About the author

Admin

I hope you enjoy the content we have on this site! If you want to reproduce any articles we write then we appreciate if you give credit to defenseofreason.com and provide a link to our page. However, the ideas themselves are more important than this site, so feel free to adapt the portions you agree with to use in your own writings or videos (as long as you do not copyright portions that include our work).

Related Articles

6 Comments

  1. 1

    Tess

    The only issue I have with this argument is that you are defining the Christian god as completely benevolent, however when observing the actions of the Christian god within the bible there are several passages that disprove this benevolence. That in itself is enough to disprove the benevolence of the Christian god, whereas there are several ways to disprove the omnipotence within the bible as well.

    Rather than feel it is necessary to take an entirely new stance on the argument, I believe there is enough evidence and contradiction present within the bible to formulate an argument against the existence of the Christian god. Which, when presented in the proper manner, is evidence that these fanatics–such as Mr. Feuerstein–cannot deny.

    Reply
    1. 1.1

      Aaron

      That’s definitely a good point and I considered that when I started writing. However I decided that my goal was not to refute the god of the Bible, as it is too nebulous and we would run into Christians disagreeing with my definition, which would not be a good starting point. Plus it involves internal contradictions about its character, as you mentioned.

      Instead my goal is to address the concept of God as defined by Christians – Feuerstein specifically. And while he does not specifically define “god” in his video, others do, and complete benevolence is one of its properties that they seem to all agree on (in addition to omnipotence, etc).

      To offer my specific basis for rejecting the god described by the Bible I would need to explain other evidence. Although perhaps it would be quite short since the internal conflicts within the Bible’s description of God would be enough to render the concept incoherent (and therefore there would be nothing to even need to disprove).

  2. 2

    Jean

    My comment was to be very similar to Tess’. I was going to point out that the xtian gawd is not a benevolent one, but I see by your comment above what your thinking was regarding that. Good luck!

    Reply
    1. 2.1

      Aaron

      Thank you. I will probably add those points into the article itself in order to avoid confusion.

  3. 3

    Jason

    I think your argument is flawed and doesn’t necessarily disprove the Christian God. I’m thinking you should also know I’m neither a Christian nor an atheist, open to both concepts, including many others.

    First off, neither Christians nor the Bible purports that their God “desires to … reduce suffering as much as possible.”

    Christians believe that God gave man free-will. They argue it is man, as influenced by Satan, who creates “suffering” by not aligning their actions with God’s commandments. For Christians, God’s benevolence is evident through two things: 1. God gave mankind Jesus Christ as a saviour through which they can reject all suffering. 2. God will not force or directly influence people to follow his teachings / ways.

    Therefore, God’s “job” is not to reduce suffering as much as possible, but to extend a helping hand to those who are suffering, and a promise of salvation. They argue that although God is all-powerful, omniscient, and omnipresent, forcing his will on mankind and the earth would be basically fraudulent love on both mankind’s part and God’s. They say this also makes God suffer. It’s a real dichotomy. It reminds me of how science insists that tests cannot be performed in a manner in which the tester influences the results.

    Btw, some Christians also argue that free-will is what caused poor translations of the Bible. They say that in the original written versions as read in the tongue at the time, we’d see that no contradictions exist. Unfortunately, this can never be proven because we can’t go back in time to live those languages and no originals exist, only “copies”. And, we all know how languages change over time, let alone over 3,000 years. Free-will can be a real bitch, lol.

    In the end, though, arguing that the Christian God can’t exist because suffering is evident in our world doesn’t actually pass the test.

    Reply
    1. 3.1

      Aaron

      //First off, neither Christians nor the Bible purports that their God “desires to … reduce suffering as much as possible.”//

      Christians claim that God is all benevolent (and benevolent means “well meaning and kind”, which in turn means opposition to suffering) and all-loving (what definition of love includes creating a situation that is filled with suffering despite it being completely in your control to do otherwise?) and does not desire us to suffer at all (Christians just owe suffering to the flawed “free will” argument). I am quite familiar with Christian apologetics. As for what the Bible specifically says, please see my reply to the others who brought up that point.

      As for the rest, you would have to do as the article said and read my other article which is linked (the one titled “Is The Problem of Evil a Valid Argument?”). I’m not sure why so many people are ignoring that crucial part of the article. The issue is that a God that is genuinely loving and benevolent would not produce a world and conditions such that suffering would occur. Christian ways of trying to reconcile and rationalize their incompatible logic does not qualify as a valid argument.

      PS – re. these tangent issues:

      //God gave mankind Jesus Christ as a saviour through which they can reject all suffering.//

      I’m not sure what you mean by that. The Christian belief is that Jesus provides the way to attain eternal bliss and freedom from suffering. Is that what you meant by “reject suffering”?

      //They say this also makes God suffer.//

      I’ve never heard that before. The Christian view is that God is self sufficient and cannot suffer.

      // It reminds me of how science insists that tests cannot be performed in a manner in which the tester influences the results.//

      That is a completely different situation. Scientists are just trying to learn about something and see how it plays out. Christians believe that God already knows everything, and could have designed everything in a fundamentally different way.

      //Btw, some Christians also argue that free-will is what caused poor translations of the Bible.//

      It’s a very poor argument though, because as many people have pointed out, if God intends for the Bible to be his message to earth then why would he not preserve it? That would be screwing over latter generations for the translation mistakes of some scribes who lived hundreds or thousands of year before. A lack of a preserved oriignal complete verifable copy of the Bible is just more evidence against Christianity.

Leave a Comment (Log in with Facebook, Twitter, or WordPress)

2014 Powered By Wordpress, Goodnews Theme By Momizat Team