From: jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Deliberate Ignorance
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 15:14:31 GMT

In article <C1JrEI.5pF@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>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.

Atheists don't define God, we take it from the religion in question and
then show the definition to be incompatible with observation.  It doesn't
prove that God does not exist at all, only as defined.  How do you answer
the questions raised by the problem of evil?  You obviously have mastered
these rhetorical gimmicks you speak of.

>   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.

Besides being wrong, do you have an alternative to logic and reason to 
discover the truth?  Revelation, perhaps?

>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?

Exactly.  This makes the Bible useless, because it is open to different
interpretations with no unbiased way to judge which one is correct.  How
are you so certain that your interpretation is correct, it wouldn't happen
to be because it fits your preconceived notions of God?

>   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.

Are you saying that humans should be perfect or that God is imperfect?
We say that existence *as defined* requires a logically consistent definition.

JC
--
Have you washed your brain today?