(1) If I desire that my child achieve shalom and God does not desire that my child achieve shalom, then God loves my child less than I do.
(2) I desire that my child achieve shalom.
(3) If Calvinism is true then possibly God does not desire that my child is elect.
(4) If God does not desire that my child is elect then God does not desire that my child achieve shalom.
(5) Therefore, if Calvinism is true then possibly God does not desire that my child achieve shalom.
(6) Therefore, if Calvinism is true then possibly God loves my child less than I do.
(7) It is not possible that God loves my child less than I do.
(8) Therefore, Calvinism is false.
(1) If Ted Bundy's mom wants her son to go to heaven and God wants her son to go to hell, then God loves her son less than she does.
(2) Bundy's mom wants her son to go to heaven.
(3) If Calvinism is true then possibly God does not desire that her son is elect.
(4) If God does not desire that her son is elect then God does not desire that her son go to heaven.
(5) Therefore, if Calvinism is true then possibly God does not desire that her son go to heaven.
(6) Therefore, if Calvinism is true then possibly God loves her son less than I do.
(7) It is not possible that God loves a serial killer less than Mom does.
(8) Therefore, Calvinism is false.
Yeah, that's a real dilemma for Calvinism!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(Replacing previous unfinished version)
ReplyDeletePresumably Rauser rejects Arminianism too then...
(1) If I have an absolute will that my child goes to heaven and God does not have an absolute will that my child goes to heaven, then God loves my child less than I do.
(2) I have an absolute will that my child goes to heaven.
(3) If Arminianism is true then God does not absolutely will that my child have saving faith
(4) If God does not absolutely will that my child have saving faith then God does not absolutely will that my child go to heaven.
(5) Therefore, if Arminianism is true then possibly God does not absolutely will that my child goes to heaven.
(6) Therefore, if Arminianism is true then possibly God loves my child less than I do.
(7) It is not possible that God loves my child less than I do.
(8) Therefore, Arminianism is false.
Thinking about it further - Randal's argument is just the atheist's argument against an all-powerful loving God, but selectively re-stated for his own theological agenda.
ReplyDeleteAs I've just posted in his comments section, God declined to have the 9/11 attackers die in their sleep the night before. So, instead of just them dying, lots of innocents died too. Surely the parents of those on the plane would have wished that the attackers had died in their sleep and their children lived. So, it seems God was less loving than those parents, on Randal's grounds. If Randal thinks his own argument is valid, then he's with the atheists. It's the same argument, just with a conveniently narrowed example of what God declined to do.
David
You had a good exchange with Rauser over at his blog, but he keeps moving the goal post.
DeleteThere are a couple of false assumptions behind the argument:
ReplyDelete1) There are different categories for love. Obviously mom loves her son in a different way than God does.
2) There is the issue of priority embedded in the first assumption. Does the mother love God more than she loves her son? Does she seek God's glory above justifying her son's rebellion?
The argument seems faulty because he smuggles in no 7 (an Arminian premise) and applies it to Calvinism. I don't know that Calvinists would concede that it is impossible for God to love the child less.
ReplyDeleteI think he needs to remove 7 or change it.
Am I wrong about that Steve?