Home > Apologetics, Atheism > Strong Atheism: The Cartoon Universe of Theism

Strong Atheism: The Cartoon Universe of Theism

November 21, 2010 Leave a comment Go to comments

In response to the article http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/cartoon_universe_of_theism/

The only thing this article actually argued was is God’s will arbitrary or goal oriented? And that is what I will discuss in this post. I am putting the argument expressed into the article into these logical terms, so please be quick to point out if I misrepresent the article.

1. Rationality is due to goal-orientation
2. God has no such objective reference point
3. God can not have goals (from 1 and 2)
4. God is arbitrary, and irrational- assuming he exists at all.

Logically I would tend to agree with this argument, assuming that it is clear that God has no objective reference point. To translate what “objective reference point” actually means: God cannot be added to; by definition He does does not need. Since God does not need, he cannot have goals. I want to crush this idea, because it is false.

Inconsistent nature of atheistic arguments:
When an atheist makes a statement being with “If God exists…” and goes on to ‘disprove’ God by some characteristic attached to God I always want to ask, do you buy into the non-cognitivism of the idea of God? Based on non-cognitivism arguments you cannot assign any real characteristics to God, and certainly nothing meaningful. They have to either believe that the whole idea of God is non-sense or disprove Him through other means. One cannot argue the Cartoon Universe of Theism and the Non-Cognitive nature of God. If you are an atheist and have reconciled the two, I’d be glad to hear it.

A self-referencing God:
If you have read my blogs to date this will all be repeated information. According to the bible (the source on which Christians base their concept of God) when Moses asks God his name God replies, “I AM”. This is a fascinating reply because it implies that God is self sufficient. That by nature he exists, and existence is through him. Interesting idea. But “I Am” doesn’t really say that I’m self-referencing, and that by nature i exist, or anything like that. Oh, but it does. Names are given by parents, and tell a lot about the history of a person. It can tell the culture, ancestors and so on. God saying “I AM” means that none of that applies. All of the begining of existence that we carry around in our names do not apply to God. He IS.
Cute. But is that all we have to work with? Luckily, no. Jesus left us some teachings that became the doctrine of the Trinity. This gives us some insight on who or what God is. Father is relevant only in reference to a Son. See, without the Son the Father would be meaningless, and without the Father, the Son would also be meaningless. In light of each other, THEY ARE. Self-referencing. Also, Jesus says “I and the father are one.” In the Old Testament it is written, “The Lord your God is One.” This word One is not one in a unitary sense, like I have one cupcake, or one dollar. But rather one in spirit. It’s the same word that describes a man and woman being united in marriage into “One flesh”. God also uses an odd plural way of referring to himself in the Old Testament. Read it, you’ll understand what I’m talking about. The Spirit is the most elusive to me, though. I have trouble figuring it or him out..? Is the Spirit what makes the Father and Son Echad, One, or an equal component in the Oneness bound by a spirit that each of them share…. Or what? It’s a hard concept, and one that I don’t know how much understanding we will ever have, but I do know that this idea of Trinity makes God a self-referenced goal-oriented being whose needs are inherently met by his own being.

Now, why do we exist? That question was kinda shoved under the door through this thinking. If God is needless, then he doesn’t need humanity to exist, so why do we? Instead of rushing to the conclusion, “God doesn’t exist!” I challenge you to think about it. Think. Now think some more because you probably haven’t figured it out yet.
What i know is that because God is complete does not mean he would not create us. Think about a mother. If she were merely a woman, or a wife would she be less complete? Perhaps, in some psychological sense, but there are plenty of women who are totally fulfilled without a child. In their circumstance children may add meaning to them, or add another layer of fulfillment, but they are not a necessary component to their completion. So can God be goal-oriented for us to be brought into existence and love him and yet not be relying on us for completion of who he is? Yeah, I would say so.

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: