I recently stumbled across a particularly interesting article concerning an Apathetic God.

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/apathetic_god_paradox/

After mulling it over for a few minutes, I wanted to see your guy's take on this.

And I need not remind you to act adult in this discussion.

but you just did

Oh, but I didn't.

Let's try to stay on track.

If I were better at philosophy and debate, I could possibly deconstruct his arguments which instinctively (to myself) seem flimsy and biased (it is written on strongatheism.com after all). Or it could be a possible defence reflex since I am a theist who believes in a benevolent God.

Really? I'm non-religious, and I believe his arguments are strong and logical. One of the reasons why I think this is because there's nothing, be it logical or evidential, that can disprove it.
In fact, most logic and evidence would support this, due to the development of emotion being an easily understandable and visible concept.
Where the argument is located, and which side it supports, has no effect on it's chances of being true.

I know but I'm going to re-read it anyway just to make sure I didn't misunderstand anything.

I've heard the line of argument behind the link before. It's rather firm logical reasoning.

Essentially, the idea is that god is perfect. Perfection implies that all things are fulfilled. For god to want to do something would mean that he is not perfect. For god to commit to any action would break his perfection, as actions are undertaken to satiate a want or need. To exist in a state of perfection, god would not undertake any actions at all. This includes answering prayer, performing the events in the bible, or creating the world in the first place. Effectively, for god to be a perfect entity, he'd have to be a non-entity. Since a perfectly passive and undetectable entity is effectively non-existent, you might as well say there is no god at all, as per ockham's razor. Furthermore, he loses status as a creator deity by being perfectly passive.

For him to be anything other than an effectively non-existent entity, he'd lose the status of "perfect".

This is my version of the argument, their line of reasoning is slightly different.

That's basically it.
Yours is different, but it's hard to put it into words.

Yeah, I extended mine a bit with ockham's razor.

To concede a bit, this argument doesn't disprove a creator god, it only disproves the version which most mono-theistic religions insist upon. If you admit that god isn't perfect, then the argument falls apart completely. The thing is, no person I have ever known would admit that. Some of the older religions such as the Greek and Norse pantheons have no conflict with this argument whatsoever, seeing as their gods are basically assholes, but many modern religions, especially the abrahamic ones, insist that their god is perfect.

Well my God is not Yhwh.

I made an assumption, and given the odds it's a fair guess.

As long as you don't assume your god is perfect, the paradox does not apply.