Critiquing: Are Humans Flawed Because of God’s Lack of Power?

July 27, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

God’s Power — Human Flaws — Moral Standards — Explanations — Rational Coherence

---

Introduction

The content from the podcast “#STRask – Stand to Reason” hosted by Amy Hall and Greg Koukl addresses two main questions: the notion that a creator God made humans flawed due to a lack of power, and why worship is beneficial for humans. This critique will evaluate the logical coherence of the arguments presented in the content, identify logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases, and suggest ways to test the claims made.

Logical Coherence and Fallacies

Questioning God’s Lack of Power

The initial argument questions how a creator God could lack power if He is responsible for creating humans:

“One of my very good friends believes that a creator God exists, but he made humans flawed as a result of his lack of power. How would you respond to this unique worldview?”

Koukl responds by implying that a powerful creator God must inherently be capable and questions the reasoning behind the lack of power:

“If he’s a creator, well, he must be pretty powerful, all right? Now, if he made man evil, then he himself is responsible for causing something evil, which means God would be evil himself, okay?”

This response contains a false dichotomy fallacy by presenting only two options: either God is powerful and good, or He is not God. It fails to consider other possible explanations for human flaws.

Moral Standards and Evil

Koukl further elaborates on the concept of evil and goodness:

“So, he believes as a creator, God, okay? If he’s a creator, well, he must be pretty powerful, all right? Now, if he made man evil, then he himself is responsible for causing something evil, which means God would be evil himself, okay?”

Here, Koukl implies that if God created evil, then God is evil, leading to a contradiction in defining God’s nature. This argument relies on the appeal to consequences fallacy, where the undesired outcome (an evil God) is used to dismiss the premise (God’s lack of power).

Unsubstantiated Claims and the Obligation to Substantiate

Throughout the discussion, there are several claims that are presented without substantial evidence:

“Well, the answer to why God would allow evil is the task of theodicy. But it’s also a more difficult question to answer because it’s hard to figure in the mind of God while why he allowed these different things.”

This claim about the complexity of understanding God’s reasons for allowing evil is unsubstantiated and does not provide a clear basis for Koukl’s conclusion.

Cognitive Biases

The content also exhibits confirmation bias, where the speakers interpret evidence in a way that confirms their preexisting beliefs:

“And without a God who is good, there is no good at all. And if God is evil, then there is no good. This presents a problem for Duncan’s friend.”

This statement assumes that goodness can only be grounded in God, ignoring alternative explanations or secular moral frameworks.

Logical Inconsistencies and Fallacies

External Standards of Goodness

Koukl’s argument against an external standard of goodness is problematic:

“But if God is evil, then there’s some external standard of good that God is measured by. Therefore, God isn’t really God. He’s just a finite creature of some sort, beholden to another standard.”

This argument contains a circular reasoning fallacy. Koukl assumes that God is the ultimate standard of goodness to prove that an external standard cannot exist, which presupposes the conclusion within the premise.

Methods to Test Alleged Promises

To evaluate the promises made about God, one could adopt empirical and experiential approaches:

1. Empirical Observation: Assess the consistency and reliability of claimed divine interventions or miracles.
2. Experiential Inquiry: Collect and analyze personal testimonies and experiences regarding answered prayers and perceived divine actions.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

It is crucial to align one’s degree of belief with the available evidence. The content asserts the coherence of a theistic worldview without adequately addressing potential counterarguments or alternative perspectives. A critical approach requires evaluating the evidence for each claim and adjusting beliefs accordingly:

“Simply put, I have no reason to believe the view that Duncan’s friend has offered. And why would Duncan’s friend offer that view? I don’t know.”

Koukl’s dismissal of Duncan’s friend’s view lacks a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence and does not sufficiently address the underlying questions.

Conclusion

In summary, the content from the “#STRask – Stand to Reason” podcast exhibits several logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases. By presenting a more balanced and evidence-based critique, one can address these issues more effectively and foster a deeper understanding of the arguments presented.

---

Feel free to discuss the arguments further in the comments section.