No, I do NOT reject God

[JRKH]

If an atheist gets a hold of a Host and desecrates it by giving it to his dog or desecrates it in another fashion and posts it on YouTube, does he go to Hell if he thinks it’s 1-inconsequential 2-just flour and water, and nothing else. He doesn’t have knowledge that it’s grave matter and probably doesn’t know what a mortal sin is either. If he does that seconds before dying, and he has no mortal sin on his soul prior to this event, is he saved?

As Millie responded, we cannot declare with certainty…But I believe that we can draw certain (non-binding) conclusions assuming sufficient information is supplied in a given scenario…I believe that you have done so above…

First, you describe the person as an “Atheist”…one who does not believe in God.
Second, he acquires a host, desecrates it, records the desecration and post it on YouTube.

The facts presented in the second point above, indicates that the person
a) knew this was a thing “holy” to Catholics.
b) acquired it with the intent to desecrate and
c) actively insult Catholics by posting it to a public viewing site.

These things work against the idea that he does not know the gravity of his action since, by what is provided by the scenario, it appears it is done with intent that is contrary, not only to Catholic/Christian belief, but contrary to normally accepted morality…treating others with respect (the Golden Rule).
The person who dies this, knows that they are acting in a deliberately insulting and hateful way and freely chooses to do it anyway. This is gravely sinful even by the standards of “common decency” in society.

Such a person is considerably different from a person like Trurl, or Portofino, who by their posts demonstrate a respect for others beliefs even if they disagree…remain unconvinced.
The likelihood of Trurl an Portofino being saved is, in my opinion, greater than that of the person described in your scenario…

Again - I’m making no judgement…As Millie stated…we leave that up to God.

Peace
James

 

[carn]

Non-christians are logically incapable of “rejecting” God, since they do not believe that God exists.

Non-christians are, just like christians, capable of rejecting what is true and good and thereby they can reject God or accept him. The latter is probably harder for them than for christians.

 

[JRKH]

I try to be consistent. When I speak of the “god as described by christianity” I capitalize the word and write “God”. In those rare instances, when I wish to speak of the “generalized” god-concept, I do not capitalize. So I don’t think that there is any flaw in the argument. But, setting it aside, let me reflect on the next part.

yea - I knew I was “nit-picking” a bit…Thanks for the clarification.

You explained is clearly… and guess, what? I agree!

Whew - I’m glad.

Let me summarize: I do not believe that there is, or can be anything outside the physical universe.

Perhaps we communicate differently…but again, this is a positive statement that lacks evidence to support it. In fact - it is really just as much of a statement of faith as anything we believers can make.

Even the word “exists” outside the universe is an “undefined” word.

Agree here…Many times we can suffer from problems in communication either because we don’t understand terms in the same way, or because out language and common experience does not provide a good way to express something.

Yet, none of this denies, or rejects the possibility that there is “something” or maybe “someone” who played an instrumental role in the environment we call the “universe”.

Well - I disagree. Saying, “I do not believe that there is, or can be anything outside the physical universe”, is quite a bit different than saying "I do not know that there can be…
In the first there is an implicit position of rejection until proven otherwise. The second is an implicitly neutral position…The second demonstrates an openness to the “possibility” much more than the first does.

To briefly express the difference…When the person who says “I do not believe” comes before God, he will naturally say - you are not God for God does not exist.
When the person who says “I don’t know” comes before God he will naturally say, "Are you God?

Simplistic I know…but I think it communicates my thought pretty well.

Indeed, there is a very loosely defined concept, called “god” or “God” - which may or may not have a referent in reality. To reject or deny this concept, I do NOT reject or deny the “referent” of this concept. Please read the post by Portofino, later in the thread for more details.

I did read Portofino’s very fine post. I think it demonstrates well how people on both sides of the discussion can tend to “lump” things together, make less than accurate generalizations and generally mis-communicate.
His discussion of the matter of “invincible ignorance” is a good one…That is a concept that is tricky to really get a handle on…especially since it really requires an intimate knowledge of another person. Something that we cannot really get here, but something that God has and personally, I grateful that He does…

Peace
James

 

[Robertanthony]

As Millie responded, we cannot declare with certainty…But I believe that we can draw certain (non-binding) conclusions assuming sufficient information is supplied in a given scenario…I believe that you have done so above…

First, you describe the person as an “Atheist”…one who does not believe in God.
Second, he acquires a host, desecrates it, records the desecration and post it on YouTube.

The facts presented in the second point above, indicates that the person
a) knew this was a thing “holy” to Catholics.
b) acquired it with the intent to desecrate and
c) actively insult Catholics by posting it to a public viewing site.

These things work against the idea that he does not know the gravity of his action since, by what is provided by the scenario, it appears it is done with intent that is contrary, not only to Catholic/Christian belief, but contrary to normally accepted morality…treating others with respect (the Golden Rule).
The person who dies this, knows that they are acting in a deliberately insulting and hateful way and freely chooses to do it anyway. This is gravely sinful even by the standards of “common decency” in society.

Such a person is considerably different from a person like Trurl, or Portofino, who by their posts demonstrate a respect for others beliefs even if they disagree…remain unconvinced.
The likelihood of Trurl an Portofino being saved is, in my opinion, greater than that of the person described in your scenario…

Again - I’m making no judgement…As Millie stated…we leave that up to God.

Peace
James

Thank you, JRKH. I did write “Is he”, when it would have been closer to my thought to write “Can he”, because I’m well aware that final judgement only belongs to God.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I understand your argument completely. You are saying that you cannot truly reject something whose existence you were not aware of. Just so, I cannot be said to have refused to let someone in, if I never heard them knocking or didn’t know they were out there. To say that I refused to let them in would be misleading.

This is an interesting analogy. However, where it breaks down is that in the case of God, the party doing the knocking is completely aware of all the movements and motivations of the one inside the house. Given omniscience, God would be fully aware of the inclinations of the householder and would only knock when he would be received positively by the individual in the house. It could be that the reason God doesn’t knock is that he is aware of the negative response that awaits.
So to claim “I never heard him knocking” could very well mean God wasn’t knocking, but the reason he wasn’t knocking was because of the negative response that he knew awaited him.

That a non-believer is incapable of rejecting God because they do not believe that God exists remains problematic, because, given the householder analogy, the reason they do reject God may be, given God’s omniscience, precisely because they are not properly disposed to accepting God and that fact is known by God, who, therefore, does not make himself known.

God is not a concept so to reject a concept of God means that what is being rejected is a mental construct, which should be rejected because the concept is not what God is. God is the omniscient Creator and Sustainer of all that is. As such, he knows each person better than they know themselves. In fact, to exist means to “be known by God.” In this sense, to know God means to have an awareness of “being known” by God or to be in a particular kind of relationship with God. To have an awareness of God’s creative (name removed by moderator)ut into one’s self.
If that is not present, then perhaps the indication is that God is effectively being disallowed by the person to have any creative (name removed by moderator)ut.

Recall, from the householder analogy, that God would know the inclination of the person towards knowledge of him and therefore would make himself known, i.e., knock, only when the person has an inclination to know God, but would not make himself known if the person had no such inclination. Therefore, to claim one does not “know” God is simply to say that one has no inclination to do so and therefore God has not made himself known to that person.

 

[Trurl]

yea - I knew I was “nit-picking” a bit…Thanks for the clarification.

To ask for clarification is not “nit-picking”. We do need to try to be as clear as we can be.

Perhaps we communicate differently…but again, this is a positive statement that lacks evidence to support it. In fact - it is really just as much of a statement of faith as anything we believers can make.

Hmmm… now I disagree. The statement I made: “I do not believe…” is definitely a positive statement, but since it pertains to my internal belief, how would that demand “evidence” to support it? I do not have “faith” about my own beliefs or disbeliefs - I am aware of them… or I KNOW them. Mind you: I did not say that “there can NOT be anything outside of the physical universe” - which would be a different kind of assertion.

However, this is good time to clarify the usage of the word “faith”. It is one of the most abused words around here. Many people assert that the lack of absolute, positive information about something equates “faith”. That kind of usage is extremely confusing and has only one use: “to muddy the waters”. Example: “I cannot ‘KNOW’ that in the next powerball drawing there will NOT be 100 jackpot winning tickets”. However, based upon the physical setup of the drawing it is extremely likely that such an outcome will NOT happen. To call this: “you have faith that this event will not occur” is intellectually dishonest - as a matter of fact this is a very reasonable assessment of what will most probably transpire. On the other hand, if someone would assert: “at the next drawing there WILL be 100 jackpot winning tickets” - that would be based upon “faith” and “blind faith” at that. To clarify one more time: “a reasonable expectation is NOT faith”.

Well - I disagree. Saying, “I do not believe that there is, or can be anything outside the physical universe”, is quite a bit different than saying "I do not know that there can be…

Now that IS nit-picking. If one does not “know”, then one makes an internal “assessment”: how likely is that the claim is true? When the likelyhood of the claim being true is very low, then the only rational conclusion is: “therefore I do not believe”. It does not exculde that the claim “might be true”, so there is an “openness” ther, but it demands a convincing evidence.

In the first there is an implicit position of rejection until proven otherwise. The second is an implicitly neutral position…The second demonstrates an openness to the “possibility” much more than the first does.

A higher degree of openness? As long as one accepts the possibility that one is mistaken that should be enough.

 

[JRKH]

To ask for clarification is not “nit-picking”. We do need to try to be as clear as we can be.

Hmmm… now I disagree. The statement I made: “I do not believe…” is definitely a positive statement, but since it pertains to my internal belief, how would that demand “evidence” to support it? I do not have “faith” about my own beliefs or disbeliefs - I am aware of them… or I KNOW them. Mind you: I did not say that “there can NOT be anything outside of the physical universe” - which would be a different kind of assertion.

However, this is good time to clarify the usage of the word “faith”. It is one of the most abused words around here. Many people assert that the lack of absolute, positive information about something equates “faith”. That kind of usage is extremely confusing and has only one use: “to muddy the waters”. Example: “I cannot ‘KNOW’ that in the next powerball drawing there will NOT be 100 jackpot winning tickets”. However, based upon the physical setup of the drawing it is extremely likely that such an outcome will NOT happen. To call this: “you have faith that this event will not occur” is intellectually dishonest - as a matter of fact this is a very reasonable assessment of what will most probably transpire. On the other hand, if someone would assert: “at the next drawing there WILL be 100 jackpot winning tickets” - that would be based upon “faith” and “blind faith” at that. To clarify one more time: “a reasonable expectation is NOT faith”.

Now that IS nit-picking. If one does not “know”, then one makes an internal “assessment”: how likely is that the claim is true? When the likelihood of the claim being true is very low, then the only rational conclusion is: “therefore I do not believe”. It does not exclude that the claim “might be true”, so there is an “openness” there, but it demands a convincing evidence.

A higher degree of openness? As long as one accepts the possibility that one is mistaken that should be enough.

Amen my friend…
Our brief exchange here is a wonderful expression of how difficult it is for us to communicate one with the other. It dovetails nicely with Portofino’s earlier post.
Obviously there are things “said” and things “heard” and they might not be the exact same things…depending on one’s background, experience and inclinations.

For myself, I still cannot figure how the statement, (or internal assessment), “I don’t believe god exists” can be anything other than a rejection of god…(as one internally assesses god).
I suppose that is just my own internal assessment of what I hear when I see “I don’t believe god exists”…

(Note: And I have deliberately used the small “g” god here…indicating “god” as a generalized principle rather than the “Christian defined” God.)

All else aside, I do enjoy these sorts of exchanges because they do prompt constructive thinking…

Peace
James

 

[Qoeleth]

People may reject the concept of God because of poor teaching, bad experience of those who claim to follow God, etc.

I think a lot of atheists actually reject ‘the Lord of this World’, because they see the word and its ways are often pretty bad. In fact, such a position, may be quite close to believing in the Unseen God of Heaven.

The idea that ‘believing in the concept of God’ is enough to get you into Heaven is against justice, as is the converse.

It is about the soul’s orientation (not the minds’).

 

[Portofino]

Every word is pure gold. Thanks! Your post should be a sticky and everone should be required to read AND understand it.

Thanks, Trurl

 

[Portofino]

This is an interesting analogy. However, where it breaks down is that in the case of God, the party doing the knocking is completely aware of all the movements and motivations of the one inside the house. Given omniscience, God would be fully aware of the inclinations of the householder and would only knock when he would be received positively by the individual in the house. It could be that the reason God doesn’t knock is that he is aware of the negative response that awaits.

Ironically, this would put into question the very possibility of invincible ignorance because, presumably, God would have knocked on the door — quite loudly – of any individual who was receptive to hearing His call. One could even go further and explain away all of the attenuating circumstances for non-belief – for example, God chose that person to be born in a thoroughly non-Christian environment, with no exposure to the Gospel, because He knew the individual would not have been receptive to it, anyway.

I have to admit – and I know this came up in a previous post, on a different thread! — that the omnipotence and omniscience and God can become so emphasized that it approaches a Calvinistic doctrine of predestination (that God knows how you would have chosen, so never knocks on your door in the first place).

 

[Peter_Plato]

Ironically, this would put into question the very possibility of invincible ignorance because, presumably, God would have knocked on the door — quite loudly – of any individual who was receptive to hearing His call. One could even go further and explain away all of the attenuating circumstances for non-belief – for example, God chose that person to be born in a thoroughly non-Christian environment, with no exposure to the Gospel, because He knew the individual would not have been receptive to it, anyway.

I have to admit – and I know this came up in a previous post, on a different thread! — that the omnipotence and omniscience and God can become so emphasized that it approaches a Calvinistic doctrine of predestination (that God knows how you would have chosen, so never knocks on your door in the first place).

The difference would be that omniscience and omnipotence could allow God to continually make available circumstances or situations to “draw” the individual into the possibility of listening for knocking without actually knocking - and without infringing on free will - until the individual, moved by continual indirect solicitation, both internal (inspiration) and external (circumstances and people), does actually come around, or not. However, given all possible indirect prompts on the part of God, there need not be recourse to some form of predestination to explain the process because fair opportunity to accept or refuse may have been made available.

This still leaves room for invincible ignorance because a certain level of coercive persuasion would never be breached by God. On the other hand, a culpable level of refusal could also be assessed.

See the following post for how free will could be reconciled with this point of view: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10048703&postcount=58

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is an interesting distinction that Lawrence Feingold makes in this talk (link below) between different kinds of graces that God provides to enable sanctification.

He distinguishes between operative and cooperative (actual) graces. Coincidentally, the distinguishing feature between them is the “answering” of the knock. In his view, following Augustine and Catholic theology in general, operative graces are those provided by God when the individual is not in a responsive mode (not listening or answering the knock) and cooperative graces that come into play when the individual has answered and allows God to enter into his will and actions.

hebrewca.ipower.com/SoundFiles/S9L06ActualGraceCooperation.mp3

 

[In_Spiration]

Trurl:

If one does not “know”, then one makes an internal “assessment”: how likely is that the claim is true? When the likelyhood of the claim being true is very low, then the only rational conclusion is: “therefore I do not believe”. It does not exculde that the claim “might be true”, so there is an “openness” ther, but it demands a convincing evidence.

I’m playing Texas Hold 'Em and I bluff unsuccessfully all the way until the final round of betting, at which point I justifiably believe that my odds of winning the hand are only around 10%. My opponent raises me, though, but just $50 more to call. I’ve already invested $1,500 in the total pot, so I call with the rationale that paying another $50 is indeed a warranted decision, even if to have a modest 10% chance at the $4,550 that’s up for grabs. I’m nevertheless “pot-committed,” so I should call regardless of whether or not I can find any further evidence that better favors my odds.

Likewise, justification re: faith in a given case often depends on how much value exactly is at stake, one’s current position and investment, the potential rewards/losses of various choices for action or refraining from action, and so forth. Basically, because the will is involved, beyond all the strict logical assessment, (broadly) ethical principles will in some way have to be invoked and applied. Enter: the ethics of belief and decision theory (and Pascal’s infamous wager?)…

 

[Trurl]

Our brief exchange here is a wonderful expression of how difficult it is for us to communicate one with the other. It dovetails nicely with Portofino’s earlier post.
Obviously there are things “said” and things “heard” and they might not be the exact same things…depending on one’s background, experience and inclinations.

Very true. As a matter of fact, I have tried several times to initiate threads with the sole purpose of finding a common (mutually accepted) definition for some basic concepts, so then we can build upon them. All were miserable failures… seem like that very few people are interested in such an endeavor.

For myself, I still cannot figure how the statement, (or internal assessment), “I don’t believe god exists” can be anything other than a rejection of god…(as one internally assesses god).
I suppose that is just my own internal assessment of what I hear when I see “I don’t believe god exists”…

How can I explain? Rejection to me would be something like this: “Someone comes up to me and offers something that I am free to accept or not accept”. The option of “not accept” equals “reject”. I must be aware of “what is there” to accept. The “thing” offered must be something that exists and I must be aware that it exists. By the same token, I do not reject Santa Ckaus, since it is just an imaginary being. However I can (and do) reject the assessment that Santa Claus travels around the globe and brings presents to the children. If God would manifest himself to me, and I would be convinced that God actually exists, THEN I would be in the position to either “worship” God, or “reject” him. (It would be a hard choice - because there is no third option: “let’s just leave each other alone”.)

All else aside, I do enjoy these sorts of exchanges because they do prompt constructive thinking…

Absolutely!

 

[Trurl]

I’m playing Texas Hold 'Em and I bluff unsuccessfully all the way until the final round of betting, at which point I justifiably believe that my odds of winning the hand are only around 10%. My opponent raises me, though, but just $50 more to call. I’ve already invested $1,500 in the total pot, so I call with the rationale that paying another $50 is indeed a warranted decision, even if to have a modest 10% chance at the $4,550 that’s up for grabs. I’m nevertheless “pot-committed,” so I should call regardless of whether or not I can find any further evidence that better favors my odds.

Yes and no. If that 50 bucks is all you have left, and your next paycheck is two weeks away, you might just decide to “fold”. I know I would.

Likewise, justification re: faith in a given case often depends on how much value exactly is at stake, one’s current position and investment, the potential rewards/losses of various choices for action or refraining from action, and so forth. Basically, because the will is involved, beyond all the strict logical assessment, (broadly) ethical principles will in some way have to be invoked and applied. Enter: the ethics of belief and decision theory (and Pascal’s infamous wager?)…

That is very true. There are lots of options to consider, and the result definitely depends on the “pay-off matrix”, so (as usual) there can be no generic (one size fits all) answer. Decision theory is just another name for Game theory, a very important branch of mathematics. On the other hand, Pascal’s wager is a very lousy attempt to “entice” someone to believe. Of course no one can volitionally force oneself to believe, though one can force onself to go through the “motions” and pretend to believe.

 

[Sair]

There is this argument about hell, that God does not send anyone to hell, rather there are people to reject God and God merely grants them their wish. Not a good argument. Non-christians are logically incapable of “rejecting” God, since they do not believe that God exists. Only christians could “reject” God, but I don’t think that they would not do that, since it would make no sense.

Of course the non-christians DO reject the arguments for God’s existence, they DO reject the concept of God. But to say that rejecting the “concept” is the same as rejecting the “alleged referent” of that concept is yet another logical error.

That’s a great call!

There’s a similar argument that nonbelievers must actually harbour some belief in God, must really care about God, since we seem to spend so much time arguing against religion and faith - but it’s one thing to get angry at God, as such, and quite another to get angry at the way people think and behave under the influence of belief in gods…

 

[JRKH]

Very true. As a matter of fact, I have tried several times to initiate threads with the sole purpose of finding a common (mutually accepted) definition for some basic concepts, so then we can build upon them. All were miserable failures… seem like that very few people are interested in such an endeavor.

Yes - I think I may have seen and perhaps participated in one of those threads.
It would seem that the “miserable failure” of the effort just demonstrates how far apart our worldviews are. I would imagine this is why some (on both sides of the discussion) become frustrated…and/or radical in their views of those on the other side.

Sometimes I wish I were better at the philosophical and logical arguments ala Aquinas, but in truth I am drawn more toward the mystical (Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross etc.) and these are not always conducive to the disciplines of logic and philosophy…
Hence I will tend to pop into these kinds of conversations for a bit in the hopes of finding some common ground, or improve understanding between parties…but then find I can’t really follow the conversation too well when things get too detailed (where the devil is…)

How can I explain? Rejection to me would be something like this: “Someone comes up to me and offers something that I am free to accept or not accept”. The option of “not accept” equals “reject”. I must be aware of “what is there” to accept. The “thing” offered must be something that exists and I must be aware that it exists. By the same token, I do not reject Santa Claus, since it is just an imaginary being. However I can (and do) reject the assessment that Santa Claus travels around the globe and brings presents to the children. If God would manifest himself to me, and I would be convinced that God actually exists, THEN I would be in the position to either “worship” God, or “reject” him. (It would be a hard choice - because there is no third option: “let’s just leave each other alone”.)

A very nice explanation. It’s helpful. Thanks.

For myself, while my journey took me out of any sort of organized religion and I came to doubt pretty much ALL commonly accepted description of God, I could never bring myself to make the statement, “God does not exist”.
There are a number of reasons for this but they all stemmed from the realization of my own limitations and that, while I could find fault with any “description” of God, I could not offer an argument against God’s existence that did not likewise contain serious flaws. Therefore, while I could ask many hard questions of the type you ask here, I could never bring myself to simply deny God’s existence based on “lack of evidence” or “logical fallacies” etc.

It always seemed to me that if a person is going to make a positive statement they should have a positive and convincing argument. Since “God” (or god) is such a generic term, stating that “God” does not exist requires a much broader and more inclusive refutation than just finding fault with a specific faith’s description of “God”
In truth, it seems that this is what you are saying as well, though you seem to be closer to the “God doesn’t exist” point of view than I could ever be.

Perhaps some of this will help to explain why people hear rejection when you say “not accept”…

Peace
James

 

[Trurl]

It would seem that the “miserable failure” of the effort just demonstrates how far apart our worldviews are.

Quite possible. But I want to point out, that we (on the opposite side of the “fence”) are in excellent agreement, when we address the issues, here and now. When we see a wonderful human, we agree that he is wonderful. When we see a horrible person, we agree that he is horrible. We both use the same “measuring rod”.

When we hear about rapist, we don’t ever contemplate: “well, we don’t really know his motives, and maybe his actions were in the best interest of the raped one - we just don’t know, and therefore we are not in the position of making a judgment call”. I am sure you see my point. There was an old Latin proverb: “Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi” - loosely translated as: “whatever is right for Jupiter, it is not right for an ox” indicating two different measuring systems for humans and for God. Of course that is countermanded by depicting the goddess of Justice wearing a blindfold - meaning that the act is measured, not the person who committed the act.

And this is the major stumbling block. Believers refuse to agree that a “horrible act” for humans is equally “horrible” for God. Of course this is called the fallacy of special pleading - and as such it is an impediment of being avle to reach over the “fence” toward the other. Whose fault is it?

It always seemed to me that if a person is going to make a positive statement they should have a positive and convincing argument. Since “God” (or god) is such a generic term, stating that “God” does not exist requires a much broader and more inclusive refutation than just finding fault with a specific faith’s description of “God”
In truth, it seems that this is what you are saying as well, though you seem to be closer to the “God doesn’t exist” point of view than I could ever be.

Yes, you are right. If one speaks of a “deistic god” without any specific “features”, there can be no arguments against that “god” (and no arguments for it, either). The more detailed the specification is, the easier it is to see the problems with the concept.

As an example, let’s contemplate a “gawd” (which was never really proposed) and let’s say that this “gawd” has two attributes: “gawd is green” and “gawd is red”. To refute the existence of this “gawd” is child’s play: “something cannot be both “green” and “red”, these attributes are contradictory”. But the believers of this “gawd” will counter your argument: “this is not a contradiction, this is a mystery”. And then what are you going to do? How will you explain them that there is no “mystery” there, just a plain old contradiction. Please contemplate this question seriously, and tell me your opinion.

 

[JRKH]

Quite possible. But I want to point out, that we (on the opposite side of the “fence”) are in excellent agreement, when we address the issues, here and now. When we see a wonderful human, we agree that he is wonderful. When we see a horrible person, we agree that he is horrible. We both use the same “measuring rod”.

When we hear about rapist, we don’t ever contemplate: “well, we don’t really know his motives, and maybe his actions were in the best interest of the raped one - we just don’t know, and therefore we are not in the position of making a judgment call”. I am sure you see my point. There was an old Latin proverb: “Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi” - loosely translated as: “whatever is right for Jupiter, it is not right for an ox” indicating two different measuring systems for humans and for God. Of course that is countermanded by depicting the goddess of Justice wearing a blindfold - meaning that the act is measured, not the person who committed the act.

And this is the major stumbling block. Believers refuse to agree that a “horrible act” for humans is equally “horrible” for God. Of course this is called the fallacy of special pleading - and as such it is an impediment of being able to reach over the “fence” toward the other. Whose fault is it?

Whose fault is it - is a rather loaded question. If one is inclined to place fault (which I am not prepared to do) then this, like so much other, is likely to depend on which side of the fence one is on.
I prefer not to find “fault”, but to seek communication, even if I’m not too good at it.
(I didn’t know what a “strawman argument” or “special pleading” even WAS before I came to this site…)

Yes, you are right. If one speaks of a “deistic god” without any specific “features”, there can be no arguments against that “god” (and no arguments for it, either). The more detailed the specification is, the easier it is to see the problems with the concept.

Amen - and the more we seek to try to describe the creator God, the more "defined’ we make Him and since He cannot be “defined”…well the trouble starts.
But it is a part of human nature to want to “know” and this leads to questions which leads to descriptions which leads to both greater understanding and greater misunderstanding…

As an example, let’s contemplate a “gawd” (which was never really proposed) and let’s say that this “gawd” has two attributes: “gawd is green” and “gawd is red”. To refute the existence of this “gawd” is child’s play: “something cannot be both “green” and “red”, these attributes are contradictory”. But the believers of this “gawd” will counter your argument: “this is not a contradiction, this is a mystery”. And then what are you going to do? How will you explain them that there is no “mystery” there, just a plain old contradiction. Please contemplate this question seriously, and tell me your opinion.

Been contemplating this for a bit and while I recognize the truth in what you say here, I can’t help but note that where “mystery” is invoked, it is usually on matters less clear than the color of something.
Things that might seem contradictory in our realm of time space and limited intellect may make perfect sense when fully understood outside of these constraints. The seeming contradictions could be nothing more than the inability of the person receiving a “perfect” understanding to perfectly convey that perfect understanding to others in an equally perfect way. Or the problem might exist in the inability of the person listening to be able to comprehend what the other is saying…
Consider how I freely admit that I am many times unable to follow conversations that get into the realms of philosophy, and logic and such…I’m sure that you and I could have much more to say to one another if I could…but I am intellectually limited in this way…I have to keep things simple…

One of the things that I Love about the Christian God is His utter simplicity in describing Himself to Moses…I AM - or I AM WHO AM. No detailed explanations just “I AM”…beautiful…
Then - near the end of the Bible, St John assigns one attribute - actually an essence more than an attribute to I AM. He says, “…God is Love” (1 John 4:7-8).

I wish that we could leave the description right there and move forward from that…
God IS…The rest is details.
God Loves - and Love is the great creative force…how we interact with that Love shows whether we are disciples of Christ and Children of God or not.
That is how I try to live my life and that is the God that I believe in and try to Love.
No contradictions there.

Peace
James

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Trurl
**
There is this argument about hell, that God does not send anyone to hell, rather there are people to reject God and God merely grants them their wish. Not a good argument. Non-christians are logically incapable of “rejecting” God, since they do not believe that God exists.**

Not believing that God exists is a rejection of God, no matter how you cut it.