A question for open-minded Christians

Great Debates
1

Actually, this applies to some other religions too, like Islam and I think Judiasm, but I’ll focus on Christianity because that’s the one I know the most about.

Consider the following statements. One of them is false. I leave you to decide which one:

  1. According to the Bible, God is omnipotent.
  2. According to the Bible, God wants everybody to be Christian.
  3. According to the Bible’s standards of Christianity, not everyone is Christian.
  4. The Bible is a trustworthy source of information.

(If you choose anything besides 4) to be false, I also want to see see some evidence from the Bible.)

Putting 1) and 2) together, we can infer that everybody is Christian. Of course, this contradicts 3), and since 3) can’t be true and false at the same time, we must question the assumptions which led us to those conclusions. In this case the assumptions are conviently enumerated with a 4).

I want to adress one counterargument, which seems to be the standard answer to this kind of question: God could have made everybody Christian, but to do so would deny us free will. In other words, God can’t make people with free will who are all Christian. If God can’t do something, that means, pretty much by definition that he is not omnipotent, so really that is just a subtle way of choosing 1) to be false. Again, if that is your choice that’s fine, but I ask to see some Biblical evidence.

The reason I bring this counterargument up is that I have actually debated this question before. Nobody has ever shown me a mistake in my logic, and really, bringing it up for debate one more time would go in the “beating a dead horse” category, if that were my purpose in starting this thread. Actually, I’m interested in a followup question that stems from me winning the debate. I understand this a break from the standard form, and by all means I don’t want to supress debate on the subject. My question is only valid if I’ve truly won the debate, not forced that conclusion out of my opponents, and I’m still open to someone pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. Just make sure that if you do, it doesn’t boil down to calling 1), 2), or 3) false without any Biblical evidence, like the example above does.

If, on the other hand, my disproof of Christianity does hold up, my question is this: I don’t think I’ve performed any great feats of logic here. In fact, the only possible ways I can think of that someone who cares about this subject would not notice what I’ve pointed out are that they are either lacking in intelligence or closed-minded. But what I can’t understand is how it’s possible for all the millions of Christians in the world to fall into those two categories - in fact, there are certainly people on the SDMB who don’t fall into either. So, for anyone who considers themself Christian, intelligent and open-minded, I’m curious as to either:

whether 1), 2) or 3) above are, in fact false, (and some Biblical evidence to support that conclusion), or whether there’s my flaw in my logic tying them together, or:

if 4) is indeed false, well, why are there still so many Christians? Doesn’t anyone else notice this? I can’t believe that I am more intellligent than every Christian. (actually, I know that for a fact after reading the “ontological proofs of God” thread) Somehow, I’m not seeing all the former Christians lining up to de-convert because of this thread, so, for all the Christians who apparently think that Christianity can coexist with my argument that the Bible is false…well, I’m waiting for an explanation.

I’m deliberatly being provocative, because of the number of times I’ve brought up this question and it’s been ignored. I’m willing to consider the possibility that I’m wrong, but that much has never been proven to me. As far as I can tell, my logic disproving the Bible holds up, so…what gives?

2
  1. The Bible is a trustworthy source of information. ?

You’re right, it’s terrible, all of it.

3

I’m not a Christian (open-minded or otherwise), but I believe this is an error. Merely because God is omnipotent and wants everyone to be Christian doesn’t make them so. I mean, I’m fairly omnipotent in my kitchen, but just because I want to eat a bowl of ice cream doesn’t mean I will.

As for the issue of the Bible’s fallacy, it’s worth pointing out that only fundamentalists take it as literal truth; most Christians are content to use it as a collection of myths and anecdotes and allegories, and having a Bible that is not 100% reliable is not a problem as a result.

4

What gives is that applying logic to God is a waste of time. You can’t reason God into a corner. God is not bound by some syllogism that you put together here on Earth. He need not be consistent in the way that our physical world needs to be. You cannot presume to know what He wants or how He wants to act. I guess that is why it is called faith.

5

Well, first of all, you should really stop debating with lawn ornaments…

Sua

And before you ask, I’m an atheist.

6

I know you addressed the question to open-minded Christians, and I don’t qualify. (I’m an open-minded atheist.) But you’ve set it up so that the other side can’t win. If you’ve won debates like this, it surprises me a little that the other side hasn’t called you on it. You’re saying he’s not omnipotent because he can’t do things that contradict each other by definition. Omnipotence (which doesn’t exist, I think) doesn’t include the ability to do the impossible. That’s the flaw in your logic tying them together, as I see it.

Even an omnipotent God couldn’t make a square circle, or an immoveable object that he, being omnipotent, could move. It’s just a paradox, a fun little trick that we do with words and definitions. Sure, altering the laws of nature and creating something from nothing are also impossible, but not inconceivable. Free will that is pre-programmed to make a certain choice is inconceivable–it isn’t free will.

Reading those other threads that try to prove or disprove matters of faith by using logic has reinforced my belief that any application of logic to theological matters is bound to become hopelessly muddled and fall flat. Deontology I like. Ontology leaves me wondering what’s on TV.

Also, though I wouldn’t call the Bible a perfect historical document, there is some really good stuff in it, as has been pointed out.

7

Logic flaw the first: Why does one of them have to be false? Because you say so? If you set up the question and then require the person you are addressing to function only within your artificial framework, then you are compelling the response that you want. How about if I said, “One of the following is false, so pick one: An orange is orange, the sky is blue, the sun is yellow, grass is green.” Does the person I’m addressing have to choose one as false/assume one is false simply because I say so?

And what do you mean by “a trustworthy source of information,” anyway? To many, the Bible is the literal word of God; to many others, it is allegory or myth. To still others, it is a divinely inspired text falling somewhere in between. Its inherent “trustworthiness” is entirely dependent on how you view the text.

Check out the Old Testament entire for a counter-argument for the Jewish refutation of the idea that God wants everyone to be Christian.

Logic flaw No. 2: God wanting everyone to be Christian, even if accurate, obviously does not translate to everyone being Christian, unless He compels them accordingly.

Logic flaw No. 3: Simply because God is omnipotent and could override or withhold free will does not mean He is obliged to do so, or does do so. It is illogical to assume that just because an omnipotent God chooses not to do something (make everyone Christian) He therefore cannot do something.

For what? For your logic error? Why would that be in the Bible?

I think you must have been debating with people who know very little about Christianity or debating.

You’ll have to win it firs. :slight_smile: What you’ve set forth so far doesn’t do that.

Logic flaw No. 4: You have not disproven Christianity in any way. Even if your facile proof worked – which it does not, because both your underlying assumptions and your conclusions are flawed – it would not disprove Christianity but rather only show that the Bible is not a trustworthy souce of factual information – itself a conclusion subject to attack since you haven’t defined what you mean by “trustworthy,” or said it is (or is not) a source of information for what, exactly. In any event, many non-literalist Christians do not consider the Bible to be the unerring Word of God anyhow, so proving it is not hardly disproves Christianity as a whole.

Both. See above.

Logic flaw No 5: The conclusion “the Bible is false” does not flow from the assertion “the Bible is not a trustworthy source of information,” even if the latter was proven, which, contrary to your assertion, it has not been. Those two phrases are not synonymous, nor does one dictate the other. In any event, Christians who take the Bible as something less than the absolute Word of God have no problem reconciling the idea that it is a flawed and/or human text with the idea that it is nevertheless a useful text. They further have no problem reconciling that idea with their concept of Christianity as a whole. So you have failed to prove something that, even if proven, would for many Christians not be the earth-shattering blow you apparently feel it would be, causing them to abandon their faith in droves. I’m afraid that if your logic is faulty (and it is), your theology is worse.

Put points for being willing to at least consider the possibility you’re wrong. :slight_smile:

8

I’d love to know what the follow-up question was; will you tell us anyway?

9

rjung wrote:

I assume the times when you want to eat a bowl of ice cream but don’t are because ice cream has too many calories for you to eat whenever the mood strikes.

But if you were truly omnipotent in the kitchen, you could create a bowl of ice cream that had no calories yet was indistinguishable from the real thing. Then you wouldn’t need to refuse to eat ice cream. Every time you wanted to eat a bowl of ice cream, you simply would.

10

good, I’m glad I’m at least getting responses, that’s a good first step and so far I haven’t been able to get that much.

Let my clarify that by saying “the Bible is a trustworthy source of information”, I mean that, if it is, the Bible telling us factual information is enough for us to believe it, without independent proof. Notice, (Mangetout) I am not saying that the Bible isn’t a good thing to read or that the world wouldn’t be a better place if everyone followed what it said (and I don’t want to get into a discussion of “whose standards”). I am saying that, if the Bible isn’t a trustworthy source of information, that we can’t take the existence of say, Jesus Christ just on its word.

I don’t really understand this issue of Biblical literalism (or lack thereof). First off, I thought this was usually applied to trivial details, such as who was with Mary at such-and-such a time, not the existence of God. Also, I don’t understand how something can be true, but not literally true. Does God exist, but not literally?

I wasn’t trying to apply logic to God, I was applying it to his followers.

who decides what is impossible?The rules of logic, you say? Who defines these rules of logic? And does God go to jail if he breaks them?

see below, or for that matter, in the OP, fifth paragraph (or whatever you want to call the text between two enters)

I’m not quite sure what “compels them accordingly” means, unless it has something to do with the free will question, which I already adressed, but no matter. It “obviously does not translate” only in a being that doesn’t claim to be omnipotent. As Tracer pointed out, if someone is omnipotent and they want something to happen, consider it done. It is inconceivable that anything could possibly stand in their way.

This was what I was talking about when I cautioned against veiled references that actually boil down to an assertion that one of the four conditions were false. This would be number 2: According to the Bible, God wants everybody to be Christian. I never said that God couldn’t make everybody non-Christian; on the contrary, I would ask you to (Biblicly) prove your point that God doesn’t want everybody to be Christian.

Granted, we are still debating this. That was what the “if” meant.

see my comments at the beginning of the post.

could you give me a reader’s digest version, maybe a few key passages? It would be great ammo the next time someone stops me on the street. (Also does this apply to Christianity?)

it’s always strategic to give yourself a backdoor exit if, in fact, you do turn out to be wrong.

11

DAV ID –

Maybe we can cut to the chase. Christianity is not generally amenable to proof; it is a religion grounded on faith. There is no independent proof for the existence of Jesus Christ (though, on balance, it seems possible that such a person, human or divine, existed); there is no independent proof for the Resurrection; there is no independent proof for most of the small, human-scale events related in the New Testament (such as the Marriage in Caanan). So if you’re looking for “independent proof” of the NT, you won’t find it. Most Christians don’t care much about that, since the religion is grounded in faith. In any event, I don’t know of any book that contains factual information that I would take at face value, without other proof. That is not inconsistent with Christianity.

The existence and resurrection of Jesus Christ is for the vast majority of Christians an article of faith. As such, you will find that it is not very amenable to attack, since you are not in a position to prove any of us wrong.

Biblical literalism is as important or unimportant as the person you’re talking to deems it. For fundamentalists, the Bible is a self-proving document; it proves the existence of God because it is the unerring Word of God, and it is the unerring Word of God because it says so. For many other Christians, however, the existence of God is in no way dependent on the Bible, and term “Biblical literalism” is deemed to refer to other matters, such as creationism. It is not a matter fo “trivial details;” Biblical literalists believe every word of the Bible is the unerring Word of God. I’m sure you can see that that view, opposed to a view that the Bible was written by fallible men, and therefore contains the mistakes of men, is not a trivial matter.

I have reviewed the fifth paragraph; it in no way explains how or why you feel qualified to set up a false choice by which one of four choices, none of which on its face must be false, must nevertheless be deemed false.

Incorrect. The idea of free will means that God at some point made the decision to leave to human beings the choice of following Him (through His Son or some other means) or not. Simply because He could make everyone desire to do so doesn’t mean He has to make everyone desire to do so. You seek to posit a God who is Himself omnipotent but lacks the free will to refrain from exercising all His options. That itself is inconsistent with the idea of omnipotence. Simply because an omnipotent being wants something to happen doesn’t mean we must “consider it done” if that being doesn’t compel it to happen. And free will provides the explanation why He would NOT Himself accomplish some goal He wants to be done. This is basic Christian theology, by the way.

Sorry, DAVE. Fiirst, the opposite of “God wants everyone to be Christian” is not “God wants everyone to be non-Christian.” So you’re setting up another (illogical) choice. Second, the assertion that God wants everyone to be Christian is yours, not mine. Therefore it is up to you to prove it. You posit #2 as a given; it is therefore up to you to prove it, not up to me to disprove it. In any event, and as I have already said, just because God may desire everyone to be Chrstian – a hypothesis I don’t personally agee with – doesn’t mean He will override free will to make everyone Christian. I have not said that God does notwant everyone to be Christian – how would I know? – so it again is not something I am required to prove or disprove.

A readers digest condensed version of the OT? Are you serious? No. But here’s a clue: The OT is part of the Bible; it is also part of Judaism. But Jews are definitionally not Christians. Therefore any theory that asserts “according to the Bible, God wants everyone to be Christian” is on its face incorrect, to the extent that it does not acknowledge that the OT is not a Christian text while the NT is.

Maybe your idea of debate includes having people make your arguments for you, so they can then knock them down, but I think you’ll find around here that people are not generally willing to work that hard. Nos. 1 through 4 are your assertions; if you want to stand on them, then you can prove them.

12

DAV ID –

Maybe we can cut to the chase. Christianity is not generally amenable to proof; it is a religion grounded on faith. There is no independent proof for the existence of Jesus Christ (though, on balance, it seems possible that such a person, human or divine, existed); there is no independent proof for the Resurrection; there is no independent proof for most of the small, human-scale events related in the New Testament (such as the Marriage in Caanan). So if you’re looking for “independent proof” of the NT, you won’t find it. Most Christians don’t care much about that, since the religion is grounded in faith. In any event, I don’t know of any book that contains factual information that I would take at face value, without other proof. That is not inconsistent with Christianity.

The existence and resurrection of Jesus Christ is for the vast majority of Christians an article of faith. As such, you will find that it is not very amenable to attack, since you are not in a position to prove any of us wrong.

Biblical literalism is as important or unimportant as the person you’re talking to deems it. For fundamentalists, the Bible is a self-proving document; it proves the existence of God because it is the unerring Word of God, and it is the unerring Word of God because it says so. For many other Christians, however, the existence of God is in no way dependent on the Bible, and term “Biblical literalism” is deemed to refer to other matters, such as creationism. It is not a matter fo “trivial details;” Biblical literalists believe every word of the Bible is the unerring Word of God. I’m sure you can see that that view, opposed to a view that the Bible was written by fallible men, and therefore contains the mistakes of men, is not a trivial matter.

I have reviewed the fifth paragraph; it in no way explains how or why you feel qualified to set up a false choice by which one of four choices, none of which on its face must be false, must nevertheless be deemed false.

Incorrect. The idea of free will means that God at some point made the decision to leave to human beings the choice of following Him (through His Son or some other means) or not. Simply because He could make everyone desire to do so doesn’t mean He has to make everyone desire to do so. You seek to posit a God who is Himself omnipotent but lacks the free will to refrain from exercising all His options. That itself is inconsistent with the idea of omnipotence. Simply because an omnipotent being wants something to happen doesn’t mean we must “consider it done” if that being doesn’t compel it to happen. And free will provides the explanation why He would NOT Himself accomplish some goal He wants to be done. This is basic Christian theology, by the way.

Sorry, DAVE. Fiirst, the opposite of “God wants everyone to be Christian” is not “God wants everyone to be non-Christian.” So you’re setting up another (illogical) choice. Second, the assertion that God wants everyone to be Christian is yours, not mine. Therefore it is up to you to prove it. You posit #2 as a given; it is therefore up to you to prove it, not up to me to disprove it. In any event, and as I have already said, just because God may desire everyone to be Chrstian – a hypothesis I don’t personally agee with – doesn’t mean He will override free will to make everyone Christian. I have not said that God does notwant everyone to be Christian – how would I know? – so it again is not something I am required to prove or disprove.

A readers digest condensed version of the OT? Are you serious? No. But here’s a clue: The OT is part of the Bible; it is also part of Judaism. But Jews are definitionally not Christians. Therefore any theory that asserts “according to the Bible, God wants everyone to be Christian” is on its face incorrect, to the extent that it does not acknowledge that the OT is not a Christian text while the NT is.

Maybe your idea of debate includes having people make your arguments for you, so they can then knock them down, but I think you’ll find around here that people are not generally willing to work that hard. Nos. 1 through 4 are your assertions; if you want to stand on them, then you can prove them.

13

David, God of Frogs, have you considered the possibility that God wants everyone to choose to be faithful?

If I were a schoolteacher, I would probably want all of my class to pass. I have the power to do so, seeing as I’m the one who enters grades in. Does that mean that, if I don’t, I’m insincere about my wish for successful students? Does it mean that I’m somehow incapable of making my students pass? No. It simply means that I choose not to.

I firmly believe that God would want to create a meaningful world over a world of automatons.

14

First, Jodi is a saint for taking the time to show you all the flaws in your reasoning.

Next, you said…

then you said…

I apologize if I misread your post as being a logical attack on God instead of only on His followers. My point still applies.

Incidentally, your OP reads like a poorly written LSAT question. If I understand you, what you are trying to say is this:

a)The Bible is a trustworthy source of information
b) According to the Bible, God is omnipotent.
c) According to the Bible, God wants everybody to be Christian.
[implied d] If God is omnipotent, everything will happen the way God wants it to happen
e) According to the Bible’s standards of Christianity, not everyone is Christian.

You then reason that because not everyone is a Christian premise (a) must be false. As has been pointed out to you below your implied premise (d) need not be true. All you have done is set forth a false dilemma.
As I see it your argument fails 1) because God/Religion don’t need to be logical and therefore applying logical reasoning is inappropriate in any case and 2) Even if God/Religion needed to be logical, you have not set forth a valid argument form to prove, or disprove, anything at all.

15

Others have already addressed this, but I’d like to point out another flaw in your argument.

(1) and (2) only contradict (3) if we assume that God wants everyone to be a Christian at all costs – that is, including free will. In other words, your argument contains an implicit external assumption. From this, we can see that (1) and (2) do not automatically preclude (3).
To cite an earthly example, I want to lead a long and happy life. However, I would not want to do so at the expense of someone else’s life. There are dimensions to my desire – vital conditions which one must consider.

I’ve found that most similar arguments against God’s existence, or against Christianity, likewise contain such implicit assumptions. That’s what happens when we are too hasty in inferring a contradiction.

16

It has already been mentioned that god does not necessarily want everyone to be christian, and that even if he did just because he could do it doesn’t mean he would, because of the potential cost.

But as for the free will question, I don’t see why god couldn’t make us all christians while preserving our free will. If god is omnipotent, OF COURSE he could make everyone christian without taking away free will. It’s the difference between prediction and actively changing that is hard to grasp. God knows everything that will ever happen. Therefore he knows which of the people he creates will ever become christians. Therefore all he would have to do is only create those people who he predicts will become christians, and he has created all free willed christians. In fact if he did it like this people would have free will, faith would still be required, and we would all be christians. There is no contradiction here, as one of you thought.

17

This argument strikes me as. . . well, cute. What’s hard for me to grasp is why you think it proves anything. It’s also hard for me to believe that I’m responding to it, but here goes. Sure, an omnipotent God could create only those free-will creatures that he/she/it knows will choose to be Christians, but that would be circumventing free will. What about those people this God chose not to create, knowing that they would be atheists if given free will? Could God create them, give them free will, and yet force them to be Christians? Of course not. It’s a simple contradiction in terms. Could God make me a Christian without providing any evidence? Not without taking away my free will and my reason.

It’s easy to make up paradoxes, inconceivable situations that could not possibly exist, and accuse God of not being omnipotent because of them. That’s cheating, and it doesn’t prove that God is not omnipotent. There are plenty of good reasons for rejecting Christianity without resorting to such twisting of words.

In response to an earlier post:

and then

**

Actually, I didn’t say that, but I would suggest that logic is pretty good at determining what is possible. What it isn’t very good at (and this is what I said) is addressing theological issues, which is what you are trying to do. Unsuccessfully, so far.

18

Rjung

You’re right. It is an error. An equivocation, as a matter of fact. That God can do anything that can be done does not require that God do everything that can be done. The argument made by the Opening Post fails prima facie.

19

I have not read through the entire thread yet (usually an error), but although (4) is somewhat true – the Bible’s purpose is not to be an inerrant reference work, anyway – your argument falls flat on one quite significant flaw.

While you’re not omnipotent, why have you not posted the sort of trollery that would get you banned? You’re certainly capable, in terms of ability to type and mental acuteness, to identify what sort of post that would be and how to sufficiently anger the administration to induce a banning. I would hazard a guess that you have no interest in producing such a post, valuing your membership here adequately to instead actively choose to avoid doing so.

Ability does not mandate action. An omnipotent god or goddess might decide to turn everyone but Freyr into penguins, and him into a giraffe, simply for kicks. But he need not do it.

Going along with my comment on (1), your statement here is true but misleading. More accurately:

  1. According to the Bible, God wants everybody to choose to be Christian.
20

At this point I would say that door stands wide open.