Is God imperfect or simply indifferent?

[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?

[JLB32168]

Calling your syllogism logical does not make it logical.

I know that. What makes a syllogism logical is that the conclusion is entailed by premises that might be true. Did you care to show how my conclusion is illogical – that one (or both) of the premises are false?

Yes, but the Christian version of God is not necessarily correct. You refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the Bible misrepresented Jesus and that Islam may have it right.

And had I said it was definitively true/right, your point would be relevant. I said that my process for determining Islam was false was logical. Do you plan on addressing that point?

Saying "this is wrong because Christ says so" is the same thing as saying "this is wrong because Christianity says so".

Whether or not Christ said it is irrelevant. My point is that two books say things that are mutually exclusive. You asked me why I rejected one and not the other and I explained the logical process. Then you changed the argument to say that there was no proof God existed. Conceding the process is logical, which is different from saying it’s true, involved you giving a concession; therefore, you changed the argument. That’s because most atheists and other skeptics here are absolutely loath to concede anything to a theist.

Your explanation for why you feel Islam's claim is false is because you assume Christianity's claim is true. How is that in any way an explanation?

Yup – you asked me why, which allows that it might be true, and I explained why. Then you revoked your allowance to avoid conceding my thought process was logical.

That’s dirty pool – not that I was too surprised by it based upon reasons I’ve already given.

[JLB32168]

Observation: You haven’t showed your premises to be true. Your argument is valid but not sound.

I’m cool with the argument being valid/logical but only possibly sound. What was asserted was that my process was arbitrary, capricious, and based upon nothing other than subjective emotions and feelings, which is an illogical and irrational way to judge conclusions.

[Justin108]

I know that. What makes a syllogism logical is that the conclusion is entailed by premises that might be true.

No, that just makes the syllogism valid. But a valid argument with unsupported premises is literally useless. I'm having deja vu here. Is this the highlight of your debates? Demonstrating that something "might" be true? As mentioned before, literally anything "might" be true. So congratulations, you just made an utterly pointless argument.

Yes, but the Christian version of God is not necessarily correct. You refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the Bible misrepresented Jesus and that Islam may have it right.

And had I said it was definitively true/right, your point would be relevant. I said that my process for determining Islam was false was logical. Do you plan on addressing that point?

I have addressed that point several times now. Your argument rests on the unsupported assumption that Christianity is true, making it a useless argument. Do you think you get any browny-points for an argument that is technically valid even if it uses unsupported premises? What purpose is there in making a valid argument with flawed premises? Please, point out one possible benefit. As mentioned in an earlier post, using this kind of reasoning I can form an equally valid argument to conclude that fairies cause global warming. I honestly don't see what you get out of this "yeah well I MIGHT be right" arguments of yours

Whether or not Christ said it is irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant when that's basically the entirety of your argument?

Very well... if it's so irrelevant. Present an argument for why you reject Islam without using any mention of statements made by Christ. Can you do that for me?

My point is that two books say things that are mutually exclusive.

Yes, so on what grounds do you accept one but reject the other?

You asked me why I rejected one and not the other and I explained the logical process.

You presented a technically valid argument resting on unsupported premises. A valid argument without reliable premises is useless.

Let's settle this before we run into this issue again. Please tell me what the value of a valid argument is when the premises are unsupported? Please explain that to me?

Then you changed the argument to say that there was no proof God existed.

Quote me

[Justin108]

Observation: You haven’t showed your premises to be true. Your argument is valid but not sound.

I’m cool with the argument being valid/logical but only possibly sound. What was asserted was that my process was arbitrary, capricious, and based upon nothing other than subjective emotions and feelings, which is an illogical and irrational way to judge conclusions.

And here is the biggest problem with basically every argument you present. You're "cool" with it being just valid. What value is there in a valid argument with unsupported premises?

[JLB32168]

[JLB32168]

And here is the biggest problem with basically every argument you present. You're "cool" with it being just valid. What value is there in a valid argument with unsupported premises?

Yes, I argue facts – not opinions. It is a fact that:

• 1) The Christian Bible antedates the Koran by several centuries and says that no one may add anything to God’s revelation in Christ since it is false and will result in that person’s condemnation.
  2) The Koran adds a lot to the Christian Bible, much of which directly contradicts said Bible
  3) Therefore, the Christian Bible says that the Koran is false.

That is my rationale for rejecting the Koran, which is what your question asked. You then changed the argument to one of God’s existence – whether or not Jesus ever said what he allegedly said. That is a different argument.
Pick an argument and stick with it. If someone provides a sufficient answer to your argument then concede that they have proved their point. Doing so doesn’t require you to accept their point is true – only that they have provided a logical rational for their belief.

Many atheists and other skeptics here seem to interpret any sort of concession as weakness or they simply must be right, right right! all of the time.

[OnceConvinced]

IF your experience is the truth, ok but the Bible and my own experience say you were PERHAPS not as fully committed as you think so there is hope for you yet...right?

I was as fully committed as one could be. I regularly prayed to god throughout the day. I was fully immersed in ministries and leadership. I even ran cell groups at particular times. Loved going to church. I was always trying to better myself and become more Christ like. I always attempted to be a good role model for fellow Christians AND for nonbelievers.

I know how committed I was, Ted and I was fully committed. Not one person... no not one ever told me I was not a true Christian. The opposite in fact. I was relied upon by many Christians including church leaders. I was given much responsibility.

I am not saying this as a source of pride or to toot my own horn. I am simply telling you how it was. Of course you don't have to believe me, but I KNOW my own Christian walk and my own attitudes that I had as a Christian.

Either HE is malicious or you were mistaken...<shrug> This experience does not to my mind mean that you are not elect but maybe an elect who held back their full repentance and so was dropped into doubt for that.

When I first repented I was 7 years old. Complete faith and trust in Jesus. My faith never waned until into my 30s.

At the age of 16, understanding the word of God a lot better and now fully invested in Christianity, choosing my own path rather than just doing things because my parents or Sunday school teachers said I should, I chose to re-dedicate my life to Christ, very keen to do his work. I was water baptised with lots of words from God spoken over me by church leaders. I started a ministry as a camp leader for children.

So there was no doubts in my mind. I was fully committed, way more committed than many other Christians my age. Even more committed than many adults.

I know this from having done this myself for some 7 years but when I was dropped I died...not my body but me...

I never back slid at any point. Always remained strong in my faith. You may have your experiences, but they are yours and only yours. You can't place your experience on everyone else. You can only "know" for yourself, not others.

[OnceConvinced]

[Justin108]

[JLB32168]