Critiquing: How Would You Explain God’s Omnipresence to a Six-Year-Old?

June 1, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

God’s omnipresence — Gender identification — Kingdom entry — Logic program — Salvation prayer

---

Introduction

The content, a dialogue addressing questions about God’s omnipresence, gender identification, entry into the kingdom, and teaching logic with a Christian perspective, offers various points that require critical analysis. The responses provided by the hosts, Amy Hall and Greg Cokal, serve as the foundation for this critique, focusing on the logical coherence of the explanations and arguments presented.

Explaining Omnipresence

The initial discussion on explaining God’s omnipresence to a six-year-old involves distinguishing between God being “in” everything versus being “everywhere.” The hosts clarify that God’s presence is everywhere but not within objects themselves.

• Logical Coherence and Clarity: The explanation attempts to clarify a complex theological concept in simple terms, which is a reasonable approach. However, the analogy used (“God is present everywhere but not in everything”) could confuse a child who might take the statements literally.
• Inconsistencies: The statement, “So, God is here. If we go into another room, God would be there too,” implies spatial movement, which contradicts the omnipresent nature of God that is supposed to transcend physical space.

Gender Identification

The content discusses how God identifies as male despite the biological definitions of male and female.

• Logical Coherence: The argument that God “identifies as father” rather than male and has both masculine and feminine characteristics is an attempt to reconcile traditional views with contemporary gender understanding. However, this introduces a logical inconsistency. The argument dismisses biological roots while simultaneously relying on gendered language.
• Cognitive Biases: There is an evident confirmation bias in the discussion, as the hosts uphold traditional religious views without critically addressing contemporary gender theories that challenge their stance.
• Unsubstantiated Claims: The assertion that “some people are uncomfortable with that in modern days, more progressive types” lacks evidence and portrays progressivism negatively without substantiation.

Entry into the Kingdom

The dialogue includes a discussion on what triggers entry into the kingdom based on the thief’s statement to Jesus on the cross.

• Logical Coherence: The hosts argue that the thief’s entry is triggered by his acknowledgment of Jesus’ kingship and trust in Him. This argument aligns with the Christian doctrine of salvation by faith.
• Inconsistencies: The explanation assumes a universal understanding of Jesus’ identity and mission among all individuals at that time, which is historically and contextually dubious.
• Testing the Promises: The discussion lacks a method to empirically verify such spiritual claims. This absence of testability weakens the argument from a logical standpoint.

Teaching Logic with a Christian Flavor

The question about a program to teach logic with a Christian flavor is addressed by recommending secular logic programs and supplementing them with Christian teachings.

• Logical Coherence: The hosts acknowledge that logic itself is secular and independent of religious beliefs, which is logically consistent. They recommend using examples relevant to Christian teachings for practical application.
• Potential Bias: While logically sound, there is a risk of bias in the application examples, which could undermine the objective teaching of logic.

Critique of Salvation Prayer

The discussion critiques the sinner’s prayer and offers alternative ways people can come to faith.

• Logical Coherence: The argument that salvation can be expressed in various ways rather than a formulaic prayer is consistent with the broader Christian doctrine of grace.
• Inconsistencies: The content suggests flexibility in the mode of expressing faith but does not address the need for clear guidelines or criteria, which could lead to subjective interpretations.

Summary of Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases

1. Confirmation Bias: Evident in discussions about gender identification, reinforcing traditional views without critically engaging with opposing arguments.
2. False Dichotomy: The argument that God must be identified either strictly as male or female overlooks more nuanced understandings of gender.
3. Appeal to Tradition: The reliance on traditional interpretations without sufficient evidence to counter contemporary views.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

1. “Progressive types” are uncomfortable with traditional views of God’s gender: This claim is not substantiated with evidence.
2. Thief’s knowledge of Jesus’ mission: The assumption that the thief had comprehensive knowledge of Jesus’ identity lacks historical substantiation.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

• Every claim, especially those concerning metaphysical and spiritual truths, requires substantiation to maintain logical coherence. The hosts frequently assert theological positions without providing sufficient evidence or logical justification, undermining the credibility of their arguments.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

• Degree of Belief: One’s belief in any claim should correspond to the degree of evidence available. The discussions frequently lack this alignment, particularly in asserting spiritual and theological truths without empirical support.

Conclusion

The content presents multiple theological and philosophical discussions with varying degrees of logical coherence. The explanations provided often contain logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases. A more rigorous approach, requiring substantiation and alignment of belief with evidence, would enhance the logical integrity of the arguments presented.

---

I warmly invite further discussion on these arguments in the comments section.