The principle problem here seems to be magical thinking. By many theists to be sure, but also in atheists for equating theism to magical thinking. But the fact is that not all theists think in that way. Sure many theists think of God giving life, free will, or help in some magical way with no explanation necessary. But scientists can become theists because magical thinking is NOT a necessary component of believing there is a God. They understand that life and free will are explainable physical processes/phenomenon rather than magical components. Life exists (can only exist) on the basis of a fixed set of rules defined by natural law operating according to quantities (measurable because of those natural laws). And whether one is naughty or nice is not one of those measurable physical quantities. Conclusion? God cannot do whatever you care to dictate by whatever means you care to demand. There are constraints of both logical self-consistency and (by extension) consistency with those fixed rules which makes life possible.
Did. Perhaps you could elaborate a distinction between being good and being smart in a world where bad things only happen to bad people.
Well… I can add this… Your proposed world would make moral law a part of the natural law. The natural law is defined by written procedures which give the same result no matter what we want or believe. And your proposed world would add to those written procedures. And it would simply add to the things we must learn to survive.
Oh yeah, I remember… from your comments in previous discussion, you seem to think the necessities for survival should be all that matters and you resent that God should judge things according to a different standard. phew… that sounds like something I will not name…
This suggests to me a different line of inquiry. I never thought the distinction between theists and atheists was very important. I wonder if drawing the line in the wrong place is a big part of the problem and what we should really be asking is whether people believe in a distinction between right and wrong – moral nihilists instead of atheists, moral skeptics instead of agnostics, but what is the opposite of moral nihilism? Albert Camus said the opposite of moral nihilism is existentialism, which tickles me to complete hilarity! I guess according to Camus, the existentialist is someone who believes in a distinction between good and evil regardless of whether one believes in the existence of a God. But then I must confess, the existentialism of Camus is precisely what led me to theism and Christianity. It is not that one must believe in a God for there to be any morality. I have nothing but contempt for that argument. But by the above discussion it does seem to be one of the key issues which contributes to the ability to believe God exists – a necessary but not sufficient condition.