Is The Christian "God" Coherent?

[muichimotsu]

Following up on the cogency (which I had to change because I realized one preceded the other) of the "God" concept, I have to wonder if arguments in regards to the description of its qualities aren't relying on special pleading or other fallacious thinking?

To say "God" is just and loving (sometimes absolutely so for both) creates a particular way you must justify that, in a similar fashion to "God" being sovereign and yet also respecting human freewill (sometimes less effectively than others).

If you have to make so many qualifications in regards to this entity to have it not seem to contradict itself in what is attributed to it, how does this not suffer a similar fate of Antony Flew's Invisible Gardener example? How is the shifting of explanations to fit a rational notion about "God" not just shifting goalposts when it's shown that even in a position where "God" exists, there have to be constraints or the beliefs become worse than superstition?

 

[Sabertooth]

Is The Christian "God" Coherent?

“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:9 NKJV

 

[muichimotsu]

“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:9 NKJV

So you're just going to deflect responsibility by making special pleading about God's nature in contrast to anything else we'd expect coherency in?

Even if I took the Bible as remotely representative, it's not really known for making valid and sound argumentation, generally just bald assertions that have their grounding in primarily, if not solely, faith as the "justification"

 

[HTacianas]

Following up on the cogency (which I had to change because I realized one preceded the other) of the "God" concept, I have to wonder if arguments in regards to the description of its qualities aren't relying on special pleading or other fallacious thinking?

To say "God" is just and loving (sometimes absolutely so for both) creates a particular way you must justify that, in a similar fashion to "God" being sovereign and yet also respecting human freewill (sometimes less effectively than others).

If you have to make so many qualifications in regards to this entity to have it not seem to contradict itself in what is attributed to it, how does this not suffer a similar fate of Antony Flew's Invisible Gardener example? How is the shifting of explanations to fit a rational notion about "God" not just shifting goalposts when it's shown that even in a position where "God" exists, there have to be constraints or the beliefs become worse than superstition?

Yes, God is coherent. What you are describing are people's opinions. And those with no context.

 

[muichimotsu]

Yes, God is coherent. What you are describing are people's opinions. And those with no context.

Coherent in a subjective fashion is not necessarily coherent in any meaningful manner that can be conveyed to others who aren't sharing that position, that's like saying Christianity is internally consistent even if it means you have to handwave contradictions

Your "context" is no more valid than theirs even if I gave it to you

 

[LaSorcia]

Let's pretend there is a divorced couple. One of the parties is good, loving and kind; but the other is abusive. By some miscarriage of justice, the abusive partner got custody of the child, whom they mistreat. The kind and loving parent does all they can for the child when possible, but can't stop the child's suffering until they are 18 and free from the other parent.

Is the kind and loving parent bad, or, not coherent, because the other parent is abusive? Similarly, life in this world can be full of suffering, and bordering on absurdism. But that does not mean that God is not loving and kind. We cannot find the true nature of God by looking at the suffering and injustices in the world.

 

[muichimotsu]

Let's pretend there is a divorced couple. One of the parties is good, loving and kind; but the other is abusive. By some miscarriage of justice, the abusive partner got custody of the child, whom they mistreat. The kind and loving parent does all they can for the child when possible, but can't stop the child's suffering until they are 18 and free from the other parent.

Is the kind and loving parent bad, or, not coherent, because the other parent is abusive? Similarly, life in this world can be full of suffering, and bordering on absurdism. But that does not mean that God is not loving and kind. We cannot find the true nature of God by looking at the suffering and injustices in the world.

Parents in a divorce are not necessarily regarded in the same way in responsibility for the child because custody is not guaranteed and your example would divorce the responsibility between the parents, the one that's demonstrably abusive being bad and the one trying to help in some sense being good because they actually care about the child's wellbeing

Life is not absolutely coherent, that's not what I'm asking for, I'm asking for coherence in terms of avoiding logical contradictions, because otherwise you don't care about critical thought, but merely the veneer of internal consistency.

Not sure where I remotely entailed the suffering in the world was meant to make God incoherent, only particular descriptions attributed. But then you demonstrated how easily one can goalpost shift and deflect any responsibility from God and victim blame humanity, even though God was the one who created us knowing that we would fail, tying it back into self satisfaction of us worshipping it.

 

[LaSorcia]

Parents in a divorce are not necessarily regarded in the same way in responsibility for the child because custody is not guaranteed and your example would divorce the responsibility between the parents, the one that's demonstrably abusive being bad and the one trying to help in some sense being good because they actually care about the child's wellbeing

It's an analogy meant to explain a concept. As with all analogies, there are differences and incompleteness, otherwise, it would be the thing itself instead of an analogy.

Not sure where I remotely entailed the suffering in the world was meant to make God incoherent, only particular descriptions attributed. But then you demonstrated how easily one can goalpost shift and deflect any responsibility from God and victim blame humanity, even though God was the one who created us knowing that we would fail, tying it back into self satisfaction of us worshipping it.

Indeed, this is a difficult question, not fully explained by any system of human philosophy. But yet humans keep trying to answer the question.

The Buddha said not to merely believe what he said, but to test it for oneself. The Christian God says the same thing (rather poetically) 'taste and see that the LORD is good'.

 

[HTacianas]

Coherent in a subjective fashion is not necessarily coherent in any meaningful manner that can be conveyed to others who aren't sharing that position, that's like saying Christianity is internally consistent even if it means you have to handwave contradictions

Your "context" is no more valid than theirs even if I gave it to you

I never "handwave contradictions". Christianity has been consistent throughout since the first Ecumenical Council. Again, you are conflating opinions.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I never "handwave contradictions". Christianity has been consistent throughout since the first Ecumenical Council. Again, you are conflating opinions.

Consistent? No. The purpose for the crucifixion is not agreed upon. There's substitutional atonement theory, victory over death, and probably others that I can't think of off the top of my head. There are Christians who affirm "all of the above," there are Christians who affirm substitutional atonement, and others who firmly deny substitutional atonement. And this isn't exactly a small issue.

More to the point of the thread, God is certainly not described in a coherent way. That's why we have so many spinoff religions and denominations. Is God really a trinity? Is he material or immaterial, or some kind of "other"? Everyone has their own idea because the Bible gives so many different hints.

Now, of course, God could still be coherent even if he is not described as such. Personally I don't see it as a problem for God to be incoherent since reality itself seems to be that way on the quantum level. What is a problem, though, is that Christians claim he is coherent, and yet are unable to agree on what he is.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Following up on the cogency (which I had to change because I realized one preceded the other) of the "God" concept, I have to wonder if arguments in regards to the description of its qualities aren't relying on special pleading or other fallacious thinking?

To say "God" is just and loving (sometimes absolutely so for both) creates a particular way you must justify that, in a similar fashion to "God" being sovereign and yet also respecting human freewill (sometimes less effectively than others).

If you have to make so many qualifications in regards to this entity to have it not seem to contradict itself in what is attributed to it, how does this not suffer a similar fate of Antony Flew's Invisible Gardener example? How is the shifting of explanations to fit a rational notion about "God" not just shifting goalposts when it's shown that even in a position where "God" exists, there have to be constraints or the beliefs become worse than superstition?

Can a judge be compassionate and just at the same time?

Can a man be a father, a teacher, a husband and have no one aspect contradict another?

Can you love, have sadness, have patience and be just without having any aspect conflict with another? Perhaps your love is deep and patience long, but your being used as a doormat, and you chose, with great sadness, to not be used as a doormat so while you love, and have patience, there is an end where you must also employ justice, but it saddens you because that's not your first choice.

We can be many things without any one aspect of our selves and our nature contradicting other aspects of ourselves.

How much more can God, do you suppose, also be all of these things if we ourselves can be them without contradiction?

 

[Resha Caner]

Following up on the cogency (which I had to change because I realized one preceded the other) of the "God" concept, I have to wonder if arguments in regards to the description of its qualities aren't relying on special pleading or other fallacious thinking?

To say "God" is just and loving (sometimes absolutely so for both) creates a particular way you must justify that, in a similar fashion to "God" being sovereign and yet also respecting human freewill (sometimes less effectively than others).

If you have to make so many qualifications in regards to this entity to have it not seem to contradict itself in what is attributed to it, how does this not suffer a similar fate of Antony Flew's Invisible Gardener example? How is the shifting of explanations to fit a rational notion about "God" not just shifting goalposts when it's shown that even in a position where "God" exists, there have to be constraints or the beliefs become worse than superstition?

Shrug. To me this question is like asking if Abraham Lincoln is a cogent concept. It doesn't matter. Some people's perception of Lincoln may be illogical, but that has absolutely no bearing on Lincoln himself. It just means our perceptions are flawed. Not much of a surprise.

 

[muichimotsu]

It's an analogy meant to explain a concept. As with all analogies, there are differences and incompleteness, otherwise, it would be the thing itself instead of an analogy.

The analogy fails because 2 parents would not be comparable to even a Binitarian notion of God, because they're not supposed to be different beings ultimately, just 2 persons in one being, or 3 if we're going Trinitarian.

My parents are 2 people, any parents are a figurative bond, but they don't surrender individuality, so the notion of an angry and kind god as contrasting doesn't work because that's based primarily on human perception, while one would generally argue that "God" was being consistent anyway

Indeed, this is a difficult question, not fully explained by any system of human philosophy. But yet humans keep trying to answer the question.

Full explanation is arguably not possible in a human context, but that's all we realistically have, anything else is not substantiated effectively beyond imagination, anthropomorphism, etc.

The Buddha said not to merely believe what he said, but to test it for oneself. The Christian God says the same thing (rather poetically) 'taste and see that the LORD is good'.

God assumes God is already good, Buddha doesn't say he is right from the start, while God begs the question in its rhetoric.

 

[muichimotsu]

I never "handwave contradictions". Christianity has been consistent throughout since the first Ecumenical Council. Again, you are conflating opinions.

Internal consistency does not indicate the truth of claims you can't demonstrate or substantiate apart from sentiment and subjectivity without objectivity. You keep claiming internal consistency as if that's meant to impress or convince anyone, but it really shouldn't if you think about it

 

[muichimotsu]

Can a judge be compassionate and just at the same time?

Can a man be a father, a teacher, a husband and have no one aspect contradict another?

Can you love, have sadness, have patience and be just without having any aspect conflict with another? Perhaps your love is deep and patience long, but your being used as a doormat, and you chose, with great sadness, to not be used as a doormat so while you love, and have patience, there is an end where you must also employ justice, but it saddens you because that's not your first choice.

We can be many things without any one aspect of our selves and our nature contradicting other aspects of ourselves.

How much more can God, do you suppose, also be all of these things if we ourselves can be them without contradiction?

God is meant to be perfection and not disorder, so the notion that God appears one way or another but is somehow consistent seems to rely on not only dialectical monism or such, but also special pleading about God's nature in the first place as perfect, yet clearly manifesting imperfectly to humans.

We can be paradoxical, but not outright contradictory unless we're engaged in cognitive dissonance and the like. But again, God is meant to be perfect, so the idea that God could even remotely be imperfect would seem to undermine consistency unless you just blame that on humans and not on God, deflecting responsibility to actually address the transcendent concept itself.

A man being those different roles is not about contradiction, but context of when each applies, that's categorically distinct from having qualities that would create contradictions in their application

 

[muichimotsu]

Shrug. To me this question is like asking if Abraham Lincoln is a cogent concept. It doesn't matter. Some people's perception of Lincoln may be illogical, but that has absolutely no bearing on Lincoln himself. It just means our perceptions are flawed. Not much of a surprise.

Abraham Lincoln is cogent in that we understand he was a human, he lived in a particular area, he did various things we can historically corroborate to one degree or another. God is described in ways that are barely cogent, let alone coherent, like being outside of space and time, being perfect, etc.

Abraham Lincoln is a coherent and cogent concept because there are limits to him in regards to what we can reasonably claim. I don't think anyone would believe a person who claims Lincoln was a vampire hunter or lives on Mars without trying to verify that, versus something like him being president or other such things of a mundane nature.

If you're just going to victim blame humans in terms of a God you find self evident, that's circular reasoning, if not just question begging to avoid confronting more fundamental aspects of the entity you believe in

 

[Resha Caner]

God is described in ways that are barely cogent, let alone coherent, like being outside of space and time, being perfect, etc.

You rejected what I said about God when we discussed it. Therefore, what you list above is just a strawman - unrelated to the God I know. But a response I expected.

Abraham Lincoln is a coherent and cogent concept because there are limits to him in regards to what we can reasonably claim. I don't think anyone would believe a person who claims Lincoln was a vampire hunter or lives on Mars without trying to verify that, versus something like him being president or other such things of a mundane nature.

This I didn't expect, but it is telling and a bit amusing that you are aware of a vampire movie that invokes Lincoln but not (or apparently not) the historical controversies surrounding him.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Following up on the cogency (which I had to change because I realized one preceded the other) of the "God" concept, I have to wonder if arguments in regards to the description of its qualities aren't relying on special pleading or other fallacious thinking?

To say "God" is just and loving (sometimes absolutely so for both) creates a particular way you must justify that, in a similar fashion to "God" being sovereign and yet also respecting human freewill (sometimes less effectively than others).

If you have to make so many qualifications in regards to this entity to have it not seem to contradict itself in what is attributed to it, how does this not suffer a similar fate of Antony Flew's Invisible Gardener example? How is the shifting of explanations to fit a rational notion about "God" not just shifting goalposts when it's shown that even in a position where "God" exists, there have to be constraints or the beliefs become worse than superstition?

It's not shifting goalposts if I start with the world as it is and as I do, I realize, first, BEFORE I even come to God that with or without the use of religion or of the Bible, I have to deal with the following psycho-social problem (as sung by the old Christian Metal group, Siloam), and I'm left wondering, what's going to cure it?

Yeah, human apathy.

The point is, if we don't care about anything, really, let alone finding a "coherent" God, we're sure not going to find One.

 

[muichimotsu]

You rejected what I said about God when we discussed it. Therefore, what you list above is just a strawman - unrelated to the God I know. But a response I expected.

Is the god you believe in outside time and space or not? If it is, then it's not even cogent, let alone coherent, because we understand things as being in time and space that exist in reality rather than merely as concepts

This I didn't expect, but it is telling and a bit amusing that you are aware of a vampire movie that invokes Lincoln but not (or apparently not) the historical controversies surrounding him.

I'm aware of some controversies that you may be aware of, such as his faith not being as Christian as people might be wont to claim, to say nothing of him possibly being a closeted bisexual, but do tell about controversies you think I might not have heard of, because I fully admit history was never my subject of major interest, but I do glean things.

 

[FireDragon76]

So you're just going to deflect responsibility by making special pleading about God's nature in contrast to anything else we'd expect coherency in?

Not everybody insists on rationalism as a valid method for discerning truth.

I'm not a fan of Christianity because of the number of toxic ideas contained within it, but I can appreciate there are some things that while true, cannot be easily expressed within a rationalistic paradigm.