Posted: Aug 16, 2013 6:44 am
by willhud9
My opponent has started off with an interesting line of argument. Instead of proofs as to why God is irrational, my opponent has chosen to go with argument ad incredulity. Interesting, but easy enough to give a rebuttal towards.

To begin with the Christian God is not irrationally personified. Despite the personal pronoun of He, God is genderless. The He is a result of a father like personification being rightfully attributed to Him. In Hebrew many of the names for God are indeed feminine. As for the trinity, 3 persons, one essence is not a very complex thing to understand. My favourite analogy for the trinity is the sun. You have the body, the ray, and the warmth. The Father is the body of the sun, the Son is the ray of the sun, and the Holy Spirit is the warmth of the sun. They are the same God, but different persons and are personified differently in discussions.

The Father is the creator, the designer, the planner, the architect, etc. While the Son is the builder, lays the foundation, and provides the means to build the house, and the Holy Spirit is the person who ties it all together.

My opponent than goes on to talk about several negative sides to the Christian God and I have to ask where he got the notions from? The Bible? And even if the Christian God was as malicious as my opponent has made Him out to be, that does not in any way disprove the notion of God.

I will discuss more about the Bible and its coherency and reliability when that section comes around, but suffice to say nowhere in the Bible is God inconsistent. He yearns for repentance and punishes those who continue to live in a lifestyle of sin. From Judges to Jonah, from Joshua to Ezekiel, the themes of God's love for not only Israel, but the surrounding nations is there. Those such as Rahab in Joshua who came to know God, were not rejected, but were welcomed. This is consistent with a loving God, presented in Christianity. Sure he is strict and cannot tolerate sin, but that is why in Christian theology the person of Jesus Christ exists.

Christian theology seeks to connect God with doctrines and apply the teachings of the doctrines to life. But as in my post, if God does exist, which I argued the affirmative, then the teachings of God are based around the Moral Law and are as ever based in rationality. Not killing people in cold blood is good for everyone. Not stealing from people is good for everyone. The list goes on and on. The Christian God is very much based in rational thought. His ways, while true are not the ways of man, or the world, are still based around a reassurance that what God plans is good for mankind.

Jeremiah 29:11 reads: "For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

The Hebrew word for hope translates in the Septuagint as ἐλπίς which can be translated as well into "confidence in that which is sure." Again this ties back into the concept of faith. Faith is a confidence or trust. The Bible, which I shall get to in more depth I promise, assures us of God's plans and gives us confidence in his promises. This is not a God of irrationality which would essentially breed chaos, but rather a God of clear and rational intents.

After all, the entire universe has a structured order to it. Sure chaos theory means it essentially carries a hint of unpredictability, but that is true about God as well. His ways are not our ways. But if God was an irrational God, then the universe of which He caused would not be a rational universe.

Since the churches inception, theologians have been at the foray of combining rational thought with God. Thomas Aquinas, considered the father of apologetics, was big in creating rational premises for God. So rationality is not against the Christian faith. Again, with faith comes a reassurance and that reassurance can be built off of a rational premise as to why God exists and as to why God's promises are good.

I will save my comments about Jesus for that part of the debate.

In conclusion, my opponent did not really argue against the proofs of a God, and I am waiting to see if he pulled the best for his rebuttal for my first post.

Because of the rather shortness of my opponents post, and since I did give a rebuttal to it, I guess that means my turn is over. My next argument will be discussing the existence of miracles and why they defend the Christian faith. Best of luck to my opponent on his rebuttal!