The Fallacy of the God/Parent Apology

[Divine Insight]

Christians are often trying to make excuses for their God by proclaiming that their God is just as helpless, inept, and unintelligent as human parents. They try to make an analogy between how some human parents might treat their children and why they think it makes sense to think that an omnipotent creator God should have the same limitations. These apologies fail miserably because human parents are not infinitely intelligent, wise, omnipotent, or omniscient. Neither did they design their children.

If human parents have stupid kids that can hardly be blamed on the parents. On the other hand if an omnipotent creator God creates stupid humans than this is entirely on him. There can be no one else to blame. The stupid humans most certainly can't be blamed for being stupid. It wasn't their fault that this is how God created them.

Human parents cannot know what's going on in the mind of their children.

An omniscient God knows every thought his children have.

Human parents can easily fail as being effective teachers, and often do fail at this in extreme ways.

A God cannot fail at being an effective teacher because there can only be two possible reasons for him to fail. Either he's a lousy teacher, which would mean that he's inept. Or his children are lousy students, in which case this can only be because he failed to design intelligent children.

If a human parent has a child who has psychological or mental problems it can often be quite difficult for the human parent to even know that this is occurring. And even if the human parent suspects this to be the case, it's is next to impossible for a human parent to be able to heal the child. Even professional psychologists and psychiatrists have great difficulty in trying to diagnose and help people who have psychological or mental problems. In fact, we are currently aware that there are many different potential causes for the same types of psychological symptoms.

An omniscient God who knows every thought the child has, and who also has also numbered every hair on their head would not only know that the problem exists, but he would also know precisely what it would take to remedy the situation and heal the child from this aberrant condition.

Trying to excuse a supposedly omnipotent omniscient God by pointing to how inept human parents are is hardly an apology for the failings of a supposed "Creator God" who actually creates every child that exists.

Question for Debate:

At what point should apologists be willing to recognize and concede that some of their apologies for their imaginary God simply don't hold water?

Surely there needs to be some criteria for being able to recognize when an apology is dead and no amount of repeating it will ever bring it back to life.

[1213]

If a mass murderer goes into a school and murders a bunch of young students, what happens to the students who were murdered?

If those students are sent to heaven when they die, then they got out of the "test" for free and were never tested properly before entering heaven.

If those students are sent to hell when they die, then the same truth holds. They weren't given a full life to live where they might have repented in the future.

Where do you get the idea of test? I dont think I said anything about test. This is a lesson and even short lesson can be enough for person to know what is good and evil and make the choice, what he wants the most.

Not only this but there have been very devout Christian pastors who were very devout believers for many decades before they finally realized the theology is nonsense. The problem there is that had they died while they were devout believers they would have been "saved", but since they were too unfortunate not to have been killed in time, now they'll be going to hell.

But eternal life is promised for righteous. It is possible that person believes, but is not righteous. Unfortunate thing is that there are some theological things that are not Biblical and therefore they can be nonsense. It is not a problem, if person doesnt believe nonbiblical nonsense. I think the crucial matter is in this:

This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn't come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God."
John 3:19-21

Even pastor may be unrighteous person, who love more darkness than light. And that is the real problem, not that if person doesnt believe nonsensical things.

[ttruscott]

Where do you get the idea of test? I dont think I said anything about test. This is a lesson and even short lesson can be enough for person to know what is good and evil and make the choice, what he wants the most.

The test is over... All those who failed live on earth and die.

Neither age at death nor shorter life experiences limits the sinful elect from experiencing redemption nor can longer life bring the reprobate to repentance. Time on earth is meaningless outside of our choice to put our faith in GOD or not and our decision to be a sinner or not.

[Divine Insight]

If a mass murderer goes into a school and murders a bunch of young students, what happens to the students who were murdered?

If those students are sent to heaven when they die, then they got out of the "test" for free and were never tested properly before entering heaven.

If those students are sent to hell when they die, then the same truth holds. They weren't given a full life to live where they might have repented in the future.

Where do you get the idea of test? I dont think I said anything about test. This is a lesson and even short lesson can be enough for person to know what is good and evil and make the choice, what he wants the most.

That's the definition of a test. If after being taught a lesson you need to make the correct choice in order to pass, then you have be subjected to a test.

Not only this but there have been very devout Christian pastors who were very devout believers for many decades before they finally realized the theology is nonsense. The problem there is that had they died while they were devout believers they would have been "saved", but since they were too unfortunate not to have been killed in time, now they'll be going to hell.

But eternal life is promised for righteous.

If that's the case then righteous people will be granted eternal life whether they believe in an egotistical Jesus and Yahweh or not.

Let's not forget that Christianity is all about confessing that their Gods are the ultimate authority lest you be cast into hell. Righteousness wouldn't have anything to do with that.

It is possible that person believes, but is not righteous.

And it's also possible that non-believers can be righteous.

Don't forget that Christian dogma demands that no one can be righteous. So for the most part Christianity can't be about righteousness. At least not as long as any writings from Paul are permitted to remain as part of the Christian dogma. Even writings from John might need to be rejected if we want to make Christianity about righteousness.

Unfortunate thing is that there are some theological things that are not Biblical and therefore they can be nonsense. It is not a problem, if person doesnt believe nonbiblical nonsense. I think the crucial matter is in this:

This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn't come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God."
John 3:19-21

Even pastor may be unrighteous person, who love more darkness than light. And that is the real problem, not that if person doesnt believe nonsensical things.

The problem is that Christianity bastardizes the very concept of "light".

Light is supposed to mean "righteous", but Christianity has demanded the Christ is the "light". Therefore to refuse to worship Christ as the Son of God is grounds for condemnation and righteousness is lost in the darkness.

This religion dogma is clearly a scam.

If righteousness is the key, then there's no need for Jesus or Yahweh, or a need to acknowledge either.

On the other hand, if the key is in supporting the religious egotistical figures of this religion, (i.e. the jealous Yahweh and Jesus), then righteousness is lost.

So this religion is clearly a man-made scam that tries to pretend that their God and Demigod must be acknowledge lest a person is damned. And righteousness is refused to even be acknowledge at all. This is a total refutation of righteousness entirely.

The "test" is no longer about righteousness, but instead it becomes a test of whether or not a person is worshiping this unrighteous religious dogma. Fail to acknowledge our Gods and we will proclaim your damnation.

That's Christianity in a nutshell. It not only has nothing to do with righteousness, but it's the antithesis of righteousness. It's the abomination of righteousness. Demanding instead that Jesus must be worshiped as a religious idol. It's basically demanding idol worship. And in the process it destroys the very meaning of righteousness.

[Divine Insight]

Where do you get the idea of test? I dont think I said anything about test. This is a lesson and even short lesson can be enough for person to know what is good and evil and make the choice, what he wants the most.

The test is over... All those who failed live on earth and die.

Neither age at death nor shorter life experiences limits the sinful elect from experiencing redemption nor can longer life bring the reprobate to repentance. Time on earth is meaningless outside of our choice to put our faith in GOD or not and our decision to be a sinner or not.

This doesn't coincide with Christian dogma. The Bible says that the wages of sin is death. If that's true then when these pre-earthly souls had sinned they should have been put to death, not sent to earth to have a second chance to change their minds or just freely continue to sin.

If the test is over, then what would be the point of life on earth? For a SECOND TEST?

That's exactly what you are suggesting here. A second test.

PCE makes no sense.

PCE was invented to try to explain why babies and very young children can suffer and die. Obviously those situations make no sense in traditional Christianity. So PCE was needed to justify this contradiction. But the problem is that PCE doesn't solve anything. All it does is introduce brand new contradictions.

Also it doesn't even solve the original problem. Unless you are willing to believe that newborn babies that die quickly were able to make their SECOND CHOICE to reject God as a newborn baby.

Otherwise they wouldn't have been given much of a chance to repent.

PCE was invented to try to salvage a clearly broken theology. But it doesn't work. It just creates a new version of a theology that is itself broken. It still doesn't solve the problem of infants who suffer and die early.

[bjs]

Then Christians need to get on board with that. They need to stop saying God intervened in their life to prevent them making some sort of horrible choice. I've talked with Christians who claim just that - one comes to mind from this very forum, where a Christian claimed that he was at the point of suicide, gun in hand, only for God to intervene by burning his curtains with some sort of divine laser.

There is a pretty obvious difference between God helping someone make a choice that he wants to make, as opposed to God forcing someone to make a choice that he doesnt want to make.

So is the analogy of God being a parent who likens what we humans tend to do with the environment and wars and whatnot to 'skinning our knees', a correct one or not? Does God view it that way? Are you saying that priest-teachers approve of false things from younger students as opposed to correcting them?

As opposed to just being correct or not, I would say that it is too simplistic. It is the kind of thing I would accept from a teenager, but I would expect an adult who really wants to understand theology to have a more nuanced view.

In a sense that analogy has some use. A parent letting a child skin her knee as she grows and learns to make good choices is sort of like God giving people free will to make good choices. But that is just the jumping off point. The analogy has some clear weaknesses. The fact that it is okay for a kid to think this way as he begins to understand God doesnt mean that a serious, adult theologian would make much use of that particular analogy.

[bjs]

[Replying to post 15 by Divine Insight]

So you have doubled down on your strawman. Instead of event attempting to understand what Christians actually believed, you have declared that you know better than them what they think. Well, theres no responding to that. As long as you insist know what people are thinking better than they do, accuracy will never have any part in your arguments.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 15 by Divine Insight]

So you have doubled down on your strawman. Instead of event attempting to understand what Christians actually believed, you have declared that you know better than them what they think. Well, theres no responding to that. As long as you insist know what people are thinking better than they do, accuracy will never have any part in your arguments.

What Christians believe?

You've got to be joking.

To begin with I used to be a Christian. Not only was I a Christians by I was a born-again Christian who accepted Christ as my Lord and savior. I know exactly what Christianity is about. At least in terms of the Christian denomination that I was born and raised in.

I'll be the first to agree that there were other Christians who hated the Christ I was taught to believe in and would argue against my Christ with hateful vengeance.

It was actually this extreme disagreement among Christians themselves that inspired me to learn the truth of Christianity so that I could teach these people as Jesus had instructed us to do.

However, when I actually started studying the Christian dogma (i.e. the actual Bible) in detail I quickly discovered that it doesn't make any sense. It also became quite apparent why no two Christians can seem to agree on much of anything when it comes to this religion.

If you think that all Christians are in agreement on what Christianity supposedly means, you're in for a huge awakening. In fact, in order to believe such a thing you would need to be totally ignorant of the current state of the religion. Christians typically hate each other more than they hate non-believers. And they hate each other in the name of Christ.

Oh, sure, they call their hatred of each other "love" and they pretend that only their view of Christianity is true while everyone else has it all wrong, including huge denominations of Christian sects.

In fact, if your a Protestant you are necessarily in disagreement with all Christians who are Catholic. Or, if you are a Catholic, then you are necessarily in disagreement with all Christians who are Protestant, unless you are a protesting Catholic who reject the Papal authority of the Pope, in which case you're actually a Protestant who simply forgot to rebel again Catholicism.

And of course, if you are a Protestant then you are necessarily in extreme disagreement with many other Protestants of demoninations that disagree with the views of the denomination that you have embraced.

Of course, if you are none of the above, but instead prefer to simply think of yourself as having a "Personal Walk with Jesus", then you have basically rejected the entire shebang and have simply started your own personal denomination that obviously necessarily disagrees with what all other Christians believe. Because after all, if there were other Christians who believe like you, then you could get together with them and start a new denomination that rejects all other demoninations.

For you to tell me that I don't understand what "Christians Think" is absolute nonsense.

In fact, why should I even care what you think? I can read. The Bible represents the claims of Christianity, not you. If you disagree with what the Bible has to say then you'll need to take that up with the authors of the Bible. Not with me. And I have no clue how you plan on doing that since they have all long-since died.

It's the Biblical account of this God and his demigod Son that I reject.

The fact that no two Christians can agree on much of anything only demonstrates that the Bible has nothing coherent to say in the first place, for if it did, then Christians could demonstrate to each other what the actual truth is. But clearly they cannot do that. The Catholics are still Catholics. And the Protestants are still hating on each other in Christ's name.

Until they can get their act together, telling me that I don't understand what Christians believe is the greatest joke on earth.

They need to get their act together first. And thus far they haven't been able to do that. To the contrary, new versions of Christianity are being created every day. The situation is only getting worse, not better.



.

[dio9]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

Friend, I agree your God does not exist. I can see by what you write.
Butt given that , you can't say my God doesn't. I say my God does exist,

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

Friend, I agree your God does not exist. I can see by what you write.
Butt given that , you can't say my God doesn't. I say my God does exist,

I don't have a God that does not exist.

My position is that the Biblical God cannot exist as it is described in the Bible.

If you have a God that exists it cannot be the God described in the Bible.

I don't claim that no God is possible. In fact, I often say that the God of Buddhism cannot be disproved, just like Solipsism cannot be disproved.

Also, this thread isn't about whether or not you can imagine a God that might possibly exist. This thread is about making excuses for a God who behaves as poorly as human parents. Human parents behave the way they do due to their many limitations.

For example human parents did not design their own children. So human parents are already not responsible for how intelligent their children may or may not be. A God who has designed his own children has no excuse if those children are incapable of learning or understanding simple ideas.

So if you claim that 'your God' designed humans, then 'your God' is without excuse when it comes to dealing with stupid humans.

Therefore the question isn't really about whether or not 'your God' exists, but rather why is 'your God' so inept at creating humans?

Human parents cannot know what their children are thinking.
An omniscient God knows every thought his children think.

Therefore an omniscient God has no excuse for not knowing that one of his children are about to do something horrible.

Also, if this God's child is thinking about doing something horrible why should that be? A healthy brain should not be wanting to do horrible things. So what went wrong?

A human parent cannot know what might be causing a child to think poorly.
An omniscient omnipotent God should know precisely what the problem is and be able to heal the child from this horrible defect.

So again, the question isn't whether or not 'your God' could potentially exist. The real question here is why is 'your God' so inept? Why is 'your God' as inept as human parents?

[rikuoamero]

Biggest failure of the analogy? Real parents don't act non-existent towards their children and then have large groups of people coming up with all sorts of twisted logic to explain to the children that the parents love them and is there for them for the asking, even if the child reports no answer.