I don't know what Chalmers is saying now, but back when I studied him at university there was definitely the idea that it was silly to ask if we were conscious because really we aren't, and he was one of the people arguing this position (or at least he seemed to be, philosophers are always a bit vague) may not be unreasonable.

The God I've portrayed is most definitely not evil, and I don't really know why you've stated that as if it's an agreed point when you know full well woodpijn doesn't agree with you. I don't see any internal contradictions. I suppose in response you'll just repost everything that has been said in the thread between myself and gjm11. I think - this whole discussion is going in circles too much to be worth continuing right now (and I've spent far more time on it that I really have at the moment).

While I was a self described weak atheist I don't think you can really get away with 'just' being a weak atheist (or at least I couldn't) given that weak atheism is the position that there is insufficient 'positive evidence' for god but not strong 'negative evidence' that there is no god. Weak atheists AFAICT tend to still adopt a worldview to explain things - in your case (and mine) that is scientific materialism.

It's perfectly reasonable and valid to do what woodpijn is doing which is to say that that world view is just as open to scrutiny as her position as a Christian theist. The New Atheists are fond of criticising theists who at one point make big claims, then when the light of enquiry is shone on them say "well, we don't really believe something like that". Weak atheists AFAICT are guilty of a similar crime.

I don't understand why you think the doctrine of Hell forces you in to making a decision where there is insufficient evidence. Do you mean insufficient evidence for the non Christian or for the Christian? As a Christian I am convinced there is more than ample evidence. For the non Christian it is not required that they know how they are to be punished for their actions to make such a punishment fair. We all know we do wrong, a defence of "but I didn't know I was going to be punished for what I've done wrong!" isn't going to wash.

BTW I'd appreciate it if you didn't say things like "robhu's philosopher of the moment". I know I invoked Chalmers before, but that was me sharing a not well developed thought that is part of a larger system of thoughts and conclusions that I have not had time to crystalise and right down.