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]

No, that just makes the syllogism valid.

To quote “Rational Wiki� – a website wholly inimical to any theist anything, “[A]n argument is logically valid if it is in principle impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false at the same time.� Logical and Valid are synonyms – even Merriam-Webster says so. Since they are experts in the field of etymology, I’ll defer to them over you if you don’t mind.

Demonstrating that something "might" be true? As mentioned before, literally anything "might" be true. So congratulations, you just made an utterly pointless argument.

I’m not trying to convince you of anything and I’m certainly not trying to prove anything to myself. I’m merely trying to show how people ask questions, get answers, and then change the entire argument – all to avoid conceding that a theist has proved his argument. That indicates ax-grinding – a closed mind – and when people see a closed mind it works in favor of the person who admits s/he might not be right. I’m glad we got to clear the air.

I have addressed that point several times now.

No – you’ve mocked the logic of the argument and changed it to one of God’s existence. Some examples you’ve used on this thread are:

• “Jesus' salvation is not clearly visible and we cannot be certain it exists.â€�
  “The flaw in this argument is the fact that it relies on the unsupported assumption that Jesus did in fact say X.�

You asked me why I rejected Islam’s claims in the Koran but accepted the NT’s – which presupposes/allows that the texts are evidence. I explained why. After the explanation of the why the Koran was rejected, you chucked the authority of the texts upon which you were building your point (the point being that I had no logical reason for rejecting one over the other.)

Present an argument for why you reject Islam without using any mention of statements made by Christ.

Asked and answered. I told you why I reject Islam.

[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]

Nope, not those people. The ones who convinced me to believe fantasies. The ones who convinced me to spend much time and effort on following that fantasy. The ones who gave me no other options of what to believe, influencing me to believe their fantasies.

Okay – so you’re angry at people who told you to follow a fantasy that says that clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and housing the homeless are ways that one shows his/her love for God and that failure to do those things means one’s faith is lip service and lip services gets you jack when you die. I understand completely.

Nope, you clearly don’t understand.

I was angry at the time I wasted in bible study and prayer. Hours and hours. The hours and hours I wasted preparing bible study materials for children church, church camps and adult home groups. I was angry at the false beliefs that gave me a false view on life and reality. Things that affected my daily life in a negative way. I was angry at the bullying that I had to put up with because of teachings like “turn the other cheek� and “bless your enemies�. I was angry that I was given false mindsets that affected me socially. I was angry that I missed out on many great experiences I could have had because I believed that they were things Christians shouldn’t do. The list could continue.

But what is your problem here? I have already told you twice that the anger quickly subsided when I realised that the people who influenced me were only doing what they believed God wanted them to do.

You would be completely wrong about that.

I was in and out of various different churches and denominations for 40 years of my life.

And I have a feeling that these various different churches were all Protestant Churches.

SHOCK HORROR! Oh how terrible. But don’t worry I heard plenty about Catholic churches and other versions of Christianity too. There was just way too much religious nonsense tied up with the Catholic church.

How many protestant churches have you been part of?

As for the assertion that no two Christians can agree on anything – that’s patently false.

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

I was just expecting a response. Any type of response. I’m sure, if God was real, he’d give me the perfect response, wouldn’t you?

Nope. I don’t make demands of God. As I’ve read, He resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

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. It was about desperately needing help. Where is the pride in that? I can only see humility there.

What was I expected to do?

That’s the way I see it now, but it’s not the way I saw it as a Christian. I believed that the father was a loving deity who was willing that none should perish. He gave his son out of love for us.

And yet, we look at the same texts and get opposite ideas.

Yes, and so do Christians when they look at the texts.

I always believed that death was a natural part of being human. However accepting Christ as my personal saviour was a way to conquer death and gaining eternal life in Heaven.

You’ve not answered the question. What was the origin of death? Was it created by anyone?

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

Even if you disagree with that, does it really matter? Would God just flag me away if I got it wrong?

As for accepting Christ as your personal savior – I have no idea what that means.

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

That God was forgiving and that he would examine the hearts of people. He would certainly not send children to Hell and he would not send those to Hell who had never heard the gospel.

Great – that’s very Orthodox.

And would God penalise me for believing that?

I believed that one was saved by faith, but that faith without works was worthless. They therefore go hand in hand. You can’t have one without the other.

That needs clarification. Was one saved and always saved?

I tended to go with the belief that it was possible to lose your salvation. But even if I was wrong, would God penalise me for that? Would it make me a false Christian who was only a pretender? Would God reject me if I got a few minor things wrong?

Once again wrong. I had a huge amount of respect for Mary and the saints.

Did you believe that they prayed for us?

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.

Did you ask them to pray for us?

Why would I need to? Would it matter?

You’ve answered a question I didn’t ask.

Please address arguments I actually present.

Excuse me, this is not an interrogation. 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.

I never prayed for the dead. Is It somehow crucial that I did?

You’re not answering questions I present.

And you’re not answering mine. Why must I be interrogated by you but you won’t even answer any of my questions?

Is it somehow crucial that I pray for the dead?

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

Did you think that prayers did little to help the dead “unsaved� since they were in Hell w/o hope of any help from the living. Did you still feel joined with them in some way?

I had no opinions on that as it was never an issue that came my way. Is it an issue? Does that mean I was never a true Christian because I never prayed for the dead?

Do you believe that a bit of false theology here or there is enough to make you a false Christian? Is God going to flag us away if we get one or two things wrong?

Well . . . if one operates under wrong theology then one might reject God based upon that wrong theology.

Even RIGHT theology can lead one to disbelieve in God. But please feel free to point out what incorrect theology you think would have led me to disbelieve.

BTW I do not use the term “reject God� as that was never the case. To reject God would require me to believe in God and continue to believe in God.

[Justin108]

To quote “Rational Wiki� – a website wholly inimical to any theist anything, “[A]n argument is logically valid if it is in principle impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false at the same time.� Logical and Valid are synonyms – even Merriam-Webster says so. Since they are experts in the field of etymology, I’ll defer to them over you if you don’t mind.

Other synonyms according to Merriam-Webster:

- analytic (or analytical)
- coherent
- consequent
- good
- rational
- reasonable
- sensible
- sound
- valid
- well-founded
- well-grounded

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/logical

Looking specifically at a sound argument; an argument is only sound if the premises are true. Since you cannot demonstrate that the premises are true, your argument is unsound and therefore illogical (at least from this particular synonym).

I’m merely trying to show how people ask questions, get answers, and then change the entire argument – all to avoid conceding that a theist has proved his argument.

1. What was my argument before and what did I change my argument to?
2. What exactly did your argument prove?

That indicates ax-grinding – a closed mind – and when people see a closed mind it works in favor of the person who admits s/he might not be right.

I know you might be right. As I've said over and over, your position might be true. As I've said over and over, literally anything might be true. Why you insist on coming back to this point confuses me. Why do you take pride in the fact that your position, like literally any other position, might be true? It seems as though reaching this point in every debate is your crowning achievement.

No – you’ve mocked the logic of the argument and changed it to one of God’s existence. Some examples you’ve used on this thread are:

“Jesus' salvation is not clearly visible and we cannot be certain it exists.�

“The flaw in this argument is the fact that it relies on the unsupported assumption that Jesus did in fact say X.�

You accuse me of asking for proof that God exists when all I asked for was proof that Jesus made a certain claim. These are two vastly different things. You seem to take issue with me asking for support for any of the statements you make. Why is that?

You asked me why I rejected Islam’s claims in the Koran but accepted the NT’s – which presupposes/allows that the texts are evidence.

It does not presuppose the texts are evidence. However, if you insist that the texts are evidence then you must allow the Quran to hold equal value in such evidence. You cannot say "the Quran is lying" yet insist the Bible is telling the truth.

I explained why.

"Because Christ said..."

After the explanation of the why the Koran was rejected, you chucked the authority of the texts upon which you were building your point

No, I pointed out the hypocrisy in calling the Quran a book of lies from a false prophet while holding on to the Bible as absolute authority.

Present an argument for why you reject Islam without using any mention of statements made by Christ.

Asked and answered. I told you why I reject Islam.

You answered with "because Christ said...". I want you to now answer without any mention of Christ's word since you insist that your rejection of Islam is not based on your presupposition that Christianity is true.

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.

- Does the fact that the Bible is older than the Quran make it more likely to be true?
- Why do you accept the book of Revelation if it was written after the Gospels? Why do you accept any of the books of the NT after the Gospels? Why is Muhammad a false prophet for writing a post-Gospel text but Paul or John isn't?

2) The Koran adds a lot to the Christian Bible, much of which directly contradicts said Bible

Premise 2 is false. The Quran does not recognize the Christian Bible as holding absolute truth. Of the New Testament, the Quran only acknowledges Christ as a prophet though holds a different view of Christ. The fact that Christianity and Islam share a character does not mean they both recognize each other.

3) Therefore, the Christian Bible says that the Koran is false.

Setting aside my rebuttals for the premises your conclusion is based on, if you reject Islam because "the Christian Bible says so", then you are presupposing Christianity is true. This argument holds no more value than basically saying "Islam is wrong because Christianity is right".

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

Quote me where I asked for proof of God's existence

whether or not Jesus ever said what he allegedly said. That is a different argument.

It's not a different argument, it's asking for support for your current argument.

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

Look, this isn't Philosophy 101 where you get brownie points for forming a valid argument. I'm looking for sound arguments. A valid argument with no support for its premises is utterly useless

[JLB32168]

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.

That one would get angry over that – even for a week – is something that I find mind-numbing. Were you sorry you missed the opportunity to behave like a frat-guy on Spring break, but all the time?

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 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.

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?

Yes, and so do Christians when they look at the texts.

Okay – well I honestly don’t see how one can read the NT and infer “hateful deity� from it. I can sorta see how one would get that from a superficial reading of the OT – excluding evidence that counters the idea.
We can accept anything when we exclude evidence contra our belief.

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

How? Did God send it upon them for their disobedience? No, I don’t think that God will waive someone away for getting one thing wrong.

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?

And would God penalise me for believing that?

Would God penalize you for believing rightly that children and people who are invincibly ignorant won’t be judged as adults who have heard the truth?
I’m not sure I understand your question.

I tended to go with the belief that it was possible to lose your salvation.

Okay – I believe it’s a process that one gets to after a life of repentance and confession; therefore, one can’t lose what one is working on.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.�

Even RIGHT theology can lead one to disbelieve in God.

Yes, but in my opinion it’s less likely. 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.) 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.)

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.