If there was any place to post this, I guess it's here. Plus, I think a lot of you might dig this little exercise . I'm a college student taking a Philosophy course (a requirement, but I'm glad I have to take it.) I think the class is phenomenal, thanks mainly to our professor.
Anyway, to conclude our examination of the question, "Does God exist, and if so, what are the implications of that?" we are going to do hold a mock trial. God is the defendant. The charge: "The high crime of allowing unspeakable evils to occur, which he could easily have prevented." Students can volunteer to be a witness, the judge, or to be part of the prosecution or defense. The rest of the class will compose the jury. Questions we are to consider:
What would you say if you were to prosecute God for allowing evil?
What would you say if you were to defend God for allowing evil?
What could be the strongest asset for the prosecution?
What could be the strongest asset for the defense?
What kind of witnesses would you pick if you were on part of the defense team? The prosecution?
If you were to cross-examine the witness for the defense, what would you ask him or her? A witness for the prosecution?
If you were to cross-examine the defendant (God), what would you ask him or her?
Keep in mind here, the "God" we are putting on trial is not specifically the Christian God. I suspect that's what this will turn into, because I do live in the Bible Belt. Nor are we looking at Scripture for the answers to these questions, because "the Bible says so" won't cut it for this particular exercise. We're looking for logical explanations for why an all-knowing, all-powerful God would allow evil to exist.
Personally, I struggle with faith. I do think that a higher power exists, and I was raised in a Christian household. When I decided at age 15 that I didn't want to attend church anymore, my mom didn't force me to go. (My mother is amazing. She's the most devout Christian I know, but knew well enough that forcing me to attend church wouldn't make me a believer. She doesn't push her faith on me.) The questions I listed above are ones that I constantly ask myself.
Anyways. I originally wanted to volunteer for the prosecution, mainly because there are several students in this class who fail to grasp what we're trying to do here and the basic nature of the class -- not just in this particular religious argument, but philosophy in general -- how to identify good and bad arguments, logical fallacies, etc. These students regularly piss me off, because they often hold up the class with questions that amount to, "I didn't do the readings. Can you explain this to me?" After a clear, concise explanation for the 1000th time: "I still don't get it." Some of these students are devout Christians, and I know they'll volunteer for the defense. These are the same students who, when we examine logical arguments against the existence of God, refuse to even participate rather than, you know, working to disprove the argument. Quite frankly, I want to tear them apart on the witness stand for ruining what is otherwise an enjoyable class for me. I know I'll be able to; I'm a pretty good debater, and one of two Criminal Justice majors in a class full of mostly freshman.
Now, I'm not so sure. I'm not really looking to disprove the existence of God, or find him guilty for crimes against humanity, or call all Christians idiots (idiots come in all shapes and forms, religious or not ) -- I just want to shut up a few obnoxious, ignorant students.
I'm thinking of volunteering for the defense instead. I think that side of the argument needs a logical voice rather than a couple of kids who believe in God because their parents told them to, or whose entire argument will be, "God works in ways that we sometimes don't understand." Not when there are a couple of very smart atheists in the class whom I know are itching to tear that argument to shreds.
I know I just raised about a thousands points of debate here, but... thoughts? Not necessarily on which side I should argue for, but about the trial itself? Which side would you take? What would you say? And for the love of God (or not, depending on what you believe), I beg all of you to be civil about it.
Anyway, to conclude our examination of the question, "Does God exist, and if so, what are the implications of that?" we are going to do hold a mock trial. God is the defendant. The charge: "The high crime of allowing unspeakable evils to occur, which he could easily have prevented." Students can volunteer to be a witness, the judge, or to be part of the prosecution or defense. The rest of the class will compose the jury. Questions we are to consider:
What would you say if you were to prosecute God for allowing evil?
What would you say if you were to defend God for allowing evil?
What could be the strongest asset for the prosecution?
What could be the strongest asset for the defense?
What kind of witnesses would you pick if you were on part of the defense team? The prosecution?
If you were to cross-examine the witness for the defense, what would you ask him or her? A witness for the prosecution?
If you were to cross-examine the defendant (God), what would you ask him or her?
Keep in mind here, the "God" we are putting on trial is not specifically the Christian God. I suspect that's what this will turn into, because I do live in the Bible Belt. Nor are we looking at Scripture for the answers to these questions, because "the Bible says so" won't cut it for this particular exercise. We're looking for logical explanations for why an all-knowing, all-powerful God would allow evil to exist.
Personally, I struggle with faith. I do think that a higher power exists, and I was raised in a Christian household. When I decided at age 15 that I didn't want to attend church anymore, my mom didn't force me to go. (My mother is amazing. She's the most devout Christian I know, but knew well enough that forcing me to attend church wouldn't make me a believer. She doesn't push her faith on me.) The questions I listed above are ones that I constantly ask myself.
Anyways. I originally wanted to volunteer for the prosecution, mainly because there are several students in this class who fail to grasp what we're trying to do here and the basic nature of the class -- not just in this particular religious argument, but philosophy in general -- how to identify good and bad arguments, logical fallacies, etc. These students regularly piss me off, because they often hold up the class with questions that amount to, "I didn't do the readings. Can you explain this to me?" After a clear, concise explanation for the 1000th time: "I still don't get it." Some of these students are devout Christians, and I know they'll volunteer for the defense. These are the same students who, when we examine logical arguments against the existence of God, refuse to even participate rather than, you know, working to disprove the argument. Quite frankly, I want to tear them apart on the witness stand for ruining what is otherwise an enjoyable class for me. I know I'll be able to; I'm a pretty good debater, and one of two Criminal Justice majors in a class full of mostly freshman.
Now, I'm not so sure. I'm not really looking to disprove the existence of God, or find him guilty for crimes against humanity, or call all Christians idiots (idiots come in all shapes and forms, religious or not ) -- I just want to shut up a few obnoxious, ignorant students.
I'm thinking of volunteering for the defense instead. I think that side of the argument needs a logical voice rather than a couple of kids who believe in God because their parents told them to, or whose entire argument will be, "God works in ways that we sometimes don't understand." Not when there are a couple of very smart atheists in the class whom I know are itching to tear that argument to shreds.
I know I just raised about a thousands points of debate here, but... thoughts? Not necessarily on which side I should argue for, but about the trial itself? Which side would you take? What would you say? And for the love of God (or not, depending on what you believe), I beg all of you to be civil about it.