Is God imperfect or simply indifferent?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Is God imperfect or simply indifferent?

Post #1

Post by Justin108 »

Assuming for argument sake that Mark 16:16 and Revelations 21:8 are both true in suggesting that unbelievers are condemned

If God fails to convince each and every one of us that he exists, this either implies that
a) God was unable to convince us he exists (implying imperfection)
b) God did not care to try to convince all of us (implying apathy)

Is God imperfect? Or simply apathetic in our salvation?

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Re: Is God imperfect or simply indifferent?

Post #21

Post by Justin108 »

Hawkins wrote: The New Covenant specifies that you need faith in order to be saved. It's all about how much faith you have instead of how well He convinces you. You miss the whole point.
Why is it important to believe a doubtful claim? Why does God value gullibility?

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Re: Is God imperfect or simply indifferent?

Post #22

Post by Justin108 »

JehovahsWitness wrote: I see this as a false dichotomy based on the presumption that God has not provided sufficient evidence of his existence and that it is in his or our interests that he force people to accept that evidence.
Please demonstrate the "sufficient evidence" for God. And to clarify, this evidence must point to the Biblical God specifically as opposed to just a generic intelligent designer.
JehovahsWitness wrote:The universe is in my opinion more than enough evidence for any reasonable individual to conclude there is a God
Assuming for argument sake this is true. Why conclude the Christian God specifically?

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Re: Is God imperfect or simply indifferent?

Post #23

Post by Justin108 »

liamconnor wrote: According to Christian doctrine (and common sense) man is equipped with freewill.
Implying belief is a choice.
liamconnor wrote:Thus, God cannot at the same time give man freewill while withholding from him freewill.
God demonstrating his existence to us in no way intrudes on our free will
liamconnor wrote: Now, if a given man does not want to believe in God, because such belief entails changes in his lifestyle, is it a failure of God that he cannot bring the man to belief by argumentation?
Are you suggesting this is the reason all (or most) atheists reject religion?
liamconnor wrote:This is not that difficult to understand. After all, skeptics use arguments against Christianity. But many Christians do not buy them. Does that mean the arguments are bad? Or does that mean that Christians aren't thinking rationally?
Atheists are limited in our ability to convince theists. God has no limits in this regard.

Furthermore, it would be easy to convince virtually every atheist to believe in God. All God would have to do is show himself. Proving a negative, however, is impossible. So not only does God have far more resources to convince us, the task of convincing us god exists is far easier than convincing us he does not exist. God can show us he exists, but it is impossible for anyone to show us god does not exist

JLB32168

Post #24

Post by JLB32168 »

Justin108 wrote:Unsubstantiated claim: "Whoever does not believe in God is deliberately obtuse"
What’s substantiated about, “a) God was unable to convince us he exists (implying imperfection),� or “
b) God did not care to try to convince all of us (implying apathy)?� Nothing is substantiated if we’re going to be pedantic since both require the existence of God in the first place. Since the question presupposes that God as defined by the NT exists then the NT says that God has revealed Himself to all people so that they are w/o excuse.
Justin108 wrote:Evolution is not a "perfect explanation". It's a very good explanation. It's the best we have. But it isn't "perfect".
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion that evolution is only “very good,� but indeed I have heard it posited that Evolution explains exactly how a single cell organism can become a complex organism like H. sapiens; therefore, my point stands.
Justin108 wrote:Scientists are not God. They are limited.
According to Christian theology and assuming God exists, He is limited by His nature. He cannot be visibly seen or audibly heard by creatures who haven’t obtained relative perfection since both will prove fatal; therefore, He must reveal Himself in ways that most men can bear.
Justin108 wrote:Since I can conceive a better way for God to reveal himself, the current revelation is imperfect by definition.
What would this better way for God to reveal Himself be that doesn’t violate God’s nature? I’m curious.

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Is God imperfect or simply indifferent?

Post #25

Post by marco »

JehovahsWitness wrote:
The universe is in my opinion more than enough evidence for any reasonable individual to conclude there is a God. And the more we learn about it and the life in it, the more it becomes a logical and scientific inevitability. It is however possible God has no interest in forcing the unreasonable to see sense if they don't want to.
God is perhaps confusing the philosopher with the fool. The idiot cave-man looked around and deduced the Sun was a God. Why is there intellectual merit in looking around with wonder and deducing the existence of a judgmental being? And how, when we read of Yahweh's all-too-human exploits, can we associate him with the hydrogen and helium in the Sun? His province is the cities of the plain and man's sinful nakedness.

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Post #26

Post by Justin108 »

JLB32168 wrote: What’s substantiated about, “a) God was unable to convince us he exists (implying imperfection),� or “
b) God did not care to try to convince all of us (implying apathy)?�
These are substantiated by logic.

It is a fact that not all of us were convinced God exists. If God did in fact sincerely attempt to convince us but failed, then he is imperfect. This is a logical conclusion. Unless we consider the possibility that God did not sincerely attempt convince us he exists, in which case we can logically conclude that God does not care about our belief in him. Please point out the flaws in my logic

JLB32168 wrote: Nothing is substantiated if we’re going to be pedantic since both require the existence of God in the first place.
Yes. Until we find a logical paradox, in which case we will have to step away from this assumption that God exists and conclude that such a God becomes paradoxical.

JLB32168 wrote:Since the question presupposes that God as defined by the NT exists then the NT says that God has revealed Himself to all people so that they are w/o excuse.
This becomes a paradox as this is simply not true. God has never revealed himself to me

JLB32168 wrote:You’re certainly entitled to your opinion that evolution is only “very good,� but indeed I have heard it posited that Evolution explains exactly how a single cell organism can become a complex organism like H. sapiens; therefore, my point stands.
So... since you have heard that evolution is a perfect explanation... therefore it is a perfect explanation?

Your point does not stand because I do not agree that evolution is a "perfect" explanation.
JLB32168 wrote:According to Christian theology and assuming God exists, He is limited by His nature. He cannot be visibly seen or audibly heard by creatures who haven’t obtained relative perfection since both will prove fatal
In that case, God is not omnipotent.

The very notion of mortality was invented by God. Surely he can make a man immortal for long enough for him to survive facing God. And if he could not (for whatever reason) then God could simply bring this dead man back to life with his memories intact. Another work-around is to manifest some kind of avatar similar to Jesus appearing to John in Revelations. I'm a mere mortal and even I can come up with several workaround for this odd limitation to an omnipotent being. Surely God could do the same.

Oh and God can be audibly heard. He spoke to people verbally throughout the Bible.
JLB32168 wrote: What would this better way for God to reveal Himself be that doesn’t violate God’s nature? I’m curious.
1. Make us momentarily immortal and show himself to us
2. Show himself to us and bring us back from the dead
3. Have Jesus appear to us as he did to John in Revelations
4. Create a temporary avatar with clear supernatural qualities to appear to us
5. Speak to us telepathically

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Is God imperfect or simply indifferent?

Post #27

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

liamconnor wrote: [Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

There is a logical problem lurking here.

According to Thomas Aquinas, God cannot perform a contradiction.

According to Christian doctrine (and common sense) man is equipped with freewill.

Thus, God cannot at the same time give man freewill while withholding from him freewill.

Now, if a given man does not want to believe in God, because such belief entails changes in his lifestyle, is it a failure of God that he cannot bring the man to belief by argumentation?


This is not that difficult to understand. After all, skeptics use arguments against Christianity. But many Christians do not buy them. Does that mean the arguments are bad? Or does that mean that Christians aren't thinking rationally?
Proverbs:16
[9] A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.


Nowhere does the Bible implicitly promise free will. Just the opposite in fact. Common sense to Christians means accepting without question that a corpse returned to life and then flew away, and that hordes of dead people once came up out of their graves and wandered the streets of Jerusalem. Along with the many other assertions that are in fact complete contradictions to common sense, which are contained in the Bible. So where do you see common sense playing a role in establishing the truth of your assumptions?

Wikipedia
Common Sense
Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things that is shared by ("common to") nearly all people and can reasonably be expected of nearly all people without need for debate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

It should be clear by now that your assertions and your assumptions are not only debatable, they invariably hold up quite poorly during an open appraisal of them.

There is nothing "rational" about accepting preposterous claims as apparently undeniably true simply because they are contained in an old book. Much in the same way there would be nothing rational in accepting the various myths produced by the ancients as undeniably true simply because ancient people once believed them.

We should reasonably have become more knowledgeable and sophisticated in our understanding of the world over the course of several thousand years. And that IS just common sense.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Is God imperfect or simply indifferent?

Post #28

Post by ttruscott »

imCo
OnceConvinced wrote:
ttruscott wrote:
OnceConvinced wrote:If my loved one was on the road to Hell I would do everything I possibly could to make them see sense. I wouldn't give up on them, like your god. If I could not accomplish that, then that would be a failure on my part. A god would surely not fail.
Non-Christian strawman postulate:
This coming from a guy who quoted a scripture in Romans that is obviously not true?
I quote scripture to support the truth of what Christians think, not to demonstrate raw truth.
Your god is clearly an apathetic one if he's not willing to prove himself to even the most stubborn.
The point of quoting Romans 1:20 was to show that Christians believe that HE has successfully proven HIS deity and power to everyone ever created. For you to deny that as our truth is to be referring to a different person in the context of a different religion.
ttruscott wrote: you argue against a made up god in a made up religion, not Christianity.
I would say that YOUR version of God is the made up one. The Christian one loves everyone not just his chosen few. "For god so loved the WORLD"
Many contend against your definition of the world which ignores Scriptural facts:
Leviticus 20:23 "And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them."

Psalm 5:5 - "The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity."
Etc, etc.
ttruscott wrote: NONE of YHWH's loved ones are on the road to Hell, only those condemned already by HIS judgement against their evil.
Contradiction of John 3:16
But well within the context of the next verse John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. and Matthew 7:23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' tells us the evil doers were never loved by Him.

John 3:16 and 18 cannot be contradictory so the world that He so loved must refer to the world of the elect, not the reprobate world since the elect are the only ones who believed / had faith in HIM at any time, that is, the reprobate have never had faith in HIM. This is the logical interpretation of these verses that is applied to verse 17 For God sent not his Son into the world (earth) to condemn the (elect) world; but that the (elect) world through him might be saved.
But ok, so YOUR reason God won't make an effort for many of us is because he hates us? So it's not a matter of imperfection or indifference. It's a matter of hate.
HE made the best effort anyone could ask for. Everyone had the same opportunity to use their free will to create their eternal relationship with HIM as family or enemy by faith without proof. Then to prove that proof has no sway against sin, HE proved HIS deity and power to everyone so none have an excuse and all sinners still rejected HIM, repressing the memory of HIS proof because they loved sin more.

I am certainly not alone in interpreting Romans 1 this way...it is ordinary Christian doctrine. Your are trying to exploit a niggle of fallacy in the system, stating your opinion of scripture as fact. HE loves HIS children but not everyone is HIS child: Deuteronomy 32:5 "They have acted corruptly toward Him, They are not His children, because of their defect but are a perverse and crooked generation. or: their defect is that they are not HIS children...
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #29

Post by marco »

Justin108 wrote:

It is a fact that not all of us were convinced God exists. If God did in fact sincerely attempt to convince us but failed, then he is imperfect. This is a logical conclusion. Unless we consider the possibility that God did not sincerely attempt convince us he exists, in which case we can logically conclude that God does not care about our belief in him. Please point out the flaws in my logic
We are told that MANY - not ALL - are called. Few are chosen, so one would expect deafness among the unchosen.

The fact that God appears to be selective in his dealings with humanity rules out the assumption that he has FAILED to display himself to all.
We can assume his motivation for not doing so is apathy, but clearly he's not apathetic towards those who feel chosen.

The Biblical God does not seem constrained by goodness and mercy, for he punishes pretty severely, so having a starting assumption of a God benevolent to all creation is unjustified.

Those of us unlucky enough to be left out can humanly speculate on divine motivation but surely this is pointless. We can of course fold our arms and say there is no God, thus opening ourselves up to the accusation: The fool in his heart has cried - there is no God.

We don't, unfortunately, cancel out the divine by a play on words, as if we were in a court of law. Job discovered that being well behaved with this master can still earn you a caning. In fact it's possible that God is sadistic and cruel, enjoying the suffering of some of his creations, while arbitrarily helping the few. The Greeks wisely said nice things about terrifying divinities like the Furies, so perhaps singing a hymn after we've denied God is our best course of action. Pascal thought so.

I hope, if I am wrong, God has a sense of humour.

JLB32168

Re: Is God imperfect or simply indifferent?

Post #30

Post by JLB32168 »

OnceConvinced wrote:God should surely be able to convince even the deliberately obtuse.
If a man throws a line to someone and s/he refuses to grab it then the only way one could conceivably fault the thrower is that s/he presumed upon the intelligence of the [strike]idiot[/strike] one in the water.

Post Reply