<p>
</p>
<p>Asimov’s Axiom (sort of). A belief in a God, though perhaps scientifically unsound or illogical, can be explained as a result of social necessity. For example, religion likely begun as a response to the need to explain things that could not yet be explained. Organized religion propagates a social function as a way for people to commune (a personal benefit) and agree on a particular set of laws based on straightforward common beliefs (a group benefit). In this respect, it is not illogical to see why religion is as widespread as it is, and why people choose to follow it. Now, you might say that a belief in flying pink unicorns also has a social purpose, but the majority of people will discount it as a particularly trivial purpose. </p>
<p>Therefore, the belief in flying pink unicorns can be considered more unreasonable than a belief in a god because a) religion can serve a beneficial personal purpose and b) organized religion can serve a beneficial societal purpose. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m going to have a hard time explaining this since I also happened to get caught up on this while considering my own religion. In Roman Catholicism, it is assumed that God is inherently a just and loving god, and on that assumption is how every other argument in this respect is created. Trying to explain why God is just and loving would then be a circular argument. I’ve yet to see a convincing counterargument that doesn’t involve this fallacy, but it’s not really something I go around discussing so someone else might be able to comment on this. If, however, we assume that God is inherently good, everything else falls into place.</p>
<p>A few further addresses to your same argument, listed without an explanation as, like I said, these particular things happen to be considered intrinsic to the Roman Catholic God, and subjected to my interpretations (others might want to also comment here, especially if you’re religion differs fairly substantially from Roman Catholicism): </p>
<ul>
<li><p>God wants us to love him back because it’s assumed that everyone who truly loves another person (and gets into a proper relationship) will expect love in return. Sure it’s a very human expectation, but most gods have very anthropomorphic qualities.</p></li>
<li><p>God would value goodness as second to love. The way most people have explained it would be like this: Would you rather have your children follow you without thinking about it for themselves, acting like robots (this simile is an important indicator of how they feel about behavior vs. free will), or have them choose their own path and still ultimately do good? Ideally, you would want them to do good on their own.</p></li>
<li><p>But humans have a capacity to think for themselves, so while an argument can be made to blame God, the creation would bear most of the blame. A more apt metaphor would be that God is like a parent and humanity like his grown children (since we’re talking about humanity’s capacity to be prudent). Do we punish the criminal or punish the parents? It might be proper to blame God on the argument that God gave humanity free will, and that in turn allowed for evil to be done, but that wouldn’t be a strong case for putting all the blame on God. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Then you have to consider that Catholics believe free will is integral to God’s identity as a good and just being, which would largely outweigh any reason for blaming God.</p>
<p>My own thoughts on your last paragraph:</p>
<p>If God exists as explained by Roman Catholic doctrine, he is indeed a fairly uninvolved God in some respects. I might say that he’s the coach to humanity’s players (not the best metaphor, since we can’t physically go ask for help), but he showed us the rulebook and now we’re on the field. He can’t play for us, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s not rooting for us.</p>
<p>I have my own reasons for not being completely convinced in the existence of a god - this is just how I’d reconcile my observations under the premise that the Christian God exists.</p>