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]

Other synonyms according to Merriam-Webster:

I’m not going to get into a war of dictionaries. You said my argument was logical but not valid and I produced two sources that countered that assertion. I’m done with that silly red herring. It contributes nothing to further the debate and standing on it suggests an inability to support other points.

Why do you take pride in the fact that your position, like literally any other position, might be true?

Well, I think it’s true and God rewards the propagation of truth. Aside from that, exposing narrow mindedness is a good thing.

You accuse me of asking for proof that God exists when all I asked for was proof that Jesus made a certain claim.

You’re referring to the Koran’s claim of truth. I’m referring to the Bible’s claim of truth. You say, “How do you know Christ said the stuff he did.� How do you know that Mohammed said the stuff he did? Doesn’t your point rely upon the presupposition that Mohammed said what he said?

It does not presuppose the texts are evidence.

It does when you cite the Koran as proclamation of truth over Christianity. How allow the texts as evidence when it suits you and revoke your allowances when it doesn’t.

The fact that Christianity and Islam share a character does not mean they both recognize each other.

Who said that? I said that Islam teaches things that are diametrically opposed to the Bible; therefore, that is why Christians reject it.

Setting aside my rebuttals for the premises your conclusion is based on, if you reject Islam because "the Christian Bible says so"

When you ask why Christians reject Islam, which is a sola scriptura faith, then you get an answer. Whether or not the Christian Bible is true is a separate question. You’re conflating the two.

[Justin108]

Other synonyms according to Merriam-Webster:

I’m not going to get into a war of dictionaries. You said my argument was logical but not valid and I produced two sources that countered that assertion. I’m done with that silly red herring.

So when you introduce the dictionary, it supports your argument, but when I do it it's a red herring?

It contributes nothing to further the debate

Nor does forming a valid argument with unsupported premises

Why do you take pride in the fact that your position, like literally any other position, might be true?

Well, I think it’s true and God rewards the propagation of truth.

Yes but in a debate, it's not about what you think is true. It's about what you can support. This is not group therapy where we all sit in a circle and share our thoughts.

Aside from that, exposing narrow mindedness is a good thing.

In what way is my rejection of your argument narrow minded?

You’re referring to the Koran’s claim of truth. I’m referring to the Bible’s claim of truth. You say, “How do you know Christ said the stuff he did.� How do you know that Mohammed said the stuff he did?

That's my point. The Bible is just as likely to be true as the Quran

Doesn’t your point rely upon the presupposition that Mohammed said what he said?

My point relies on the fact that the Quran is just as credible as the Bible - which it is

It does when you cite the Koran as proclamation of truth over Christianity.

I never said it was "over" Christianity. I am merely rejecting your assumption that the Bible is a proclamation "over" the Quran when in fact both texts are equally credible.

When you ask why Christians reject Islam, which is a sola scriptura faith, then you get an answer. Whether or not the Christian Bible is true is a separate question. You’re conflating the two.

It is not a separate issue. It is a logical flow in argument to question the reasons you present.

If I ask "why do you believe in aliens" and you answer "because of Area 51", the logical next step is to question Area 51.

If I ask "why do you reject Islam" and you answer "because of Christianity", the logical next step is to question Christianity.

Is this not a logical progression?

[JLB32168]

So when you introduce the dictionary, it supports your argument, but when I do it it's a red herring?

The dictionary supports my point (valid is a synonym of logical) and doesn’t support yours (logical and valid are two entirely different things). That’s what your source says.

Yes but in a debate, it's not about what you think is true. It's about what you can support.

And I have supported the reasons for why Christians reject Islam and the Koran by logical process. You said that the process was arbitrary and based upon feelings and emotions. You were wrong. That I think X is true is actually a side issue w/little relevance to the present discussion.

In what way is my rejection of your argument narrow minded?

You’re rejecting an argument but not any argument that I’ve made. I think perhaps you’re rejecting an argument that you wish I had made. [smile]

That's my point. The Bible is just as likely to be true as the Quran.

And had I made the claim that the Bible was true then your argument might be relevant. I didn’t assert that the Bible was true. I asserted that the reasons that Christians reject the Koran were logical/valid and are not arbitrary and capricious (which is what you suggested was the case.) Then I explained the process. Of course, that process relies upon premises that only might be true, but the fact that they might be false doesn’t change the fact that the process is logical/valid and not willy-nilly as you suggested.

The credibility of the Bible and Koran is your argument – a new one that you introduced after I explained the logical process that Christians use to reject the Koran. Your new argument was introduced to avoid conceding that the process Christians use was a logical one. Changing arguments happens routinely on this board because it alleviates the atheist or other skeptic of conceding anything to a theist – even if it doesn’t require the atheist/skeptic to admit that the theist’s point is true.

I’ve never really understood this adamant refusal to concede even the fortieth part of a picometer to an opponent, but I digress.

[ttruscott]

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 have trouble talking personal about others but I myself had a great Christian acceptance after my intellectual conversion but only I knew the hate and anger and guilt I still had until my real repentance years later...hidden sins, you know.

[Justin108]

So when you introduce the dictionary, it supports your argument, but when I do it it's a red herring?

The dictionary supports my point (valid is a synonym of logical) and doesn’t support yours (logical and valid are two entirely different things). That’s what your source says.

It supports both our arguments. The dictionary considers both "valid" and "sound" as synonyms for "logical". How could this be since the two words do not mean the same thing? Simple:

synonym
ˈsɪnənɪm/Submit
noun
a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language.

Yes but in a debate, it's not about what you think is true. It's about what you can support.

And I have supported the reasons for why Christians reject Islam and the Koran by logical process.

You have not supported your reason. Whenever I ask you to support that Jesus did in fact claim that any other additions to scripture will be from a false profit, you step away saying "that's a different debate". It is not a different debate. It is a request for you to support the arguments you made for this debate. But your evasion has been noted.

While we're on the topic of evasion, I can't help but notice you haven't even once addressed my points regarding the post-Gospel scriptures? Why is Muhammad a false prophet for adding to scripture but Paul isn't? And what about John who wrote Revelation?

That I think X is true is actually a side issue w/little relevance to the present discussion.

How is that a side issue?? That is what your entire argument is based on!

You: Y is true because of X
Me: Why do you think X is true?
You: Oh that's irrelevant.

I mean... what is happening? Am I having a stroke?

You’re rejecting an argument but not any argument that I’ve made.

Please present the argument you actually made, then present the argument that I am supposedly rejecting. Afterwards, please highlight the key differences between the two

And had I made the claim that the Bible was true then your argument might be relevant. I didn’t assert that the Bible was true.

Your argument completely relies on the Bible being true. To demonstrate, let's assume for a moment the Bible was completely false... you mentioning "Christ said..." would fall flat immediately. So the fact that you don't specifically say the Bible is true is irrelevant. You argument needs the Bible to be true.

I asserted that the reasons that Christians reject the Koran were logical/valid and are not arbitrary and capricious

A valid argument with no support for its premises is arbitrary.

To demonstrate:
P1: God is a gecko
P2: Ceckos eat flies
C: Therefor, God eats flies

Now this is a perfectly valid argument. Now would you say this argument holds any value whatsoever? Does this argument make it any more likely that God does in fact eat flies? Or does this demonstrate how utterly useless a valid argument is if you cannot support the premises?

Then I explained the process. Of course, that process relies upon premises that only might be true, but the fact that they might be false doesn’t change the fact that the process is logical/valid and not willy-nilly as you suggested.

So my God-eats-flies argument is logical and not at all "willy-nilly"?

The credibility of the Bible and Koran is your argument – a new one that you introduced after I explained the logical process that Christians use to reject the Koran. Your new argument was introduced to avoid conceding that the process Christians use was a logical one.

Very well, I concede. Your argument is a valid one, as I have already pointed out, but apparently you get incredibly excited when you hear this so I'll brighten up your day: your argument is valid. Just as valid as my argument that God eats flies.

Changing arguments happens routinely on this board

Requesting support is not the same as changing an argument. I did the former

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to Justin108]

JLB32168 your argument is only valid but not sound.
You have not demonstrated the premises to be true.
Therefore the argument is useless and cannot be used to proved anything.
Justin was right on this.
Surely it cannot prove why you rationally believe in Christianity over Islam or cannot prove Christianity is true and Islam not.
If because of this argument you believe in Christianity over Islam your suffering from confirmation bias.

Observation: Sorry Justin the reply was meant to Post 122 by JLB32168.

[OnceConvinced]

Nope, you clearly don’t understand.

I understand, but it sounds to me like you’re mad that people told you, in good faith, to believe in a benevolent God that would reward you for virtuous behavior with eternal life and that you allowed yourself to be governed by this basic tenet for much of your life.

I was being told I was going to live forever. So I waste all that time on religious nonsense and then at the age of 40 discovered there is no eternal life, no heaven and that I'm probably half way through my life.

You don't think you'd be angry if you were sold a lie like that?

Were you sorry you missed the opportunity to behave like a frat-guy on Spring break, but all the time?

You automatically take the most negative view? No, It’s not about being a frat-guy. It’s about experience all that life has to offer instead of automatically branding everything a sin. And no, it wasn’t about wanting to sin either. It was often as simply as enjoying a beer with mates instead of insisting on something non-alcoholic. Missing out on the amazing feeling of being light headed. Avoiding going to parties with unbelievers because they were deemed to be sinners, not Christians. Only dating Christian women because one should not be unequally yoked and thus missing out on all sorts of opportunities with wonderful women. Only allowing myself close friendships with Christians and thus missing out on great friendships with non-Christians. Shunning atheists, gays, witches, people of other religious simply because of those things and missing out on getting to know some wonderful people. Worrying about pleasing God and only doing what would be considered Christian and glorifying God. Constantly beating myself up when I failed when it came to victimless sins like lust.

That’s just touching the tip of the iceberg.

But don’t worry I heard plenty about Catholic churches and other versions of Christianity too.

Okay – so you chucked Christianity based upon a very limited experience in it – presumably 20th Century Protestant Evangelicalism.

No, I was a committed Christian for over 30 years of my life. Why would I need it to be the Catholic version? When I look at it, both now and then, I see a version of Christianity with some of the most religious and pagan rituals out of all of Christendom.

No it’s blatantly true as we can see here on this website.

They disagree on negligible stuff.

Even RC, EO, and most Protestants ascribe to the twelve tenets of the Nicene Creed – the only exception being the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,� which most of them still believe; they just have different ideas on what she is. You’re manufacturing nit-picky differences.

You guys can’t even agree on the most important things! Ie the not-negotiables and what it takes to be saved!

Just look at this thread here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=20

I never made demands of God, however I did expect him to keep his promises. Like helping me when I desperately needed it. My crying out, my tears, my anguish was not about demands.

What help were you expecting, just curious?

I had no real expectations. I was hoping that God would know what I needed because I didn’t.

Death came through sin. I,e Adam and Eve’s sin.

How? Did God send it upon them for their disobedience?

That’s a good debate topic. Perhaps you should start up another thread?

I see several possibilities

1) God cursed Adam and Eve so that death and hardships would come upon them due to their sin
2) God had already designed the system so that there would be death when sin entered.
3) Death was already part of the design.

I had no strong feeling one way or the other while I was a Christian. It was just not an important matter to me.

Oh I’m sure you do. You can’t be that ill-informed.

Enlighten me. I have no idea what it means. Does it mean that one suddenly becomes special in God’s eyes?

I’ve already seen you talking about salvation in other threads. Just look at the one I mentioned above. I’m not playing your games.

Assuming “I’m in� while “You’re not� at any time strikes me as not a little holier than thou –

I never believed it was up to me to judge who was in or out. Unlike a lot of Christians I see on this site.

even if being “in� doesn’t mean that one will stay there. EO theology doesn’t teach that God penalizes anyone any more than the sun penalizes (sorry, I’m an American English teacher and “s� in the place of “z� disquiets me) somebody who leaves a lighted path in the forest and is savaged by thieves or wolves that are hiding in the darkness the forest affords them.

Well you can relax. None of this has any bearing on why I am no longer a believer.

Why would that matter? Who cares? It could very well be that they did. I don’t see why believing it to be so would make any difference.

It cuts a person off from the Church triumphant (those that are “in heaven�) if one does not pray to them asking them to pray for him/her.

If God had wanted me to pray for the dead, I’m sure he would have made it quite clear, don’t you?

Nobody tells me what I should or shouldn’t address. I will say what I feel is relevant. You don’t get to dictate to me.

Okay – so you’re free to avoid questions that people actually ask and instead address non-arguments.

I don’t avoid questions. Not intentionally anyway.

Seriously, I had nobody telling me I needed to pray to the dead.

Well . . . praying for the reposed – even if they have no obtained salvation – helps them. God does “what is good and profitable for their souls.� Doing good things – like praying for the dead since you can no longer provide for their material needs – increases one’s faith.

In your opinion. Please provide evidence that praying for the dead increases one’s faith.

If God had led me to pray for the dead I would have, but I’ve had very few family or friends die and those that did were committed Christians.

Perhaps God is doing that now – not that I would ever presume to say I’m God’s messenger.

I’m sure God knows full well (if he does indeed exist) that I see prayer now as being the same as rubbing a bottle hoping a genie will pop out.

Does that mean I was never a true Christian because I never prayed for the dead?

One is a Christian, IMO, if s/he subscribes to the teachings of (at a minimum) the Nicene Creed. That pretty much includes everyone who says, “I’m a Christian.�

Well go to that thread I pointed out earlier. Let us all know exactly what it is we need to do to be saved. All I can see there is that you insist we should have a spirit of constant repentance, which I most definitely did.

If one leaves true religion then only then can there be true impiety (since it takes a lot of evil to suppress the fullness of truth.)

I guess I must be a real evil person then. At least in your eyes. Fortunately for me you are not God so don’t know my heart.

In countries that have had insurrections against God, there have been the greatest atrocities done; Stalin, a former seminarian turned atheist, is infamous for being the most murderous person in human history (estimates approaching 50million.)

Small fry compared to how many people the God of the bible has killed, surely?

I hope my post doesn’t sound adversarial in nature and ask forgiveness if it comes off that way. That certainly isn’t my intention.

No, not at all. I hope I don’t sound too rude or abrupt. I know I can be when I get stuck into these debates. I normally go back and reword stuff later, but probably still can sound on the defensive at times.

[JLB32168]

JLB32168 your argument is only valid but not sound.

I agree. I’m cool with the fact that it might be proved sound at some point in the future. I don’t have to be right all of the time. Others on this board seem to have trouble with that.

But I digress.

Therefore the argument is useless and cannot be used to proved anything.

I agree. It doesn’t conclusively prove anything. I’ve only proved that my conclusions are logical/valid. That’s all I was interested in proving.

Surely it cannot prove why you rationally believe in Christianity over Islam or cannot prove Christianity is true and Islam not.

If a conclusion is logical/valid then it is rational.

[JLB32168]

I was being told I was going to live forever. So I waste all that time on religious nonsense and then at the age of 40 discovered there is no eternal life, no heaven and that I'm probably half way through my life.

Except that you haven’t discovered this. You believe it to be true, but you don’t know for sure if it is and the stakes are high. You weren’t sold a lie. You were told something in good faith and by people who had no intention of lying. And of course, you don’t know they were lies.

It was often as simply as enjoying a beer with mates instead of insisting on something non-alcoholic. Missing out on the amazing feeling of being light headed.

I’m not sure how you got that from Christ’s attendance at a wedding and producing a Chateau Montelena of superior quality for them but okay. The same goes for dining w/sinners – as if anyone has escaped that category. I wouldn’t be able to dine with my wife or she with me.

It seems to me that you were involved in a very judgmental form of Christianity and rejected it. I would have as well.

You guys can’t even agree on the most important things! Ie the not-negotiables and what it takes to be saved!

Let’s see – Holy Trinity – yup, most people believe that and it’s important. Christ born of a virgin mother – yup. Christ’s sacrifice – yup. Everyone believes He sacrificed Him. They just don’t agree on what kind of sacrifice it was; it still did the same thing – saved man.

I had no strong feeling one way or the other while I was a Christian. It was just not an important matter to me.

But you just said it was important. [??]

If God had wanted me to pray for the dead, I’m sure he would have made it quite clear, don’t you?

Well . . . since you read your Bible – did you see the part where Judas Maccabaeus says to pray for the fallen Jews who wore pagan amulets around their necks and that God would forgive them their sins? What clarity did you want – a verbal announcement from heaven?

In your opinion. Please provide evidence that praying for the dead increases one’s faith.

I would think that practicing what one counts as a virtue increases ones belief in the faith that calls it a virtue. That seems kind of axiomatic doesn’t it? I mean, the newly unborn again atheist becomes more convinced he’s made the right choice the longer he rejects belief in deities; doesn’t he?

Let us all know exactly what it is we need to do to be saved.

The Church taught for centuries that it was faith and works. Now those “faith only� still teach that faith is fake if there are no works to it, which means they still teach faith and works (their protests to the contrary notwithstanding.)

I guess I must be a real evil person then. At least in your eyes.

Can we please stop riding on victimhood?

[OnceConvinced]

I was being told I was going to live forever. So I waste all that time on religious nonsense and then at the age of 40 discovered there is no eternal life, no heaven and that I'm probably half way through my life.

Except that you haven’t discovered this. You believe it to be true, but you don’t know for sure if it is and the stakes are high. You weren’t sold a lie. You were told something in good faith and by people who had no intention of lying. And of course, you don’t know they were lies.

Which is why I don't hold them accountable for this. It's why I hold no anger or bitterness towards them.

It seems to me that you were involved in a very judgmental form of Christianity and rejected it. I would have as well.

Actually the churches I attended in my later Christian years had a very relaxed feel to them. Very little in the way of Judgement or condemnation. However there will always be Christians in every walk of life (inside and outside of churches) that will claim things like drinking of alcohol to be sinful. So what if they are right?

However my concern with drinking alcohol was about being on the safe side. Erring on the side of caution. The desire (which I believe God wanted) to set the example of a clean living Christian who did not need to drink alcohol to be cool or to be accepted or for a good time. I did not want anyone to fall due to being careless. I did not want to look like a hypocrite in front of my non-believing associates, thus leading them to reject Christianity.

I had no strong feeling one way or the other while I was a Christian. It was just not an important matter to me.

But you just said it was important. [??]

Where? You were the one that brought that particular topic up as if it were somehow important, not me.

If God had wanted me to pray for the dead, I’m sure he would have made it quite clear, don’t you?

Well . . . since you read your Bible – did you see the part where Judas Maccabaeus says to pray for the fallen Jews who wore pagan amulets around their necks and that God would forgive them their sins? What clarity did you want – a verbal announcement from heaven?

There are many parts of the bible I don't recall reading. I'm sure if God wanted it to stand out he would have made sure it did.

In your opinion. Please provide evidence that praying for the dead increases one’s faith.

I would think that practicing what one counts as a virtue increases ones belief in the faith that calls it a virtue.

Well I didn't see it as a virtue. So I would not practise it as a virtue. I saw other things as virtues instead.

That seems kind of axiomatic doesn’t it? I mean, the newly unborn again atheist becomes more convinced he’s made the right choice the longer he rejects belief in deities; doesn’t he?

I only reject one less deity than you do.

Let us all know exactly what it is we need to do to be saved.

The Church taught for centuries that it was faith and works. Now those “faith only� still teach that faith is fake if there are no works to it, which means they still teach faith and works (their protests to the contrary notwithstanding.)

Seriously the whole faith vs works issue had no bearing whatsoever on me losing my faith.

I guess I must be a real evil person then. At least in your eyes.

Can we please stop riding on victimhood?

Can you please stop making negative insinuations about me?