Is God a Jerk? (Part 3)

Is God a Jerk

In Part 1 and Part 2 we looked at who God claims to be, what He claims to do, and compared it with our common experience. Through that study we saw some of the necessary (and logical) conclusions do not allow us to view God as a jerk (or whatever word you fancy most).

But I stated at the end of Part 2 that we had not yet mined all of the necessary observations from this discussion. I would like to tackle two of those today and start by saying . . .

Don’t Fight Allah With the Allah

Two or three times in my life I’ve heard people (who say they believe in God) judge God as being unfair. Once I heard someone (who claimed to be a Christian!) call God a very inappropriate name which can be loosely interpreted as “jerk.”

But most of the time I hear people refer to God in less than favorable ways, it’s coming from self-professing atheists. They’re the ones who will frequently cite the four life experiences we discussed earlier as evidence that the God of the Bible isn’t everything Christians say He is. The four experiences I’m referring to are:

  1. He demands loyalty to Him alone.
  2. He’s anything but tolerant.
  3. He allows evil and wickedness to abound – especially to good people.
  4. He allows destruction, pain, sickness, and suffering (again, often ravaging the good of the world).

But the thing that stupefies me the most is that they even bother. Let me explain.

A Poor Choice of Weapon

I’ve never wasted a moment of my life being mad at Allah. I’ve never blamed him for anything. And when I’ve had the opportunity to talk to people about the fact that Allah doesn’t exist, I didn’t waste my time quoting passages from the Quran to point out its inconsistencies (of which there are plenty).

Allah isn’t real. He has no effect whatsoever on my life, and though I think belief in Allah is wrong and destructive, I’ll probably never try to argue away his inexistence with the Quran. I have better weapons at my disposal.

My point it this . . . if you say you don’t believe in God, don’t use His Word to argue He doesn’t exist. It doesn’t make sense because any and all of the potential doctrinal, textual, and/or logical inconsistencies of the Scriptures have been repeatedly shown to be erroneous by professionals in every field. Every word of the Bible is consistent with who God reveals Himself to be in Scripture, and there isn’t a shred of verifiable evidence that the world isn’t functioning exactly how He said it did and would.

An Inaccurate Handling of the Weapon

If two people are dueling with swords, and one of them has no idea what he’s doing, is it possible that he may wound his attacker? Yes. But that neither means he’s any good at what he’s doing or that he’s going to win. Furthermore, the more competent his attacker, the more impotent his own defense will be. To the same degree, if someone’s going to argue against God using the Bible, they had better use it correctly.

It would be completely inappropriate for me to argue that the U.S. government is flawed because the constitution celebrates anarchy. Why? Because the constitution doesn’t make that claim.

The Bible also doesn’t say what many of its detractors attribute to it. @Atheist_Deity commented on Part 2 by saying that . . .

“If the aim of the Jesus story is to preach tolerance, respect and being good to thy neighbour then someone who lives by those values without believing in god would be more worthy of entering heaven than a sinner who believed and repented before death. A god who rewards those who love him but act against him more than those who live well despite not believing is not an entity capable of creating a universe or guiding billions of years of evolution. That creature would be jealous, insecure, demanding of attention and petty.”

I would agree with his observations about God if, in fact, the Bible taught what he claims. But nowhere is it the ultimate aim of any part of Scripture to teach tolerance, respect, or even merely being good to your neighbor. If that were true, then God would be unjust to condemn tolerant, respectful people who are kind to their neighbors. But, that’s not what the Bible says.

So, why do atheists choose to wield a rusty weapon they’ve had no legitimate success with?

Don’t Fight Teapots with Negativity

Prove that God doesn’t exist.

Every debater knows it’s a rookie mistake to be tricked into trying to prove a negative.

Russell’s Teapot addresses this issue. Bertrand Russell wrote in an unpublished article that . . .

“Many people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

On the surface, this quote may seem to be working at cross-purposes to me, but it’s not.

The fact of the matter is that no person in the cosmos can prove that God doesn’t exist. Oh, some try, but atheists much smarter than they know it’s impossible. Yet despite this insurmountable task, the ones dead-set on proving God never existed still grab at any weapon they can to swing around. And the only weapon they have to discredit God is the one marked “Proof the Bible’s Wrong.”

You will find that every argument against God’s existence is a direct attack against the validity of Scripture. Sometimes it takes the form of, “The Bible says people were created, but we know scientifically that people evolved. See, the Bible is wrong.” Or sometimes it’s, “The Bible says you shouldn’t kill, but then God commands the Israelites to kill a bunch of people. See, God’s a jerk, and that type of God isn’t worthy of our worship.” A little harder to recognize is the, I’ve-just-used-a-reasoned-argument-to-disprove-his-existence-weapon. Nevertheless, like its dented cousins, this blade attempts to clang away at the foundational precept that reality is what the Bible says.

Unfortunately for its wielder, these weapons are quite dull and ineffective against a skilled swordsman. There isn’t a single claim made by atheists that legitimately contradicts the Bible. Even the evolution argument falls flat, since there are many atheistic scientists who argue that the theory of Darwinian evolution is “spurious” at best.

In Conclusion

If Russell were right, it’s my responsibility to prove that God exists instead of demanding the atheist to prove He doesn’t.

And that is what all of this has been about.

  1. When you take the Bible for what it actually says and actually means (use the proper hermeneutic), and
  2. Compare what it says to life and the experiences in it,
  3. You find that it is 100% reliable and consistent.

But that would be impossible for a book written . . .

over a period of roughly 2,000 years by 40 different authors from three continents, who wrote in three different languages.”

So, if it did happen that one Book could be written that would stand in the face of whatever attack was brought to bear on its pages – and which is completely unified, consistent, cohesive, and accurate – one may start to think that such a thing is impossible. In fact, there would be no other legitimate, logical explanation than the Bible is exactly what it claims to be . . . the infallible words of an infinitely perfect God.

Well, we’ve just found our proof that God exists.

And He’s not a jerk.

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “Is God a Jerk? (Part 3)

  1. @atheist_deity

    Sorry Aaron, but you didn’t prove anything, not even from a logical fallacy perspective. You’re now claiming evolution isn’t true, that many scientists agree (which they don’t) and that the bible is completely consistent through its history. You also point a veiled insult in my direction regarding my use of a dull blade against your expert swordsmanship yet, you again failed to address almost any of the points I made re the bible being written by men.
    The Bertrand tea-pot is the perfect argument but not one I would have used myself since it’s a little obvious and I knew you would have a response thereto. I was being generic rather that specific re the teachings of Jesus but if you are going to claim that he did not preach tolerance and respect then I think we read different teachings.
    Let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone
    Suffer the little children
    Happy are the meek etc etc
    Yes, there are counter points but that is the very reason why I chose to avoid bible quotes wherever possible since they are open to interpretation and can be easily taken out of context. I genuinely think you have failed to address many of the key points made, and indeed you introduce a new, interesting one. How can you be so sure that Allah is fake and unreal? If you accept god exists and that Jesus was real, the Muslims believe both of these but attribute the role of prophet to Jesus, not supernatural being. So why is their model of god any less valid than yours?
    Finally, if the perfect nature of the bible is your evidence for a god then I invite you to research the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanicus. This site contains links, quotes and a reference to the book Revision Revised by a Christian scholar. http://www.vatileaks.com/_blog/Vati_Leaks/post/Why_does_God_keep_changing_his_word/
    I would be interested to hear your response. But I would also say that it is disingenuous to say that those who do not believe in god should be unable to use the bible as any kind of evidence or battle ground. If a believer is going to use the book to prove their point, we should be able to point out the inconsistencies.

    Like

    1. AMBrewster

      Based off of what information? And since I have laid out my arguments concerning how the Biblical data does not support that assumption, I believe the burden of proof falls on you to support your statement.

      Like

      1. The burden of proof falls into the arena of the person who has absolutely NO proof as to the existence of his mythological figure! Are you kidding me?? Gimme proof!!

        Like

      2. AMBrewster

        I did. If God doesn’t exist, then the Bible wouldn’t be what it is. Every critique of its accuracy, every accusation against its consistency, every attack against its efficacy has been summarily answered ad nauseum. The thing is perfect.

        Google whatever you want, post it here, and I will show you how the attack is unfounded, scholarlarily immature, or a deliberate twisting of the evidence.

        In addition, the Bible is reasonable. You have as of yet to explain to me why the logic I used from the Word of God itself is flawed.

        I look forward to your comments.

        Like

      3. Actually some of the world’s greatest handwriting and language experts have signed off on the bible being a hodge podge of thrown together writings sometimes within a single book! Google it.

        Like

      4. AMBrewster

        Once again, your sources (unnamed to this point) are the “greatest” and mine clearly don’t know what they’re talking about.

        Even though every Jewish Rabbi living in the 1st century gave their full and unrelenting validity to the accuracy and authenticy of the Old Testament. Clearly a bunch of guys living today with the goal to prove the Bible couldn’t have been written by God are far more trustworthy.

        Like

      5. AMBrewster

        And now we’ve stooped to name calling. By all means. Please prove him wrong.

        He’s done more real science and worked with more real scientists than either of us. But because you disagree with him, he’s a “nut job.”

        How convenient.

        Like

      6. AMBrewster

        Let me pose some questions. Let’s assume for a moment that there’s a deity who’s exactly like the one described in the Bible, a.k.a. All Powerful.

        Could an omnipotent being create a cell? Yes.
        Could an omnipotent being create a fully formed baby? Of course.
        Could an omnipotent being create an adult with an appearance of 30 years of age? No problem.
        Could an omnipotent being create a universe with the appearance of millions of years of age?

        I think you see where I’m going with this. The apparent age of the world/universe/rocks does not somehow intrinsically disprove the Bible.

        Like

      7. AMBrewster

        In response to the video you posted, I answered his question in these posts: There’s no human, natural explanation for the Bible’s consistency, uniformity, and accuracy.

        Also, in regard to the video, there are no “scientific” studies that could possibly explain the beginning of life. Philosophy can argue, historians can debate, theologians can believe, but no observable/repeatable experiment (science) can prove the beginning of life.

        So, since origins are outside the ability for science to answer, all of the scientists who try are being very unscientific. So, it’s up to the people whose jobs qualify them to make assertions about things that are not observable or repeatable to chime in.

        And though this isn’t a “proof” for God, there is nothing in this world that is scientific (observable and repeatable) that in any way disproves the Bible.

        P.S. And the guy who called in was an ignorant jerk. The Atheists were far more polite. There was no excuse for that.

        Like

      8. AMBrewster

        I encourage you to refute this video using logical reasoned argument. What you’ll find is . . . you can’t (no one can) without embracing glaring fallacies.

        Like

      9. What cannot be refuted is that none of you ever address that GOD cannot come from nothing, never mind the universe. God has to have a beginning which makes him finite as well.

        Like

      10. The actual facts of the matter are that we have well well worn and trusted experimental models of the very things that this video refutes. There are volumes ad nauseum describing evolutionary processes and thousands of transitionary fossils on record at the touch of a Google search. God, on the other hand, cannot be proven at all. Using science to refute science while trying to support myth is the apologists first line of defense in arguing against science that they cannot debunk. The above video is an argument heard thousands and thousands of times before and refuted by the brilliance of Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, Andrews, Coyne, just to name a few. Google American Journal of Science and some of the many papers written concerning evolution. Please don’t insult intelligence with this sophomoric pedestrian crap that can be refuted by most high school biology students. See TheThinkingatheist.com for last week’s show that addressed this very thing in a book written by two scientifically trained fellows who broke away from religion.

        Like

      11. Based off of the most simplest of scientific methods. Where is the proof? You can’t prove the Bible WITH the Bible, AND you cannot use non-scientifically accepted sources. A simple Google search will provide MILLIONS of pages of data supporting Evolution.

        Like

      12. AMBrewster

        1. Have you done the study? You sound like a man quoting what he’s been told his whole life. What scientific methods are you referring to? Have you observed and repeated inter-species evolution? Neither have the men and women who preach it. Something must be observable and repeatable to be considered science. Your scientists are more akin to interpreters. They look at the evidence and take guesses as to what made that happen. That’s not science, not matter how many test tubes you have.

        2. Just because you don’t like my sources, does not give you or anyone else the right to carte blanche declare that they are “unscientific” just because they disagree with your point of view. They’re all using the same test tubes, it’s just my scientists are coming to different conclusions about what they find . . . because they can no more observe and repeat creation as your scientists can observe and repeat inter-species evolution.

        Like

What're your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s