From: johnsd2@jec324.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Deliberate Ignorance
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec324.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:20:26 GMT

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.)
>
>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.

Which isn't exactly the same thing. Maybe God DID do all those things
in the Bible. Of course, that means the Bible is wrong when it says
that God is all these other things (I seem to remember it does
that), but that's not logically impossible.

>Because if you do, the the following:
>>If God should come down in a Second Coming type thing and explain real
>>well why he is late that would be pretty good proof that he exists too.
>>But it's not nearly as much fun to reason about as Spam.
>Could simply never happen.....  I'm sortof confused.

No, it COULD happen (logically), and it would be some evidence that a God
exists, NOT necessarily the God of the Bible though. (it was only an
example, I refered to a "Second Coming Type Thing" just because it was
the easiest way to describe it.

>  Do you believe God
>(as described in the bible) doesn't exist because the biblical account of
>God is logically contradictory, or are you saying that God doesn't exist
>because no proof is ever provided for His existence.

In general, the latter.

>I find the former argument immensely interesting.

It doesn't work without a very specific account of God.

>  The latter argument is
>somewhat bland and quite boring--it's an end unto itself.  (You could always
>assert it, but you simply can't get much more out of it than a simple
>refutation....)

It's a general principle: don't add useless, unnecessary things to
your worldview without any reason. Adding God to my worldview would
not make it any better.

I'm sorry you don't like it. But I think it is valid.

It's not a refutation. Its a guideline.

>>Absolutely. We refuse to behave as if it God existed without proof,
>>because this seems unreasonable to us. Acting "as if God might or might
>>not exist" is tough.. what does it mean if not one of the first two?
>
>Seems that you're holding onto the latter argument.

Right... In GENERAL.

That is because God is much to vague to logically disprove.

>  Damn.  I thought this
>was going to get interesting.  Too bad.  Seems like some atheists (like many
>theists/christians) can't play more than just a few notes....

I can play a lot of notes- but if I were to claim something I did
not believe (such that Gods can in general be disproven, despite
the lack of definition) I would be lieing. Do you want that? A sample perhaps:

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!

My apolgies to everyone I just offended, which is to say just about
everyone. :> (especially to my ex-roomie, who thought of the Church
of Jezus Christ of Latter Day Teleatheists. That's Allen Gardener,
folx, make donations payable to him. :) )

That at least should be interesting. Hope it satisfies your
discrimination palette. If not, read on..

On the other hand, I feel that in special cases, the existance
of God can be disproven. However, these are just the cases with contradictions
in them.

(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.)

Is that more interesting?

>>Parle vous frances? :)
>
>Apparently, you don't spell it... (Correct spelling: Parlez-vous francais?)  
>:-)

:)

Don't speak it either, but it seemed appropriate at the time.
(almost said 'Habla es Spaniol?' too, but I figured I didn't know
spanish at all (never did) so maybe I might be saying 'Is your turnip
paisley?'

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism