As an aside: "is it", in your opinion, "pious because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is pious?"

I have trouble with the term "pious." I will swith to the word "good": Things are "good" in so much as they reflect the character of God; things are "evil" in so much as they reflect that which is not in God's character. The problem with the statement you originally posed is twofold:

1) the first statement implies that it is God who decides what is right/wrong because He likes/loves it - which implies that He could perhaps like/love some other thing and call it "pious": this makes right/wrong a product of God's whim.
2) the second statement implies that "piety" exists outside of God and that He loves it for what it is; this implies that God must hold to some external standard of right/wrong; this disagrees with Christian theology that believes that good doesn't exist outside or independently of God - He is the definition and source of all that is good.

[cuppajoe_9]

I have trouble with the term "pious." I will swith to the word "good"

I say 'pious' only because I'm quoting.

Things are "good" in so much as they reflect the character of God; things are "evil" in so much as they reflect that which is not in God's character.

Ok, fair enough, but saying that God's character is 'good' implies some outside standard of comparison, no?

[ennison]

Well one 'outside' standard of comparison is Satan (and his/hers/its demons). Though I fear our friend does not believe in Satan either - kinda hard for me not to though.

[cuppajoe_9]

Well one 'outside' standard of comparison is Satan (and his/hers/its demons). Though I fear our friend does not believe in Satan either - kinda hard for me not to though.

God is good because Satan says so? This is assuredly the craziest kind of christianity I've ever heard of.

[ennison]

You asked for an outside standard of comparison.

[cuppajoe_9]

I don't think you undrstand me. If you want to say that God is 'good' and Satan is 'bad', you obviously need a definition of 'good' and 'bad' independant of God or Satan.

[ennison]

The evidence of Satan's works suits me as a reason for defining him as bad.

[cuppajoe_9]

The evidence of Satan's works suits me as a reason for defining him as bad.

Thus implying that what you define as 'bad' has nothing to do with Satan, unless you're a fan of circular reasoning.

[ennison]

No but I don't feel the need to define the obvious until it becomes ridiculous. If my hand gets cut off I need a doctor not a dictionary. If Satan is the enemy of my soul I need a friend for my soul.