Is The Concept of God Incoherent?

[Tree of Life]

If I can join in with this interesting conversation...



Oh-kay. We're off to a bad start straight away, it feels. "Hello, Abraham. Let's make a deal. I'll give you - well, your descendants - a wonderful kingdom. and it'll start off with them being slaves in Egypt. Don't worry, not for more than a few hundred years. It's because the sins of the Canaanites aren't yet "ripe". I need you to wait for them to get evil enough to be worth destroying."
If I were Abraham, that's a deal I'd think twice before taking.

Since you've asked, let's take a look at another example of God getting everything wrong: Jesus. So, here's God. For thousands of years, he's been the deity of a small tribe of people. And everything has gone wrong. They've been enslaved, they've been almost exterminated - more than once by God Himself, by the way - and, generally speaking, they never listen to a thing God says. They always get it wrong or, to put it another way, God can never get them to get it right.
So, what does God do? He decides to come down among them, as one of them.
What do His people do? They immediately kill Him.
Oh, but He comes back to life! Except the Jews refuse to listen to it. God's chosen people have turned their back on Him. So God has to start what is essentially a new religion with the gentiles. And this new religion immediately splinters into numerous different sects, something which continues to this day. Oh yes - and this day. Only a minority of humans are Christians - and consider that many of them - well, most of them - don't actually consider the others to be real Christians, then you have to wonder what God's grand plan is all about. Because what it's apparently going to end up with is a few people going to heaven, and most of humanity going to hell.
It is obvious in the Bible that God does have a number of plans, but things keep going wrong with them, and so He has to change them. Blaming human's free will doesn't help, because God should certainly be wise enough to help them to make the right choice without overriding their decision-making process. There is quite a gap between "Oh, just do whatever you want," and "Do exactly as I say, and nothing else", but God just doesn't seem able to manage the balance.

What is it that you think God wants his story to be about?

 

[durangodawood]

What is it that you think God wants his story to be about?

There's an assumption in that question that a self identified atheist might dispute.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Thank you for providing us with your enlightened interpretation. But you might want to change your avatar name to Disinterested Atheist, for the reason that it'd be more honest that way.

What? Speak louder! Did you say something in response? I'm sorry, I can't hear you right now, there's a .......

Hmmm. Couple of things I ought share. First, I live in China, so my responses to yours may be separated by a number of time zones. Second, youtube is blocked here, so whatever your witty and devastating video response was, I'm afraid all I saw was: "Hmmm. We're having trouble finding that site".

Third, I note that you have nothing to say in response to my argument, which is that God's plan is a massive flop. Jesus told his disciples to make Christians of everyone, and the Christian kingdom is massively incomplete, completely fragmented, and lacking in any kind of conviction or power. God created heaven and hell, and most people are bound to end up in hell - which is either what God planned, in which case He is not a moral entity, or against His plan, in which case He has blundered again. You may see things differently, of course, but I invite you to either explain to me how Christianity has spread throughout the world, as Jesus wished, or how everyone will be saved from Hell, so that God hasn't failed.

Now I understand you don't like this, but if you believe that God is not real, it makes perfect sense. It's only if you think that God is real that it becomes perplexing.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

What is it that you think God wants his story to be about?

There's an assumption in that question that a self identified atheist might dispute.

I have to agree. God doesn't want anything, for a very good reason, which the word "atheist" gives the clue to.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hmmm. Couple of things I ought share. First, I live in China, so my responses to yours may be separated by a number of time zones. Second, youtube is blocked here, so whatever your witty and devastating video response was, I'm afraid all I saw was: "Hmmm. We're having trouble finding that site".

Ok. That's fine and dandy, and you're response fits with what I was saying anyway. Coordinated, that, ay?

Third, I note that you have nothing to say in response to my argument, which is that God's plan is a massive flop. Jesus told his disciples to make Christians of everyone, and the Christian kingdom is massively incomplete, completely fragmented, and lacking in any kind of conviction or power. God created heaven and hell, and most people are bound to end up in hell - which is either what God planned, in which case He is not a moral entity, or against His plan, in which case He has blundered again. You may see things differently, of course, but I invite you to either explain to me how Christianity has spread throughout the world, as Jesus wished, or how everyone will be saved from Hell, so that God hasn't failed.

Of course, I have nothing to say. I didn't know you were arguing. Rather, I thought you were offering polemics in the form of your own felt interpretations and various "just so" statements. Therefore, I didn't see much to respond to other than your (thus far) chutzpah and cheesy comebacks. Due to your lack of obvious interest in Christianity, I didn't realize that I, an existentialist, needed to defend my faith. Am I supposed to in this particular case?

Now I understand you don't like this, but if you believe that God is not real, it makes perfect sense. It's only if you think that God is real that it becomes perplexing.

As far as God goes, I, like most other, am most perplexed on the epistemological front. Of course that is the case, and it is the case epistemologically, and fits expectations that we were given indication of by Jesus' immediate protagonists, as well as by Blaise Pascal.

Of course, I might add that whenever antagonists such as yourself, ever smirking, show up, you give me that much more to believe in ...

Let's just say that with the Biblical epistemology being what it is, a person such as yourself can hardly be expected to begin to believe in God or Christ merely at the drop of a hat by the things I might deign to say. However, interestingly enough, there is an asymmetry in all of this that whenever a person such as yourself yawns open the maw of your mouth, letting the bottom lip flap open again and again in defiance against the Gospel of Christ, you give me more and more to believe in empirically with each passing syllable that drops from your lips...

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Okay. So, as usual, you have nothing to say, and spend a long time saying it.
It doesn't surprise me that you feel "strengthened" by having the absurdities of your religion pointed out. If you weren't the kind of person who couldn't embrace absurdties, you wouldn't be a Christian apologist.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay. So, as usual, you have nothing to say, and spend a long time saying it.
It doesn't surprise me that you feel "strengthened" by having the absurdities of your religion pointed out. If you weren't the kind of person who couldn't embrace absurdties, you wouldn't be a Christian apologist.

Who said anything about me being a "Christian Apologist"?

The only reason I'm even in this section of CF, even if my presence here has been for .... well, a few years now, is because one of your fellow atheists suggested to me in passing that I should mosey on over to this section and attempt to 'debate.' Of course, being the existentialist that I am, I thought....nah. But I took him up on his suggestion, and here I am.

But please know that unlike many of my fellow Christians, I have an understanding about the essence of Christian Apologetics that is quite different, and I basically see that what I'm doing here is much less, and perhaps anything but, actual apologetics of the kind that someone like, say, Paul the Apostle or even Peter (...that apologetic advocate), proffered. No, I'd have to say that I'm not a Christian Apologist in either the actual sense or in the modern sense, either; no, I rather think that for real Christian Apologetics to get off the ground, one has to actually be willing to do it in such a way that he/she puts his/her head on the chopping block, so to speak.

No, I'm just a spiritual warrior ... here to brandish my sword of intellect and take down fortresses of satanic solitude, God Willing. And sometimes He's not willing, I've found. It kind of goes with the fact that God controls our epistemological outcomes, regardless of how sharp or dull my sword happens to be at the moment.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay. So, as usual, you have nothing to say, and spend a long time saying it.
It doesn't surprise me that you feel "strengthened" by having the absurdities of your religion pointed out. If you weren't the kind of person who couldn't embrace absurdties, you wouldn't be a Christian apologist.

Ah, so you've read some Kierkegaard, I see!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay. So, as usual, you have nothing to say, and spend a long time saying it.
It doesn't surprise me that you feel "strengthened" by having the absurdities of your religion pointed out. If you weren't the kind of person who couldn't embrace absurdties, you wouldn't be a Christian apologist.

Actually, I don't find the hilarity in dissing Methodological Naturalism; it's those who advocate Philosophical Naturalism that should get their little behinds swatted, really, for reasons that aren't absurd.

 

[durangodawood]

...it's those who advocate Philosophical Naturalism that should get their little behinds swatted, really, for reasons that aren't absurd.

What reasons?

 

[Tree of Life]

I have to agree. God doesn't want anything, for a very good reason, which the word "atheist" gives the clue to.

Then I believe that your interpretation is simply begging the question. You assume at the outset that the Bible was written by men. And then, lo and behold, you use this assumption to demonstrate that the Bible was written by men!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What reasons?

For the reasons usually given by mainstream scientists who rely upon and advocate Methodological Naturalism as the normative operating paradigm for experimental science. (Needless to say, these are the same reasons that I've already offered and reiterated several times over the past few years. Of course, I understand that you might have not been in on those particular repartees in which I gave those offerings ... )

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Who said anything about me being a "Christian Apologist"?

You're a Christian, in the forum "Christian Apologetics", arguing with atheists. If you think that doesn't make you an apologist, I don't really mind, but I have to tell you that just about anyone familiar with the term "apologist" as used in today's society would consider you to be one, whichever side of the debate they were on.

But please know that unlike many of my fellow Christians, I have an understanding about the essence of Christian Apologetics that is quite different, and I basically see that what I'm doing here is much less, and perhaps anything but, actual apologetics of the kind that someone like, say, Paul the Apostle or even Peter (...that apologetic advocate), proffered. No, I'd have to say that I'm not a Christian Apologist in either the actual sense or in the modern sense, either; no, I rather think that for real Christian Apologetics to get off the ground, one has to actually be willing to do it in such a way that he/she puts his/her head on the chopping block, so to speak.

Oh well, let's not split hairs. You're here, we disagree, and this place is for us to hash things out.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Then I believe that your interpretation is simply begging the question. You assume at the outset that the Bible was written by men. And then, lo and behold, you use this assumption to demonstrate that the Bible was written by men!

You're the one who asked us what we think God's plan is. In all honesty, we have to answer that we don't think God has a plan, because He doesn't exist. If we answered, "We think God's plan is such-and-such," then we'd be lying, wouldn't we?
What kind of answer were you expecting? That God's plan is to defeat Satan, our lord and master, and we're here to help his infernal majesty?

 

[durangodawood]

For the reasons usually given by mainstream scientists who rely upon and advocate Methodological Naturalism as the normative operating paradigm for experimental science. (Needless to say, these are the same reasons that I've already offered and reiterated several times over the past few years. Of course, I understand that you might have not been in on those particular repartees in which I gave those offerings ... )

I appreciate the reluctance to give the same explanation for like the 60th time.

 

[Tree of Life]

You're the one who asked us what we think God's plan is. In all honesty, we have to answer that we don't think God has a plan, because He doesn't exist. If we answered, "We think God's plan is such-and-such," then we'd be lying, wouldn't we?

I'm not asking you to admit that God exists. But I think you should recognize that your presuppositions might unfairly affect your reading of Scripture. Since you assume before you ever interpret Scripture that God does not exist, how can you even see anything other than a man-made document?

Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the Bible is the word of God, you would not be able to recognize it as such because your presuppositions would not allow you to do so.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're a Christian, in the forum "Christian Apologetics", arguing with atheists. If you think that doesn't make you an apologist, I don't really mind, but I have to tell you that just about anyone familiar with the term "apologist" as used in today's society would consider you to be one, whichever side of the debate they were on.

I'm no apologist, because as I said previously, I hold a different notion as to what actually constitutes "apologetics," but being the philosopher I am, I do admit that in the end, I'm just offering one more perspective on apologetics to the SEVERAL that are already out there. Far be it from me to assume that modern apologetics (yes, 'modern apologetics'), as many think they understand it to be today, whether they are Christian or Skeptical Atheist, is exactly and only one thing. But, as a Christian philosopher, I think this is case for many things in today's fragmented, emotively inclined endeavor to handle this "thing" called Christianity.

Oh well, let's not split hairs. You're here, we disagree, and this place is for us to hash things out.

Yes, let's hash!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I appreciate the reluctance to give the same explanation for like the 60th time.

I can give you a fairly short video if you like which, however amateurishly put together, makes the point. Would you like for me to post it yet once again?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I'm no apologist, because as I said previously, I hold a different notion as to what actually constitutes "apologetics," but being the philosopher I am, I do admit that in the end, I'm just offering one more perspective on apologetics to the SEVERAL that are already out there. Far be it from me to assume that modern apologetics (yes, 'modern apologetics'), as many think they understand it to be today, whether they are Christian or Skeptical Atheist, is exactly and only one thing. But, as a Christian philosopher, I think this is case for many things in today's fragmented, emotively inclined endeavor to handle this "thing" called Christianity.

Yes, let's hash!

Okay - we're in agreement, then! I'm here to attack Christianity, you're here to defend it, and we know where we stand.
Unfortunately, it's bedtime where I am now, so our discussion will have to be put on hold for a while.
Take care!

 

[durangodawood]

I can give you a fairly short video if you like that, however amateurishly put together, makes the point. Would you like for me to post it yet once again?

Why not. If its not long, I'll watch it.