As always your thoughts are appreciated….apologies for the quality of the sound and the somewhat weary look in my eyes!
And here is the link to the written response: https://theweeflea.wordpress.com/2015/02/06/letter-to-stephen-fry-youve-created-a-straw-god/
An excellent reply to Stephen Fry’s interview . I do hope that he will be prepared to have reasoned discussion with you , David.
Gylen
David, of course, you don’t know if he’s created a Straw God. It’s entirely possible that he has described someone’s god perfectly, and you and he both agree it doesn’t exist.
And, it’s entirely possible you believe in a Straw God, as every other theist.
After all, God doesn’t exist, David. You know this, but you’d prefer to make money the easy way.
Brent – I do know he has created a straw God – because he claims to be arguing against the Christian view of God…and he doesn’t….he just makes up his own…amused that you think I believe in God because it makes me money…you clearly have no idea of what a Free Church minister gets paid!
Yes it is entirely possible that Stephen Fry has described someone’s god perfectly and that David Robertson and he agree he doesn’t exist. Who would be deluded enough to think that such an evil god would exist that would create bone diseases and works that burrow into the eyes of children and what masochist and evil person would worship such a god?
Russel Brand’s response is interesting with him believing in God and the duty within each one of us to address the evil within.
I doubt if many theists with a belief of God or Allah of the bible or the koran to be the god that Fry describes. It is interesting when an atheist with a lack of belief in gods is ready and enthusiastic to assign the worst evil to any god or religion.
As for whether God exists or not well, humanity hasn’t come to a definitive conclusion about through thousands of years of discussion, debate and adversarial polemics. It’s stupid to argue the toss over that.
Many atheists have a diluted or watered-down conception of the true God, as the “God” in their minds is one they wish to control—determining how and when He utilizes His power. Their understanding of God is not the same as that of faithful Christians. With absolute certainty, the atheists version of God is a god of their own creation—not the God of the Bible.
There is nothing new about giving glory to the created instead of the Creator (Rom. 1:23). This age-old issue shifts our focus from the Creator to the created (Ex. 32; Deut. 9). For centuries—perhaps even thousands of years—mankind has been creating their versions of God, and all of them are straw-gods. Whether it’s the “Flying Spaghetti Monster,” the “moral monster god” proposed by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, or the “complex villain god” depicted by Philip Pullman, they all share one commonality: none of them truly represent the God of of the Bible/Christianity.
Instead, they are mere caricatures—exaggerated portrayals that highlight only certain traits while omitting others. This is also known as a straw god: a grotesque misrepresentation of God that is easily attacked or refuted because it is overly simplistic, distorted, and flawed, making it easier for critics to dismiss or challenge.
Both of their versions of God are unworthy of serious argument or defense, as they represent a fundamental misunderstanding of His character and nature. These portrayals do not reflect the biblical truth of who God is as revealed in Scripture, leading to misconceptions about His attributes and His relationship with humanity. Engaging with the true nature of God requires a deeper exploration of His word and an understanding of the fullness of His character, which encompasses love, justice, mercy, and holiness.
They ultimately reduce their conception of God to nothing more than a human being who is limited by the need to meet the demands of their critics, skeptics, and atheists.
I would ally myself with them if this were the true God described in Scripture, but this is not the God I believe in. By second-guessing God’s actions, they assert that He should have acted according to their expectations, and when He doesn’t, they claim He doesn’t exist. In reality, they are merely creating their own version of God and then rejecting that version. In the end, the biblical God remains irrefutable, undeniable.
They haven’t refuted the God of Scripture if, to deny Him, they must bring Him down to their flawed reasoning, drastically alter who He is, and then simultaneously reject this new “God” they claim represents the God of the Bible. Ironically, they are correct: their god doesn’t exist. After all their arguments, they are left with a conception of God that is not the God of the Bible. They have not disproved or rejected the true God of Scripture, as the God of the Bible can never be refuted.
No faithful Christians believe in the god that hardened critics, skeptics, and atheists argue against. There’s no need to defend the version of God that typical atheists deny, for they are rejecting a distorted representation of the true and living, almighty God.
It is not appropriate for the finite to judge the infinite. We are far too limited to assume such authority. Yet, our conceited arrogance and pompous pride often lead many to attempt it. As critics construct their arguments, they fail to recognize the complete biblical conception of God, making them guilty of presenting arguments against a version of God that is less than what Scripture portrays. Since they are not discussing Yahweh, their arguments amount to straw men and should not be taken seriously or given any consideration.
If critics accept the biblical descriptions of God, they must acknowledge that, as limited and ignorant beings, they have no right to render the final judgment on the God who renders the final judgment (Acts 17:31). If God could be fully understood by our limited intellect, He would cease to be God, as His thoughts are not our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9). And He would no longer be God if man could render the final judgment on Him.
When we criticize God, we must be truthful about His complete nature and avoid using strawman arguments to reject Him. Atheism was not even an issue when the Old and New Testament were written; the predominant concerns were polytheism and idolatry (Ex. 23:13; Judges 10:13; 2 Kings 5:17; Jer. 44:5; Acts 15:20; 17:16; 1 John 5:21; Rev. 2:20). The question was not whether God exists, but rather who God is. Instead of merely asking, “Does God exist?” we should ask, “Who is God?”
If you ask an atheist to describe the God they claim to have a lwck of bekief or faith in, or don’t believe in, about 99% of the time, they will be describing a God that Christians do not believe in. Their conception of God, time and time again, is a distorted version, and a clear misrepresentation of the true God.
The definition of God from a philosophical definition is a “maximally great being,” who encompasses attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibevolence, and is considered the ultimate, transcendent cause of all existence. Also, He is non-contingent—He does not rely or depend on others to exist.
So, any deity who lacks all of the maximally great attributes that God has cannot reasonably be God. Since it’s logically impossible for there to be more than one eternal God who has all the qualities and attributes as the God of the Bible, it follows that there is only one God who does, which means all other deities when compared to the one true God of the Bible are indeed straw-gods, who most other religions might or do believe to be the one true God.
However, when the God of the Bible has all the attributes that He has, He can’t be a straw-god of other deities, otherwise, people are saying the maximally greatest attributes and maximally greatest Being is a misrepresentation of their deity. By saying their god is not the God of the Bible based on one’s misrepresentation of their god (if one were to apply the same attributes to it that the biblical God has), then that would mean people of other religions are admitting their deity does not have all the supernatural, unchanging attributes and nature of the one true God. That would mean their deity is far less to being the maximally greatest Being, which means the God of the Bible is the one true God.