The believer's paradox

[McCulloch]

Conscience, will, mind, logic, purity, righteousness, motives, presuppositions, sanity, intellectual ability, moral faculty, and senses are all being subsumed under the heading "Reason." Reason--by which I mean logic and intellectual ability, and to a certain extent, the senses--is useful and kinda works, but it's corrupted by sin.

This type of argument has been made often by Christian apologists. You cannot trust your own thinking. You a cannot trust your own intellectual ability. You cannot trust human morality. It has all been corrupted by sin. You must abandon your self-centered life and embrace God's will only.

But here is the hitch. In order to come to the conclusion that there even is a God, I must resort to using my own tainted reasoning processes. Then, once convinced in my corrupted mind that God exists, I have to again use my own blighted cogitation to determine which alleged revelations are really from God and which ones are not (Torah, New Testament, Qur'an, Mormon, Urantia ...). Having reached some conclusions on that issue, I must again rely on my own depraved dialectics to choose among competing interpretations.

Pray to God for a sign, they sometimes answer, pray to God for wisdom. Yet, even there, I must interpret the signs and test the spirits, according to my own perverted human wisdom.

Question for debate, If not our own intellectual abilities, what could we possibly turn to, to assess TRUTH?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 50:

That was the point. We cannot possess such TRUTH unless it comes from God; for only He is TRUTH due to His nature...if their is indeed a God...

I think that depends on the definition of TRUTH (where it seems all caps are required). What is this TRUTH?

Now let us make a hypothetical claim that AlQada has direct orders from God to destroy America ( something that I don't believe as you also don't believe since you are an atheist). Since only God is truly just, then such orders, whether we understand it's reasoning or not, must be for a good purpose. How can this be? Well we first must think that death and destruction, for God, does not exist.

^My emboldinatin'.

That's just it. Death and destruction for God (in His name) does exist, and I don't think we're bound to accept it.

If God sends orders to kill our fellow humans, aren't we obligated to fight back? Who the heck is this God to order the killing of one of our own?

What we may observe as destruction may simply be a transformation in the eyes of God. When a baby is being pricked with a needle by a doctor, it can only understand the pain it receives without knowing the good that comes along with the pain.

That's exactly the kind of rationalization I reject.

If this god wants to kill, let it do the killing.

If God was proven to be inexistent , then religion would be, not only useless, but a pest to society and would need to be eliminated.

As some religions are practiced, the non/existence of God is moot.

No human should be allowed to kill another in their god's name. If competing gods have problems they need to deal with it amongst themselves.

Can any of these folks show they possess "TRUTH" that God is on their side?

"Only" if God directly revealed Himself/Herself/Itself to them.

That's just it. All this "God told me to" business absolves humans of their responsibilities to one another.

One can be wrong when one follows an erronous teaching by faith.

One who follows a teaching by faith (in the common religious sense) is already wrong. Use your heads folks.

When one claims to have the TRUTH on one's side, such person claims to have "direct" revelation from God, as Abraham, Moses Jesus Mohammed did. If "any" or all such individuals did not receive direct revelations from God, they are not simply wrong, but liars.

Yet none of them offer (surviving) evidence they actually did.

I'm all for speculating, but my issue here is how religious belief can be rationalized to accept the killing of humans "in God's name", and your previous statement that perhaps we just might oughta accept it.

"Liar" implies a deliberate attempt to misrepresent, so again, I'm not prepared to make that argument. I do note humans have been caught lying before, and likely will again.

"If" I'm right, God wants us all to walk barefoot and nekkid, totin' a hooka.

If God directly revealed this to you, then this is what we ought to do; if not, then you would be a liar.

Notice though, even if there were divine revelation, there's no violence involved.

When a God says we should hurt another human, I say we reject that God. When we hurt other humans it should be for our reasons, and not because a god has a notion.

>snip<

My personal, amateur, non-religious understanding is that if a god seek to judge us humans, then He's just as beholden to judgment as we are. I will never willingly stand in judgment before one immune to judgment.

Would this not be claiming your creator that is now being revealed before you to be your enemy?

If He's got a bee in His bonnet and tells me to kill another of my species, yes.

I just don't think we should blindly follow the commands of any god. We should all consider ourselves (humanity) first, and not allow a god to dictate who among us is worthy of life.

If the god wants to promise a rosy afterlife, then let that god ask his victim to kill themselves. But dang sure don't ask me to kill another with the promise that person will be better off.

Well, some form of judgement need to exist....human judgement is far from perfect...if there is life after death, then, I hope that whatever judgement will exist, will be indeed perfect.

Human judgment is all we have. It is this "judgment" that one thinks just because a god declares something, well then stop thinking, just react, that I condemn. It is an abrogation of one's responsibilities to human society.

If we "can't know the wisdom of God", we are left to our own wisdom.

[bernee51]

I challenge you to quit blaming science
for your inability to support your claims.

It is illogical to expect proof of the supernatural today
with the limitations of science today. Notice I say today.
I encourage you to research the limitations of science at the present time.

It is illogical to expect proof of the supernatural (by science) at any time. Sciene is the study of the natural...super natural, by definition is not natural.

if something that appeared supernatural (e.g. lightning), through science is shown to be a natural phenomenon, it is no longer (and never was) supernatural, other than in the mind's of the believers.

I encourage you to investigate the evolution of the god concept (along with concomitant belief systems) - the science is available today for that.

[Flail]

I challenge you to quit blaming science
for your inability to support your claims.

It is illogical to expect proof of the supernatural today
with the limitations of science today. Notice I say today.
I encourage you to research the limitations of science at the present time.

It is illogical to expect proof of the supernatural (by science) at any time. Sciene is the study of the natural...super natural, by definition is not natural.

if something that appeared supernatural (e.g. lightning), through science is shown to be a natural phenomenon, it is no longer (and never was) supernatural, other than in the mind's of the believers.

I encourage you to investigate the evolution of the god concept (along with concomitant belief systems) - the science is available today for that.

Arguably, science could potentially prove something that was formerly thought to be a supernatural claim. DNA tests could be run on the contents of the stomach of a Catholic priest who had properly ingested bread and wine in the sacrament ritual to determine if indeed it had been 'transubstantiated'into some DNA that could be that of a GOD. If this science showed the contents of the Priest's stomach remained bread and wine, the sarament of transubstantiation would be proven false.

So far as we now know,however,science cannot prove or disprove Gods any more than can indoctrinations,rituals or superstitions.

[mich]

That was the point. We cannot possess such TRUTH unless it comes from God; for only He is TRUTH due to His nature...if their is indeed a God...

I think that depends on the definition of TRUTH (where it seems all caps are required). What is this TRUTH?

Very good. The understanding of the use of the emphatic if and all caps TRUTH is
necessary in order to understand my point TRUTH means total objective reality, something that we humans cannot achieve; such a reality exists, however the only being capable of knowing such a reality would be God. This, in itself, does not claim that God exists, but only such a being would be capable of knowing such TRUTH.

Now let us make a hypothetical claim that AlQada has direct orders from God to destroy America ( something that I don't believe as you also don't believe since you are an atheist). Since only God is truly just, then such orders, whether we understand it's reasoning or not, must be for a good purpose. How can this be? Well we first must think that death and destruction, for God, does not exist.

^My emboldinatin'.

That's just it. Death and destruction for God (in His name) does exist, and I don't think we're bound to accept it.

This is the reason why I made the statement that anyone who kills because "God told him to", is either psychotic, a liar, or...if this was to be true, then by the very definition of God, then, it must be for the better good, whether we understand it or not.

However, I must add, that "going to war in the name of God" most often is equated with "war in the name of a country" which identifies simply a country's philosophical side. In other words, such war does not mean that God has spoken to anyone, but the war is political in essence. I would not comment on such a war, because it depends on the circumstances involved. War is never a solution, but, unfortunately, it is at times a necessary evil, for the preservation of a people.

If God sends orders to kill our fellow humans, aren't we obligated to fight back? Who the heck is this God to order the killing of one of our own?

Certainly one will defend oneself to preserve one's life. "If" (the emphatic if again) God is waging war against you, then it must be due to the fact that 1) God exists, and 2) you, somehow are on His wrong side . However, understand the emphatic if to mean just that...it doesn't mean in any way the a people who will wage war against you "in the name of God" has God on their side!

What we may observe as destruction may simply be a transformation in the eyes of God. When a baby is being pricked with a needle by a doctor, it can only understand the pain it receives without knowing the good that comes along with the pain.

That's exactly the kind of rationalization I reject.

If this god wants to kill, let it do the killing.

This form of rationalization comes with the emphatic if....I'm not claiming that God is out to get us. My personal belief is that God does everything for the good of it's creatures.

No human should be allowed to kill another in their god's name. If competing gods have problems they need to deal with it amongst themselves.

One needs to be careful however, in implying this to mean that "God must be on my side" type of thing. For example, let us assume that an atheistic government deploys an army in order to destroy all religions. Since the focus is the elimination of beliefs in God, those religious who would respond by fighting back, would claim to go to war in the name of God, without ever implying that God has told them to fight back. The AlQada scenario isn't the only one when it comes to fighting in the name of God.

Can any of these folks show they possess "TRUTH" that God is on their side?

"Only" if God directly revealed Himself/Herself/Itself to them.

That's just it. All this "God told me to" business absolves humans of their responsibilities to one another.

I have spoken of Abraham. Moses Jesus, Mohammed as "possible" individuals as having received interactions with God. If you ask me, while I believe that there may be a few people out there that still might have divine revelations, it doesn't mean that I believe everyone who claims to God having spoken to them....I understand that many evangilists speaks in such a way. Many identify their
conscience as God speaking to them. That's not what I mean by Divine Revelation.I do not personally believe that Abraham's conscience had anything to do with it.

One who follows a teaching by faith (in the common religious sense) is already wrong. Use your heads folks.

There is no difference between a religious person believing in a spiritual world, and a blind person believing in a cosmic universe.

When one claims to have the TRUTH on one's side, such person claims to have "direct" revelation from God, as Abraham, Moses Jesus Mohammed did. If "any" or all such individuals did not receive direct revelations from God, they are not simply wrong, but liars.

Yet none of them offer (surviving) evidence they actually did.

Just as we cannot offer evidense to the blind person that light exists. I'm not claiming that God exists because light exists... only that the universe "must" be much greater than that we can observe, because, speculation to our lifeform as being perfect in observing the totality (even potential wise) of the whole universe, is absurd.I also believe that existance of life, in other dimentions within our universe is more than speculation since this is what we observe within our own limited observable universe. The ameoba's universe is the drop of water, the fish's universe is the lake or sea....

I'm all for speculating, but my issue here is how religious belief can be rationalized to accept the killing of humans "in God's name", and your previous statement that perhaps we just might oughta accept it.

I don't think I said that we ought to simply accept it. This is the reason why I used the emphatic, and sometimes the double emphatic ifs.... I would most probably believe a person killing because God told him/her to kill as being psychotic. The emphatic if meant the "what if it were true?" argument. The rationalization was that if God decided to cause destruction, it would not immediatly mean that God was evil but was preserving the good from being swallowed by evil. As I said, death and destruction, in the eyes of God does not exist, or at least, does not need to exist.

"Liar" implies a deliberate attempt to misrepresent, so again, I'm not prepared to make that argument. I do note humans have been caught lying before, and likely will again.

This is also what meant; if God told me to kill and it isn't true, I'm either psychotic or a liar. However, like I mentioned, to go to war "in the name of God"
does not usally imply such a case, but is more of a political statement, such as going to war in the name of "freedom" ,"democracy", or the American dream"....or whatever.

When a God says we should hurt another human, I say we reject that God. When we hurt other humans it should be for our reasons, and not because a god has a notion.

We indeed ought not to inflict hurt on anyone. However, if someone were to inflict hurt on my children, I would not hesitate one second in striking back. Religion claims that we are to live peacefully and we are to even love our enemies; but this doesn't mean that we have no right to exist. If a religion is threatned it can indeed defend itself, as any other institution would.

I just don't think we should blindly follow the commands of any god. We should all consider ourselves (humanity) first, and not allow a god to dictate who among us is worthy of life.

I fully agree; however, within a society, and let it be a democratic one, there will always be some minority who will not have their rights in living their own philosophies if their philosophies are in conflict with the majority....

If the god wants to promise a rosy afterlife, then let that god ask his victim to kill themselves. But dang sure don't ask me to kill another with the promise that person will be better off.

"If" God exists, be certain that what awaits you will be for your benefit and not destruction....even if we have no clue as to what this can mean...for this universe is much grander than what we can comprehend, and I believe it exists for the sake of our enjoyment. Maybe what we identify as evil is there only to increase our understanding of that which is "good" in order to appreciate more this life, which may never end, but be evermore transformed.

Andre

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 54:

I 'preciate the dialog, and your patient attempts at schooling me...

Very good. The understanding of the use of the emphatic if and all caps TRUTH is necessary in order to understand my point TRUTH means total objective reality, something that we humans cannot achieve; such a reality exists, however the only being capable of knowing such a reality would be God. This, in itself, does not claim that God exists, but only such a being would be capable of knowing such TRUTH.

If we can't know the extent of this TRUTH, how can we know a god can possess it? Capable I'll give ya, but so often it's said God actually does possess this trait (though you may not claim this).

That's just it. Death and destruction for God (in His name) does exist, and I don't think we're bound to accept it.

This is the reason why I made the statement that anyone who kills because "God told him to", is either psychotic, a liar, or...if this was to be true, then by the very definition of God, then, it must be for the better good, whether we understand it or not.

This'n trips me up. I understand if we say all a god does is good, then it's good. My problem lies in why we must accept this definition.

I agree humans are involved so I'll try to refrain from "human made godly war".

Certainly one will defend oneself to preserve one's life. "If" (the emphatic if again) God is waging war against you, then it must be due to the fact that 1) God exists, and 2) you, somehow are on His wrong side. >drop human caveat<

I can follow such as "God ain't happy with you Joe". What I can't follow is why His unhappiness would supercede my own, or why I should accept it as more valid than my own happiness. I just don't get this angle that just because He's God I should accept whatever He says.

This form of rationalization comes with the emphatic if....I'm not claiming that God is out to get us. My personal belief is that God does everything for the good of it's creatures.

But what if we decide what's good for us?

Again, you seem to rely on a definition that anything this God wants is good. I just can't fathom that abdication of humans being responsible to one another first.

One needs to be careful however, in implying this to mean that "God must be on my side" type of thing. For example, let us assume that an atheistic government deploys an army in order to destroy all religions. Since the focus is the elimination of beliefs in God, those religious who would respond by fighting back, would claim to go to war in the name of God, without ever implying that God has told them to fight back. The AlQada scenario isn't the only one when it comes to fighting in the name of God.

I can see that angle. Go to war with my religion and you're attacking my god. Plenty fair. I remind myself about the "human godly war deal".

I have spoken of Abraham. Moses Jesus, Mohammed as "possible" individuals as having received interactions with God. If you ask me, while I believe that there may be a few people out there that still might have divine revelations, it doesn't mean that I believe everyone who claims to God having spoken to them....I understand that many evangilists speaks in such a way. Many identify their conscience as God speaking to them. That's not what I mean by Divine Revelation.I do not personally believe that Abraham's conscience had anything to do with it.

You reject some "prophets" but accept others? Why? What convinces you of one's holiness and not another's?

One who follows a teaching by faith (in the common religious sense) is already wrong. Use your heads folks.

There is no difference between a religious person believing in a spiritual world, and a blind person believing in a cosmic universe.

Good answer, good answer. I like the way you think.
- Professor Terguson

Just as we cannot offer evidense to the blind person that light exists. I'm not claiming that God exists because light exists... only that the universe "must" be much greater than that we can observe, because, speculation to our lifeform as being perfect in observing the totality (even potential wise) of the whole universe, is absurd...

This sounds like "We can't know, so God".

I also believe that existance of life, in other dimentions within our universe is more than speculation since this is what we observe within our own limited observable universe. The ameoba's universe is the drop of water, the fish's universe is the lake or sea....

I disagree. That amoeba's drop of water is within, and thus a part of this universe. I define the universe as "all of it", meaning this observable one, and any others, if that makes sense. Otherwise we gotta come up with a new word for "all of it".

...The rationalization was that if God decided to cause destruction, it would not immediatly mean that God was evil but was preserving the good from being swallowed by evil. As I said, death and destruction, in the eyes of God does not exist, or at least, does not need to exist.

So God exists. That's cool, and we'll not question that part. What then would indicate anything this God says or does should automatically be accepted? Why should we feel the need to just accept whatever He does?

>skip another "human godly war" because I'm not trying to drag mich into defending such<

We indeed ought not to inflict hurt on anyone. However, if someone were to inflict hurt on my children, I would not hesitate one second in striking back. Religion claims that we are to live peacefully and we are to even love our enemies; but this doesn't mean that we have no right to exist. If a religion is threatned it can indeed defend itself, as any other institution would.

Why should we accept a religious argument that says to live peacefully? (of course I agree, but on other grounds)

What I'm getting at is how can we know this is an edict passed down from God?

I fully agree; however, within a society, and let it be a democratic one, there will always be some minority who will not have their rights in living their own philosophies if their philosophies are in conflict with the majority....

Which gets us back to how can we know any edict is handed down from on high?

Rely on human reason to determine right from wrong? Then why bother with the religious angle at all?

"If" God exists, be certain that what awaits you will be for your benefit and not destruction....even if we have no clue as to what this can mean...for this universe is much grander than what we can comprehend, and I believe it exists for the sake of our enjoyment. Maybe what we identify as evil is there only to increase our understanding of that which is "good" in order to appreciate more this life, which may never end, but be evermore transformed.

"If...maybe...I believe..."

I'm not poking fun, I'm trying to understand what is behind those words.

Breaking it down:

"If" God exists, be certain that what awaits you will be for your benefit and not destruction....even if we have no clue as to what this can mean...

If we have no clue what benefit and destruction can mean, how can we be certain God's works are always good?

for this universe is much grander than what we can comprehend

What if it's not? What if it's a "what you see is what you get" universe?

and I believe it exists for the sake of our enjoyment.

Why do you believe this?

Maybe what we identify as evil is there only to increase our understanding of that which is "good" in order to appreciate more this life, which may never end, but be evermore transformed.

I tend not to use 'evil' due to religious connotations. Are you using it as a religious or generic term?

You've got a nice sentiment, but I don't see it as any more than that.

I 'preciate your time, and I'm not just debating for debate's sake. I'm trying to understand why we should accept the world as you see it.

[Cephus]

So far as we now know,however,science cannot prove or disprove Gods any more than can indoctrinations,rituals or superstitions.

It only cannot prove or disprove Gods because religion hasn't provided anything to test. That, in and of itself, is very telling from the religious side. In theory, science could test for the existence of God, assuming religion could agree on a single definition of what "God" is and a set of criteria by which "God" could be tested, but they won't, any more than if they did provide a sample from a priest's stomach, they'd acknowledge the test results if it came up against them.

[trillian]

(in reply to OP)

From a Christian perspective, there is truth in that we should not trust in our own thinking/wisdom etc.. However, there is also truth to that we should enable and empower all that God has (already) given us. We are made in the image of God and therefore, there are already essential "functions" for us to receive the Grace of Christ if we chose to.

For example, to ask God for wisdom doesn't necessarily mean we don't already have "wisdom" - we just have our own (man's) wisdom. Whether it's man's wisdom or God's wisdom, we have both to varying degrees both of which takes time and dedication to develop. This analogy essentially applies to all aspects of spiritual maturity.

I'm guessing a deeper issue you are asking is about absolute truth, and where does it start ? (because if I don't have truth to start off with, I can't really tell what is truth?) This issue then depends on what you depend on as absolution to start off with (obviously). As a Christian, we accept that absolute truth is determined by God and not us. Absolute truth exists regardless of what anyone thinks. Orwell's 1984 deals with the issue very very well.

To an atheist, this doesn't seem very appealing - i know because I once was an atheist. There are perhaps "logical" flaws to this without the component of Love/Faith. But you have to realise the issue of absolute truth applies to every belief system (including this sentence - haha).

from the Matrix movie:
"no one can be told what the matrix is, you have to see it for yourself"
......
"take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe", or to take the red pill, where "you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbithole goes".

I'm sure you can draw similarities to having Faith in Christ. As a personal appeal, and as a former atheist, I encourage you to take the red pill in what seems like absurdness. You will wake up and you will be free from this dying world.

[Zzyzx]

.

As a Christian, we accept that absolute truth is determined by God and not us. Absolute truth exists regardless of what anyone thinks. Orwell's 1984 deals with the issue very very well.

Some assert that "absolute truth" is determined by one or another of the thousands of "gods" promoted, feared and/or worshiped by humans. Others disagree.

Are you attempting to convince readers that what you say is true (or are you just talking)? To be convincing to the non-gullible, one is expected to present evidence. Can you DEMONSTRATE that some favorite "god" determines truth? Mere claims repeated are not evidence -- only conjecture and opinion. Referring to ancient religious promotional literature is not convincing except to those who want to believe "on faith alone" (the "choir" to whom many preach).

To an atheist, this doesn't seem very appealing - i know because I once was an atheist.

As a "former atheist" do you presume to KNOW the thinking of other or all atheists? Are "former Christians" entitled to speak for other or all Christians? Are their individual experiences or opinions representative of the group?

Realistically, what you personally found "very unappealing" before you became religious cannot rationally be presented as representative of other non-religious people.


Although I do not identify as "Atheist" (but prefer the term "Non-Theist" as opposing "Theist", or "Naturalist" opposing "Supernaturalist"), I simply do NOT accept your assertion that "absolute truth exists" and is determined by your favorite "god". Unsupported assertions carry no weight in debate.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 57:

From a Christian perspective, there is truth in that we should not trust in our own thinking/wisdom etc.

Why is the Christian perspective more valid regarding what we should or should not trust in our thinking or wisdom?

However, there is also truth to that we should enable and empower all that God has (already) given us.

Why should I trust God more than grits?

We are made in the image of God...

Please provide some means to verify this statement.

We are made in the image of God and therefore, there are already essential "functions" for us to receive the Grace of Christ if we chose to.

Please provide these "essential functions" for examanition, and explain how they allow us to receive...

Please provide verification your favored God offers Grace (and do me a personal favor and explain just what this whole grace deal is about).

For example, to ask God for wisdom doesn't necessarily mean we don't already have "wisdom" - we just have our own (man's) wisdom.

What "wisdom" might this God offer? Can you show this wisdom is beyond human capability?

Whether it's man's wisdom or God's wisdom, we have both to varying degrees both of which takes time and dedication to develop.

Boy I heard that. That wisdom train come rumblin' through town and there I was chasin' Sally Easylay.

This analogy essentially applies to all aspects of spiritual maturity.

Please define spiritual.

I'll just assume maturity was on that train I missed.

>skip a part I can't make heads or tails of<

...As a Christian, we accept that absolute truth is determined by God and not us.

What's this "absolute truth", and how can I get me a bunch of it?

Absolute truth exists regardless of what anyone thinks.

Then surely you can present a right good chunk of that "absolute truth" for us to dig into.

Orwell's 1984 deals with the issue very very well.

I feel so smart knowing that was a work of fiction. Even smarter knowing I didn't have to read it all to know that.

To an atheist, this doesn't seem very appealing - i know because I once was an atheist.

Appealing is not verification.

Your past as an atheist doesn't really offer verification for your overt or implied claims.

There are perhaps "logical" flaws to this without the component of Love/Faith

I'd love to accept your position on faith, if it weren't for them mean ol' nasty logical flaws.

But you have to realise the issue of absolute truth applies to every belief system (including this sentence - haha).

How so? Lacking the knowledge of what constitutes "absolute truth", I'm lost as a cow at a square dance.

from the Matrix movie:
"no one can be told what the matrix is, you have to see it for yourself"

Sounds an awful lot like, "I can't prove my claims, but I'm gonna holler 'em out anyway."

"take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe", or to take the red pill, where "you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbithole goes".

Take the shrooms and all them pills are a waste of money.

I'm sure you can draw similarities to having Faith in Christ.

Santa Claus?

As a personal appeal, and as a former atheist, I encourage you to take the red pill in what seems like absurdness.

Why should we have to take a pill to accept belief?

You will wake up and you will be free from this dying world.

This indicates a person grappling with depression.
When I wake up, and shake off the inevitable hangover, I am filled with awe and wonder of a living world.

[ChaosBorders]

From Post 54:

Certainly one will defend oneself to preserve one's life. "If" (the emphatic if again) God is waging war against you, then it must be due to the fact that 1) God exists, and 2) you, somehow are on His wrong side. >drop human caveat<

I can follow such as "God ain't happy with you Joe". What I can't follow is why His unhappiness would supersede my own, or why I should accept it as more valid than my own happiness. I just don't get this angle that just because He's God I should accept whatever He says.

Presumably, because whether you accept it or not will not effect the outcome.
The logical conclusion of an all knowing, all powerful deity is that everything is part of an overall plan, including individual actions, thoughts, and beliefs. (I can argue against free will from both scientific and theological positions all day long). So if every action, thought, and belief is logically part of an overall plan, that would include your own beliefs on whether you think God is actually good and whether you should accept teachings you feel come from God. Given logically whatever you do has already been decided by God, it would be to your own benefit if God graces you with the ability to trust God is, in fact, good. Because if God is not good then you are pretty much screwed.

This form of rationalization comes with the emphatic if....I'm not claiming that God is out to get us. My personal belief is that God does everything for the good of it's creatures.

But what if we decide what's good for us?

Again, you seem to rely on a definition that anything this God wants is good. I just can't fathom that abdication of humans being responsible to one another first.

If you go with the premise that God IS Good, then humans being responsible to one another (generally a good thing) logically follows as being in accordance with what God would like. However, regarding deciding what is good for us ourselves, a host of psychological studies and human history in general indicate we are are really bad at doing that in terms of doing what is healthy for ourselves and each other.

If you do not go with the premise God is good, you're screwed anyways due to the above reasoning you're under God's control either way.

Breaking it down:

"If" God exists, be certain that what awaits you will be for your benefit and not destruction....even if we have no clue as to what this can mean...

If we have no clue what benefit and destruction can mean, how can we be certain God's works are always good?

In this I strongly disagree with mich. From an individual perspective the only benefit I can guarantee would be that God's existence gives yours objective meaning. But for that existence to have meaning it could quite easily be very unpleasant.

for this universe is much grander than what we can comprehend

What if it's not? What if it's a "what you see is what you get" universe?

Then your life will be brief and is objectively meaningless. Even if true, what logical reason could there be to believe that? Especially given it can be no more proven scientifically than the existence of God.

And scientifically I can use quantum theory to show through thought experiment the existence of "a" God is highly probable, if not necessarily in our own physical universe or of the form I may personally believe God to be.