The God Delusion

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No. I am simply realistic. Do you take pride in your lunacy? Oh, wait, I already know the answer to that one.

So are you trying to say that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No. He is just showing a contradiction in you way of thinking. There is a logical impasse here. It cannot be gotten over logically. He takes us up a journey with a number of axioms (God exists and is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient), and then shows that this [b]cannot present a viable conclusion. Therefore, one of the axioms must be false.[/b]

No. He is just showing a contradiction in you way of thinking.

He is showing a condradiction in his own way of thinking.

There is a logical impasse here. It cannot be gotten over logically. He takes us up a journey with a number of axioms (God exists and is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient), and then shows that this [b]cannot present a viable conclusion.[/b]

At the same time the conclusion he makes is not viable in itself because he has excluded God from the paradigm.

Therefore, one of the axioms [b]must be false.[/b]

According to the strawman argument presented, yes.

Originally posted by kirksey957
What's your take on the book of Jonah?

Maybe you need to ask a more specific question.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So are you trying to say that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists?

I am saying that the most parsimonious argument is that God does not exist. Numerous logical contradictions between God's reported attributes and reality seem to back that conclusion up.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]No. He is just showing a contradiction in you way of thinking.

He is showing a condradiction in his own way of thinking.

There is a logical impasse here. It cannot be gotten over logically. He takes us up a journey with a number of axioms (God exists and is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient), and then shows that this [b] ...[text shortened]... ne of the axioms [b]must be false.[/b]

According to the strawman argument presented, yes.[/b]

So, your arguments contradict each other, yet he's wrong. Truly you need to be able to completely able to ignore reality to be a good Christian, apparently.

Originally posted by ckoh1965
dj, I think it's not a question of whether one has made up his mind or not. You yourself have made up your mind. That is entirely up to you. But from a neutral point of view, the so-called 'evidence' for the existence of God that you have presented here so far are no good in logical terms.

Now I'd like to comment on your argument:

1. If God is all-go ...[text shortened]... ns CAN and WILL ONE DAY find Nessie.

So, do you think we will find Nessie some day?

I think your conclusion in (4) above is unreasonable. The scientific approach is to conclude that there is in fact no God. IF, and only IF, God really does exist, then the most logical conclusion to make is that he is unable to defeat evil.

If you reject what God has revealed about his own character in divine revelation, then yes.

God hasn't been able to defeat evil after thousands of years. If he hasn't been able to do it all those years, then it is more reasonable to assume that he can't do it. There is no evidence to show that he CAN defeat evil. Therefore the ONLY reasonable conclusion to me is that God CAN'T defeat evil. At best, I would describe your conclusion in (4) as something that you'd hope for, but so far never been realised.

That would be true if you excluded God from the argument and judged Him from a human perspective. It would not be the same if you took what God revealed about his own character in divine revelation.

Consider this line of thought:

1. IF humans are so clever, they can find Nessie;

2. IF humans don't give up in their search, they will eventually find Nessie;

3. Humans have not YET found Nessie;

4. Therefore, clever humans CAN and WILL ONE DAY find Nessie.

So, do you think we will find Nessie some day?

God and Nessie can hardly be compared to one another, as Nessie has hardly revealed his character to anybody.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I am saying that the most parsimonious argument is that God does not exist. Numerous logical contradictions between God's reported attributes and reality seem to back that conclusion up.

I am saying that the most parsimonious argument is that God does not exist. Numerous logical contradictions between God's reported attributes and reality seem to back that conclusion up.

These condradictions would only be true if you rejected everything that God revealed about his own character.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So, your arguments contradict each other, yet he's wrong. Truly you need to be able to completely able to ignore reality to be a good Christian, apparently.

So, your arguments contradict each other, yet he's wrong.

No. His arguments are self contradictory because he has defined them by his own terms. A typical strawman argument.

Truly you need to be able to completely able to ignore reality to be a good Christian, apparently.

Unlike your reality, the reality of a Christian contains God in its paradigm. As your reality excludes God, you cannot logically evalutate the reality of a christian from your own perspective.

Originally posted by dj2becker
These condradictions would only be true if you rejected everything that God revealed about his own character.

I have never met God that I am aware of and he has revealed nothing to me in a way that I am aware of. A large proportion of what I have heard from Christians or read in the Bible about Gods character is inconsistent with itself or with my observed reality. If by accepting you imply "assume as true to the exclusion of all contrary evidence" then of course there is no contradiction. The only problem is that almost all of our observed reality becomes contradictory!

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have never met God that I am aware of and he has revealed nothing to me in a way that I am aware of. A large proportion of what I have heard from Christians or read in the Bible about Gods character is inconsistent with itself or with my observed reality. If by accepting you imply "assume as true to the exclusion of all contrary evidence" then of course ...[text shortened]... tradiction. The only problem is that almost all of our observed reality becomes contradictory!

In any condradiction that arises only one of the two condradictory terms can be true. They cannot both be true. Volumes have been written in response to apparent condradictions. They are mostly red-herrings and if you study them carefully within a proper context you will see that there is actually no contradiction.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]So, your arguments contradict each other, yet he's wrong.

No. His arguments are self contradictory because he has defined them by his own terms. A typical strawman argument.

Truly you need to be able to completely able to ignore reality to be a good Christian, apparently.

Unlike your reality, the reality of a Christian contains God ...[text shortened]... ludes God, you cannot logically evalutate the reality of a christian from your own perspective.[/b]

WTF??? I used the terms YOU provided with their dictionary meanings, which YOU did not dispute. You truly are a brainless parrot (another moron using the term "strawman argument" completely incorrectly as well). I see we're back to "Secret Decoder Ring" territory.

Originally posted by no1marauder
WTF??? I used the terms YOU provided with their dictionary meanings, which YOU did not dispute. You truly are a brainless parrot (another moron using the term "strawman argument" completely incorrectly as well). I see we're back to "Secret Decoder Ring" territory.

We all know that God has revealed his character in the dictionary, don't we?

C'mon No.1, if you want to disprove the God of the Bible, you have to take into account what the Bible says about the character of God.

You need an absolute point of reference.

Originally posted by dj2becker
We all know that God has revealed his character in the dictionary, don't we?

C'mon No.1, if you want to disprove the God of the Bible, you have to take into account what the Bible says about the character of God.

You need an absolute point of reference.

You're being ridiculous and also doing extreme goalpost shifting. What the Bible says about the character of God is that he's nuts. And don't use the words "omnipotent" "omnibenevolent" etc. etc. if you refuse to actually apply the meaning of the words. You might as well say "God is isxztunmytl"; it makes about as much sense as your ravings.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're being ridiculous and also doing extreme goalpost shifting. What the Bible says about the character of God is that he's nuts. And don't use the words "omnipotent" "omnibenevolent" etc. etc. if you refuse to actually apply the meaning of the words. You might as well say "God is isxztunmytl"; it makes about as much sense as your ravings.

All that I am saying is that what the Bible reveals about God's character is logically compatible with the words "omnipotent", "omnibenevolent" and "omniscient" if you take the Bible as your absolute point of reference.

What is so hard to understand about this?

Originally posted by dj2becker
All that I am saying is that what the Bible reveals about God's character is logically compatible with the words "omnipotent", "omnibenevolent" and "omniscient" if you take the Bible as your absolute point of reference.

What is so hard to understand about this?

The point is that those things are not compatible with reality, in a universe where bad things happen.