That is primarily due to the circumstances of your birth. How many other ways have you explored in depth? Participated in?
I don't need to jump of a cliff to determine that that isn't what I want to do. I have read quite a bit about other belief systems and the Christian one (in some interpretations of it) is the only one that is an agreement with the God that I want to worship and to exist.
It is a belief, which has personal (non-scientific) evidence behind it.
That's not well thought out. There is a problem with domain.
Only the natural stems from nature.
It is well thought out and there is 2000+ years of theology behind it. If you say that everything is good, the quantifier good has no meaning. And is also obviously false, from the examples I gave.
For there to be good, there must be a possibility of evil. Otherwise good would not exist. For freedom to exist, the possibility of slavery must exist. Just like for slavery to exist, the possibility of freedom must. That is why a good God can create a universe where evil can occur but not be evil in Himself. That is how a good God can create a universe in which things counter to Him can exist.
I agree that a god that was neither good nor evil could be the source for everything. However, see my note about not believing in such a god.
And finally, as in my previous reply... an evil god isn't the God I choose to worship. I admit that there is some possibility that I am wrong, but I believe the way I want the universe to be, I would recommend that others choose their beliefs similarly.
Humorous given the post you just wrote. But carry on.
Not at all. Moral relativism or universality of goodness/etc are obviously not correct logically. If you can define a true statement, you can also define a false statement.
And before you become one of those who thinks that our logic is wrong, remember it has all the generally agreed upon experience of science/etc behind it.
The central issue is that in things like physics we have clear and obvious answers and understanding. And people have determined the obvious thing that we don't have such clear and obvious answers and understanding in all areas of things like morality/etc. They than say that there are no answers and understanding, and while they are clearly and obviously wrong in areas of science... (although they still try) the lack of understanding in many areas of morality/etc means that many agree with them there.
But a lack of clear and obvious answers and understanding does not imply a lack of answers and understanding being possible. There are areas in physics which we can now begin to see which we will probably never be able to answer (that we aren't capable of making an experiment to measure). This does not mean that there is no answer to what exists in those areas, rather it is just that our minds/bodies/etc aren't capable of it.
JM
