Is there a need for apologetics?

[DanieltheDragon]

Given these parameters:

God is real
God is All powerful
God is All knowing
God is Omnipresent

Apologetics seems meaningless. What I am trying to say is that the scriptures themselves should be without criticism given the parameters of the god defined above. Thus if god were real there would be no need to defend god because god and his message would be without fault and fault could not be found otherwise it would violate the parameters of his existence.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 9 by bluethread]



No just no. No one is talking about bananas here the comparison just reminds me of more Ray Comfort brain melting apologetics. please no more bananas.

The point is that if a perfect being that is all powerful just all knowing and omnipresent would not allow his message to be distorted in any way. Hence if a god as described existed apologetics would not exist.

I have no idea who that is or what you are referring to. However, why would a deity not allow his creation to scurry around without perfect knowledge? Who says the universe should not include argumentation and debate?

[Divine Insight]

However, why would a deity not allow his creation to scurry around without perfect knowledge? Who says the universe should not include argumentation and debate?

Argumentation over whether or not the God even exists?

Argumentation over which religion should actually represent God if God does exist?

It seems to me that this type of thing is in direct conflict with a supposedly jealous God who demands to be worshiped above all other Gods, and expects his commandments to be obeyed.

Why should the God of the Hebrews expect people from India to believe in him?

Sam Harris addresses this point quite often. What kind of a God would demand that people believe in him on such flimsy hearsay rumors that have no evidence to support them? A rational mind can clearly see that there is far more evidence against this biblical God than there is for it. Yet this God will supposedly cast non-believers into an eternal hell fire for merely not believing. The absolute atrocity of that threat is even more reason to believe that this religion can't possible have come from any righteous sane God.

Even many Christians sects renounce the scientific knowledge that we have discovered in the universe in favor of believing in the Bible. We'd have to ignore a wealth of evidence in order to believe in the Bible. And why would this creator God have gone to such trouble to deceive us with evidence against the Bible if he wants so badly for us to believe in him?

So no, if there actually exists a jealous God who is demanding that we obey him lest he'll cast us into an eternal hellfire, then the very last thing he should support is argumentation over whether or not he exists or which religion might be true.

How would these kinds of arguments support the premise that this God is concerned about morality?

How does confusion over whether or not a God exists, or which religion might represent God contribute to morality?