Is The Christian "God" Coherent?

[Resha Caner]

If you shift the goalposts, you can win any argument in terms of what is coherent in any given context: internal consistency based on some particular notion asserted by orthodoxy as valuable doesn't make the claims true to an independent observer in the slightest, it just means the system is internally coherent to believers, which is little different than any other esoteric context where something would seem absurd to an outsider but makes sense internally. But a story being consistent doesn't mean it reflects reality, particularly when it makes outlandish claims like the bible does, along with other religious texts

If you shift the goalposts to interpret a religion in a manner unintended by the proponents of that religion, it is called a strawman. Likewise, if you shift the goalposts to argue about things in an Internet forum that the poster never intended, that is also a strawman.

If you disagree with the historical claim regarding the way Romans viewed their religion, present your case. If you accept the claim, but still think the view incoherent, please explain why. I couldn't make sense of anything you said.

Let's try this: 1 + 1 = 2. Do you agree? Since I said it, I expect you won't. My view of arithmetic is probably too Christian for you, and therefore incoherent.

 

[Resha Caner]

The "existence of God" discussion assumes God is a coherent or cogent reality in the first place ...

It does not. People encounter things they don't understand all the time. You still don't understand, or refuse to accept that you are stuck in a god-as-idea frame of reference rather than a god-as-thing frame of reference.

But I can never tell if you don't understand or refuse to accept this point because your replies wander off into pages and pages of unrelated commentary. A simple "I don't agree" answer would do wonders for this conversation.

 

[FireDragon76]

Guys don't make this harder than it needs to be:
if the big bang is what "made" the universe, scientifically speaking (and that is the consensus), then by their own admission the universe has a maker. Use that against them.

That doesn't make sense at all. We can speak of impersonal processes making things happen without appealing to personal agency.

And I don't appreciate the language of "use that against them". The quest for truth is never a competition or war. If you have to use violence, even rhetorically, I am simply not interested in what you have to say. The quest for truth is not ethically neutral.

 

[Halbhh]

You can't verify or demonstrate such an entity in the first place

You got this key thing here correct. Very good.

God would not be less than us so that we could specify Him past things He tells us, or encompass Him (fully, in all ways exhaustively) with our understanding. That's one thing in Isaiah chapter 55. There is more.

 

[createdtoworship]

That doesn't make sense at all. We can speak of impersonal processes making things happen without appealing to personal agency.

And I don't appreciate the language of "use that against them". The quest for truth is never a competition or war. If you have to use violence, even rhetorically, I am simply not interested in what you have to say. The quest for truth is not ethically neutral.

Well the type of skeptic that is attracted to a public forum for the sole purpose to recruit, create skeptic threads, etc. Is not one that is "open minded." So I don't look at this conversation as if it will be effective. Like I said I have proven at least a half a dozen athiests false in the last few weeks. None of them even said they were wrong. But since they had nothing else to say to wiggle out of the debate I mention. They simply stop recruiting. It is not my goal to win them over. Many of them are already previous christians. It is my goal to give you guys arguements so that I don't have to see christianity pitifully lose against these guys. Don't you see if christians made it harder for athiests to recruit. They would not come here so willingly. At one point in my debates I had 10 or more athiests debating me at one time. No christians were even there. And rarely were my posts liked. I realize that I have an abrasive personallity. That comes from dealing with the arrogance of skeptics for ten years. Bad company corrupts good morals. So I typically by and large have given up debate. That is another way to get rid of this topic. Simply avoiding it. I realize I can get bitter. But this actually makes God angry too. It says "it is better for a stone to be tied around their neck than to cause one of these little children to stumble." CF is not a safe place for christians. Especially new christians. I actually have to recommend they use other social media such as twitter. People in general, the unsaved are specifically bitter toward christians. They are ok as long as they win all the time. But as soon as you use logic against them they get a little defensive. Almost all of my conversations end with name calling. Not on my part by the way. So just so you know. If they are being polite it's because they feel they are winning. But as soon as you are able to trap them in a corner logically, the not so nice part comes out. So I guess I am saying that if you have not seen that part of them. Then perhaps your conversations are not logically sound and or need help. I don't know for sure but 99% of the current apologetics argument don't work without tweeking. But anyway don't be offended by me I am not trying to put a division. I am just saying that what CF has started as an outreach for christianity has actually become an outreach for athiesm. Simply because most christians are not logical. So I was hopin this argument would shift those logical gears and get more christians talking logically.

 

[createdtoworship]

Guys i am unsubscribing i didnt mean to be offensive or cause disturbance i have debating kalam argyments, intelligent design. Creaationism, irreducible complexity, etc and it all relies on external evidence and that is where the skeptic gets us, by saying we cant prove intelligence and they are actually right. So 90 % of our arguments fail outright. However of you want irrefutable proof of God read this link...Is The Christian "God" Coherent?

 

[FireDragon76]

Well the type of skeptic that is attracted to a public forum for the sole purpose to recruit, create skeptic threads, etc. Is not one that is "open minded." So I don't look at this conversation as if it will be effective. Like I said I have proven at least a half a dozen athiests false in the last few weeks. None of them even said they were wrong. But since they had nothing else to say to wiggle out of the debate I mention. They simply stop recruiting. It is not my goal to win them over. Many of them are already previous christians. It is my goal to give you guys arguements so that I don't have to see christianity pitifully lose against these guys. Don't you see if christians made it harder for athiests to recruit. They would not come here so willingly. At one point in my debates I had 10 or more athiests debating me at one time. No christians were even there. And rarely were my posts liked. I realize that I have an abrasive personallity. That comes from dealing with the arrogance of skeptics for ten years. Bad company corrupts good morals. So I typically by and large have given up debate. That is another way to get rid of this topic. Simply avoiding it. I realize I can get bitter. But this actually makes God angry too. It says "it is better for a stone to be tied around their neck than to cause one of these little children to stumble." CF is not a safe place for christians. Especially new christians. I actually have to recommend they use other social media such as twitter. People in general, the unsaved are specifically bitter toward christians. They are ok as long as they win all the time. But as soon as you use logic against them they get a little defensive. Almost all of my conversations end with name calling. Not on my part by the way. So just so you know. If they are being polite it's because they feel they are winning. But as soon as you are able to trap them in a corner logically, the not so nice part comes out. So I guess I am saying that if you have not seen that part of them. Then perhaps your conversations are not logically sound and or need help. I don't know for sure but 99% of the current apologetics argument don't work without tweeking. But anyway don't be offended by me I am not trying to put a division. I am just saying that what CF has started as an outreach for christianity has actually become an outreach for athiesm. Simply because most christians are not logical. So I was hopin this argument would shift those logical gears and get more christians talking logically.

There's no such thing as recruiting into atheism. Non-belief isn't analogous to belief, as atheism is not a religious belief, but a lack thereof. Nobody gets into a special club just because they are an atheist.

If it seems that this forum has become an "outreach for atheists", could that be because so many Christians have such a poor presentation of their religion? I appreciate my exchanges with people like @2PhiloVoid and @Resha Caner, and they don't have to resort to insinuating conspiracy theories. Frankly, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

[muichimotsu]

Well, I see you pre-decided before you know much that is really accurate (and before you figured out what was incorrect in your information, and learned more, etc.) Even if you hear preachers or doctrines (viewpoints, plausible guesses most of them by only guesses that compete with other guesses of similar stature), then you'd still not really know much yet about what would be accurate. We generally recognize that the real authority on God for us we all admit is those clear inspirations from him called the scriptures, which at least are going to be more realistic than only opinions of people.

When I pointed you to Isaiah chapter 55 it was because that's one place to begin to learn a little, or an introduction in brief. Not a full understanding all by itself, but a good beginning overview. Would you think someone that didn't take algebra and calculus and go through the work over time of applying them really can make good judgments about what math can do yet?

Your understanding is no more accurate than anyone else's in regards to interpreting a text that's not evident at face value in the meaning it has, or we wouldn't have the disagreements that exist even within Christianity

There are no clear inspirations anymore than there are clear meanings to a dream, that's a psychological quagmire to go through

God is not comparable to math, because math has practical applications, God is fundamentally unnecessary in understanding things, particularly in regards to the sciences. Trying to say that you need to understand God in any sense is suggesting God is understandable and leaping past the point of the thread, which is whether the concept of God itself is coherent to begin with in the properties ascribed to it.

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't see it as being "unilaterally smashed".

I was once a Muslim, and when I began asking questions on Christianity answers that didn't answer my questions would have been particularly unhelpful.

In the end, it's not our job as Christians to convince anyone of our faith, only God can change someone's heart and their understanding. What we are called to do is to have an answer to those who question our faith:

"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect," 1 Peter 3:15

And so we give answer. It's not a battle we are losing, Christ has already won.

If createdtoworship would understand the fallacious thinking they're putting forth, they wouldn't be nearly as arrogant and confident in their beliefs as they appear to be, because they clearly are making an argument from ignorance in suggesting that because one cannot show the Big Bang is not an agent, it could be God, which is ALSO God of the gaps fallacy.

 

[muichimotsu]

There's no such thing as recruiting into atheism. Non-belief isn't analogous to belief, as atheism is not a religious belief, but a lack thereof. Nobody gets into a special club just because they are an atheist.

If it seems that this forum has become an "outreach for atheists", could that be because so many Christians have such a poor presentation of their religion? I appreciate my exchanges with people like @2PhiloVoid and @Resha Caner, and they don't have to resort to insinuating conspiracy theories. Frankly, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I mean when apologetics as a discipline tends to be defending Christianity (apologia is effectively defense, etymologically speaking), then of course it's going to be about presenting rhetoric that makes Christianity convincing, even if the rational aspect has to be necessarily thrown out foundationally to an extent

 

[muichimotsu]

If you shift the goalposts to interpret a religion in a manner unintended by the proponents of that religion, it is called a strawman. Likewise, if you shift the goalposts to argue about things in an Internet forum that the poster never intended, that is also a strawman.

If you disagree with the historical claim regarding the way Romans viewed their religion, present your case. If you accept the claim, but still think the view incoherent, please explain why. I couldn't make sense of anything you said.

Let's try this: 1 + 1 = 2. Do you agree? Since I said it, I expect you won't. My view of arithmetic is probably too Christian for you, and therefore incoherent.

Tu quoque now? There are as many interpretations of a religion as there are people, that's a major reason I've never found it compelling.

I don't disagree with the characterization of Roman religion, it honestly sounds similar to what I understand roughly about Japanese religion, more about the social aspects than the beliefs in themselves.

No need to be snarky on a simple thing like math, that's self evident and has practical usage even though the existence of numbers and such are technically conceptual, unlike say, plants, rocks, etc.

Not sure what your point is meant to be in regards to the Christian view of God making it seem to be coherent rather than demonstrating the coherency, since the former would be question begging rather than making an argument that's not based in rhetoric.

 

[muichimotsu]

You got this key thing here correct. Very good.

God would not be less than us so that we could specify Him past things He tells us, or encompass Him (fully, in all ways exhaustively) with our understanding. That's one thing in Isaiah chapter 55. There is more.

So how is any understanding you supposedly have about God technically accurate if you only see God through a lens darkly, to coin an oft used expression? You're basically starting on shaky ground with the idea that you think the Bible accurately represents God, but also that you cannot understand God in any meaningful way beyond the limited aspects, which might as well be .001% of God's essence

 

[muichimotsu]

That doesn't make sense at all. We can speak of impersonal processes making things happen without appealing to personal agency.

And I don't appreciate the language of "use that against them". The quest for truth is never a competition or war. If you have to use violence, even rhetorically, I am simply not interested in what you have to say. The quest for truth is not ethically neutral.

And I'm seeing that blocking the user in question was more justified than I first realized, because they don't care about truth or logic, just seeming true and using the right rhetoric to do so, very petty human being, especially in doing what amounts to gish galloping to just add insult to injury.

 

[muichimotsu]

It does not. People encounter things they don't understand all the time. You still don't understand, or refuse to accept that you are stuck in a god-as-idea frame of reference rather than a god-as-thing frame of reference.

But I can never tell if you don't understand or refuse to accept this point because your replies wander off into pages and pages of unrelated commentary. A simple "I don't agree" answer would do wonders for this conversation.

Except we don't necessarily assume something as complex as God to be behind something unless we also think that inference is reasonable and cogent, which people do, even if I'd argue they're mistaken in that use of apophenia thought that we're prone to. If you have some experience, you don't assume what it must be based on a particular paradigm's interpretation that seems compelling without actually applying critical thought to it: which means that you don't assume it could be true, one has to go more foundational in the justification of the claims made by that paradigm (is the bible reliable, for example?)


God as thing is purely based on someone's assessment as such, they cannot demonstrate it, so it's little more than trying to make God some conceptual thing that nonetheless has use to people, which is a functionalist view of religiosity, overly means-based rather than an end

I don't find your worldview compelling as you've presented it and the problem seems to stem from a fundamental assertion that's yet unjustified about the bible being accurate or that experiences constitute substantial evidence.

 

[Hazelelponi]

If createdtoworship would understand the fallacious thinking they're putting forth, they wouldn't be nearly as arrogant and confident in their beliefs as they appear to be, because they clearly are making an argument from ignorance in suggesting that because one cannot show the Big Bang is not an agent, it could be God, which is ALSO God of the gaps fallacy.

Any response would take this thread off the intended topic - which I am loathe to do.

I wish you the best..

 

[Resha Caner]

Not sure what your point is meant to be in regards to the Christian view of God ...

Yes, I know. My impression is that occurs because your first instinct is to argue with me before you even understand what I've said. Your approach seems to be, "Oh, he's Christian. OK, what should I argue with?" rather than, "I'll read what he said, check with him if I understand, and discuss my impressions."

... we don't necessarily assume something as complex as God ...

No, no, no. This is an example. "something as complex as God" I don't assume God is complex. Drop that assumption. Do you not understand? DROP THAT ASSUMPTION.

If I point to a stick lying on the ground and say, "That is a god," all you need to do is acknowledge there is a stick lying on the ground. That's it. That's all. If you can do that, we'll move on from there.

I don't find your worldview compelling as you've presented it and the problem seems to stem from a fundamental assertion that's yet unjustified about the bible being accurate or that experiences constitute substantial evidence.

I haven't presented my world view, nor based it on any of the things you list because we can't get past step 1 where you jump in and burden my statements with all kinds of meaning I never gave them. Please don't do that.

I don't disagree with the characterization of Roman religion, it honestly sounds similar to what I understand roughly about Japanese religion, more about the social aspects than the beliefs in themselves.

Yeah! Now we've got 2 things to work from:
1) We don't need to know a god/religion completely to know something about that god/religion.
2) Some religions are about the process, not about anything mystical, though it may be couched in mystical language.

If there is any mystery to the Roman religion, it is simply an acknowledgement that life is complex and we don't understand it all. So let's boil it down to this statement:

Don't worry about understanding it. If it works, keep doing it. If it doesn't work, stop doing it.

Do you find that statement coherent? I'm not asking if you agree or if you think it's effective, etc. I'm asking if it's coherent? Yes or no?

 

[muichimotsu]

No, no, no. This is an example. "something as complex as God" I don't assume God is complex. Drop that assumption. Do you not understand? DROP THAT ASSUMPTION.

If God is simple rather than complex, then you're essentially getting into a problem of the qualities associated with the entity not being complex even when I'd argue they very much are

If I point to a stick lying on the ground and say, "That is a god," all you need to do is acknowledge there is a stick lying on the ground. That's it. That's all. If you can do that, we'll move on from there.

I'd also have to acknowledge that you're imbuing the stick with properties we'd generally associate with divinity and/or worship, it's not just that I can acknowledge the stick exists, I just don't accept the additional properties given to it

I haven't presented my world view, nor based on any of the things you list because we can't get past step 1 where you jump in and burden my statements with all kinds of meaning I never gave them. Please don't do that.

Is your worldview, even in a basic sense, that God is something that we can understand, even in a limited fashion based on supposed revelations? That's already a point of contention, I'd say

Yeah! Now we've got 2 things to work from:
1) We don't need to know a god/religion completely to know something about that god/religion.
2) Some religions are about the process, not about anything mystical, though it may be couched in mystical language.

The 1st point is more about how the religion's claims about God are suspect on their face because they're expecting people to find those claims authoritative, however limited in terms of full knowledge of God they still are, they'd claim they have the most knowledge relative to anyone else, or they wouldn't proselytize as if they have an important message from that God. And knowing something about a religion or a deity does not necessarily mean it is cogent to the person that understands it as the believers convey it, only that they acknowledge they believe it and it is a fact that they believe it.

The 2nd point appears to be more about religiosity

If there is any mystery to the Roman religion, it is simply an acknowledgement that life is complex and we don't understand it all. So let's boil down to this statement:

Don't worry about understanding it. If it works, keep doing it. If it doesn't work, stop doing it.

Do you find that statement coherent? I'm asking if you agree or if you think it's effective, etc. I'm asking if it's coherent? Yes or no?

It's coherent only if you boil down everything to pure pragmatism, which even I can't say I do, because I consider experiential factors alongside function and other aspects in regards to the importance of beliefs we hold, like whether they comport with a reasonable notion of reality that isn't based on subjective and esoteric interpretations

Coherency is still only stage 2 of the 3 that I've brought up: cogency is still up for debate in the sense of God being something that makes sense as a concept itself, but even if I grant some notion of God as cogent, the question of coherence is more important in that contradictions would render it, arguably, incoherent and not worth investigating much further, unless it can be shown that there aren't contradictions

But coherency is not the same as internal consistency with a particular worldview, especially if it's more about conformity than critical thought, which is exemplified in a way with the statement, since it cares purely about results, which is short sighted, since results can be interpreted fallaciously.

 

[FireDragon76]

I mean when apologetics as a discipline tends to be defending Christianity (apologia is effectively defense, etymologically speaking), then of course it's going to be about presenting rhetoric that makes Christianity convincing, even if the rational aspect has to be necessarily thrown out foundationally to an extent

There's bad apologetics and then there's better apologetics.

 

[muichimotsu]

There's attempts to make the irrational rational, the degree of success is more based on the individual they're trying to fleece, if you will. Like how one doesn't choose beliefs, they choose whether they are convinced something is true by epistemological standards, which are weaker or stronger depending on the person

 

[Resha Caner]

I'd also have to acknowledge that you're imbuing the stick with properties we'd generally associate with divinity ...

No, you don't. Just acknowledge it's a stick. Maybe all that constitutes "stick-religion" is using sticks to defend against aggressive dogs by hitting them with it.

If God is simple rather than complex ...

I said nothing of simplicity either. You're really struggling to remain agnostic about my statements.