Saturday, August 27, 2011

Andrew the Atheist thinks Tim should re-consider his answer.

Oh, I'm sorry, Tim.  The correct answer was yes, not no.  Thanks for playing.

I feel weird telling the christian how to better argue with atheists, but here goes anyway.  I think it's good that you recognize the core problem: the question is actually if god can make logical contradictions.  But I think you should have answered yes.  You really back yourself into a corner when you say no.  I'll explain.

You see, your position eliminates the Transcendental Argument for god, or TAG, as it is popularly known.  It's a common aplogetic that states that logic is impossible without god.  God is the author of logic and reason, and therefore he is able to bend, mend and break those rules are part of his omnipotence.  While I am glad to dismiss the TAG, I don't think you either meant to do this, or never even heard of this apologetic you just refuted yourself.  Again, we come back to why I asked FIRST how much you know of apologetics.  If god is the author of logic, he can make logical contradictions, no problem.  So I suggest that when you are asked this question next time, you answer, "YES."

Your position also makes the christian god impossible.  I know I'm arguing the character of god and not the existance of god.  Trust me.  If you convince me the christian god is real, you don't have to worry about me accepting any god is real.  Besides, if you want to talk deism, we'll get into a comparative religion topic, and I think we both agree that's not what we want to do.  I mean, I'm down for it if you want, but you said you didn't. 

The christian god has more than one logical contradiction for which you'll need to account.  Not only is this being supposed to be omnipotent, it is also supposed to be perfect.  A perfect being cannot create anything less than perfect.  Your god should not have been able to make angels that turned to demons, or people that would fall from grace.  If he is perfect, only perfection can come from him.  It did not.  That's contradicition #1.

But my personal favorite is that your god is also supposed to be all-just AND all-mercifull.  Justice and mercy are mutually exclusive.  I define justice as, "you get what you deserve," and mercy as, "you do not getwhat you deserve."  If you have different definitions, you'll need to let me know what those are.

If god is just, then he gives people what they deserve.  If god is merciful, he does NOT give people what they deserve.  Therefore, he cannot be both all-just and all-merciful.  In fact, with regard to a single person, he cannot be both just in any way AND merciful in any way.  He must be one or the other.  There's contradiction #2.

But again, neither of these problems is any concern, so long as you admit your god is a god of logical contradictions.  I didn't even mention the bible.....  There you'll find contradictions #3-???

Tim, I'm worried about you.  Eventually, these kid gloves I'm wearing here are going to have to come off.  But that doesn't have to happen now.  So tell me, honestly, is this the first real exchange you've ever had with an atheist?  It's okay if it is.  Everyone has to start somewhere.  But you should know by now you are not the first believer I've debated.  The first one was the toughest to convince.  It was me.


  1. Wow so condescending!! Tim again, God Bless you for patience debating Andrew.

    First of all, Andrew makes a bunch of mistakes here.

    1. God is the author of logic and reason therefore he should be able to break logic and reason. This is an assumption and a very invalid one at that. Why would he have to be able to break it. You fail to realize that a lot things are a reflection of God's character and therefore he cant change it, it is not just something he arbitrarily comes up with. Again God can't lie, but that does not mean he's not omnipotent. You obviously do not understand TAG, the whole point is that logic is Absolute, from God's character and therefore cannot change.
    Also TAG deals with a lot more than just logic, so saying it has been refuted is propaganda.

    2. A perfect being can't create anything less than perfect. This is begging the question, why and how do you know this? Also God knew exactly what the angels would do and its all in his plan, its not as if he was shocked when it happened, its all in his purpose. God did not make a mistake, in his loving nature he decided to give his created creatures knowledge of good an evil. These creatures made their own choices, your premise is completely immature and soundless.

    3. "my personal favorite is that your god is also supposed to be all-just AND all-mercifull. Justice and mercy are mutually exclusive. I define justice as, "you get what you deserve," and mercy as, "you do not getwhat you deserve."

    Again you do not understand biblical theology and you argue from ignorance. God is just in that all people have sinned and all deserve to be punished. In his infinite Mercy he decided to pay for that punishment himself and save people through grace.

    Here is a good analogy on grace, if I went to someones house and broke a mirror, and they forgave me, they would replace the mirror themselves. If I ended up paying, then I would just be repaying for what I did and it isn't true forgiveness. This is exactly what God did, we broke his law, and its not what we do to become saved, he forgives us by paying for the price himself, Christ's sacrifice and as Jesus himself said, the greatest act of love is that who lays his life for his loved ones, this is ultimate love. People who do not accept this mercy, will in fact pay for those sins. Your definitions of merciful/just are very singular.
    The sin is being punished, God just took the punishment on himself. Maybe you are confusing the Christian God with the spaghetti monster again.

    You keep talking about things you don't like about the Christian God you don't believe in, but have not provided any evidence and to why you know he doesn't exist, only that you don't like him. If you held to this position, then no one would debate you because you can have that opinion, but you claim that He doesn't exists and yet you have nothing you add on that matter besides things you dislike in the bible, and this doesn't proof his non-existence.

    Maybe this blog should be about why you don't like God, not why you don't believe he exists.

  2. Personally, I prefer one of the classic Jewish responses that "God is also omniscient, so He wouldn't be stupid enough to do it in the first place."

    Andrew, part of the problem is that you are using terms (at least as defined by you) that are foreign to the Bible. I know you think you have this discussion under control, but you're really having another discussion entirely.

  3. Well, athanasius, if you think ANY of this blog has had ANYTHING to do with the bible, I'd say I wouldn't know what blog you're reading.

    Which conversation am I having now?

  4. Wow Andrew. I have to add my two cents about your inability to discuss. I would say you made at least three references to the Bible in your post above, one being when you said "I didn't even mention the bible..... There you'll find contradictions #3-???". Also doesn't the whole discussion have everything to do with the Bible since that is platform upon which Tim is standing?
    It certainly looks from my quick read that you do not want to deal with the comments Athanasius has made so are resorting to nonsense to get out of it.
    Doesn't make either side true... it also doesn't make we want to read any more.