From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Deliberate Ignorance
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:35:04 GMT

Daniel Norman Johnson (johnsd2@jec324.its.rpi.edu.its1) wrote:
: In article 1k6rq7INNg99@gap.caltech.edu, werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew Tong) writes:
: >johnsd2@vccnw07.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
: >>On the other hand, if God is a being that is Omnibenevolent, Omnipotent,
: >>Omniscient, and did all that stuff the Bible sez he did, then he doesn't
: >>exist. That's logic (proof by contradiction that is- some of the stuff
: >>in the bible isn't very nice.)
: >

   This line of thought is typical of atheists and fallacious on at
least two counts. In the first place you define God in a deliberately
contradictory manner and then use that definition to "prove" His
non-exsitence. By refusing to acknowledge what is actually claimed,
and concocting these specious contradictions, the atheist attempts to
create the illusion of absurdity - it's a cheap rhetorical gimmick.
The purpose of course is to -appear- clever, the effect is to be
revealed as dishonest.
   The second fallacy is the implied assertion that logic is
sufficient to settle the question. I've seen this argument before, and
it always seems to be understood as a given; it ain't. Logic is
especially suited to exposing fallacious reasoning, but has little
value in establishing the truth of anything. If you find an apparent
contradiction in the Bible, it may be due to the way you choose to
interpret it. In the case of atheists and their zeal to discredit the
Bible, the Bible abounds in contradictions, but they made it clear
from the outset that they will see only what serves their purposes. If
you know in advance what conclusions you will accept and reject,
what's the point of discussion?

An example follows:

: >Are you really claiming that the God of the Bible is logically inconsistent?
: 
: No, I'm claiming that any God that did all the things that God
: did in the Bible cannot be Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent and Omniscient.

   Here our champions seem to be saying that existence in contingent
on being logically consistent, they neglet to mention why however.
Every human being I've ever met is logically inconsistent both in
their reasoning and their behaviour. Am I to believe that none of them
really existed? Sorry, but there is just no value to this kind of
statement.
   At a more fundamental level though, the assumption that logic is
capable of settling the point is unfounded. Even if the logic of the
atheist's were flawless (which of course, it never is), it wouldn't be
adequate to establish their prejudice. The fact is, atheists have
little use for genuinely valid logic; they prefer the most outrageous
sarcasm and the most offensive ridicule instead; they are as zealous,
as bigoted and as irrational as any of their enemies.

An example follows:

: An GAWD did not come to me IN A DREAM, for the IS NO GAWD!! And He DID
: NOT SPEAK TO ME IN THE DREAM! For the dream, yeas, the dream was about
: RUTABEGAS IN THE SPRING! Therefore there IS NO GOD. Therefore I say
: REPENT! Yea, REPENT and join the Church of Jezus Christ of LATTER
: DAY Teleatheists! Only 19.95 with this special offer, not availiable
: in stores, and that's not all! You don't just  join the Church of Jezus
: Christ of Latter Day Teleatheist,, but you also get this amazing Ginsu
: Holy Book! It's a Bible! It's a Torah! It's a Quran! It opens, it closes,
: it just sits there!

   For those of you who may have missed the earlier point about the
abuse of logic, read on ...
 
: (example: A God which can do *anything* I propose, coherent or not, cannot
: exist. I can ask him to think of a task that cannot be done, then do it.
: He can't do that, yet I proposed it. That sort of thing. Also a God
: which did everything in the Bible, but is omniscicient, omnibenevolent
: and omnipotent. Such a being would have known in advance that it
: would regret the Deluge, and would therefore not have done it. Such
: a being of course would not regret the Deluge unless it was indeed wrong,
: and not for the best, and all that.)
 
   This is so childish I am embarrassed for you. I would like to see
how any of the the preceding paragraph can be rendered intelligble.

Bill

Newsgroups: alt.atheism