From: johnsd2@vccnw06.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Deliberate Ignorance
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw06.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:26:14 GMT

In article 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.

Correct. This is why I don't consider God generally disprovable; I (at least)
can only do it by defining God like that.

> By refusing to acknowledge what is actually claimed,

And just what IS actually claimed? By whom? I have such a hard
time keeping them all straight...

>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.

Well, having deleted the context (the usual claim that I can only
disprove God's existance in certain special cases) it BECOMES such,
but I didn't write it that way.

>   The second fallacy is the implied assertion that logic is
>sufficient to settle the question.

I'd have said reason. But if not, how can you use logic to address
my arguments?

> I've seen this argument before, and
>it always seems to be understood as a given; it ain't.

If you wish to abandon reason, fine with me. Pardon me if I insist
on keeping it.

> Logic is
>especially suited to exposing fallacious reasoning, but has little
>value in establishing the truth of anything.

Exactly. Certain Gods contain contradictions; to claim they can exists
is no more than fallacious reasoning.

Incidentally, logic can show truth also, but it usually starts from
assumptions to do it. What I can do to show that some gods dont' exist
is to assume that they do, and show that this assumption leads to
a contradiction. But as you noticed- as I told you more than once- this
assumption must be specific, and it may not be YOUR God. (indeed it is
almost certainly not)

> If you find an apparent
>contradiction in the Bible, it may be due to the way you choose to
>interpret it.

That's true, but it comes to no more than saying that theists are slippery
and will change their claims in order to not be proved wrong, while
claiming that they have not. This is the reason I insist I can't disprove
God without a solid, exact definition. If I dont have that, God can sort
of get out of the way. :/

> 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.

We only MENTION what serves our purpose. The Bible is accurate in spots
too. Occasionally it agrees with itself. So?

> If
>you know in advance what conclusions you will accept and reject,
>what's the point of discussion?

It's fun! :)

However, its unfair to say I know what _conclusions_ I'll accept and
reject. I know of various _arguments_ what I have already evaluated and
rejected. If you bring them up again  I'll reject them again. But maybe
you have a new argument- that could change my mind.

>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.

The universe has never failed, in my experience, to be logical. As I said,
if you whs to abandon reason, fine. That does seem necessary
to accepting theism. But I will not. Perhaps this is why I am
an atheist? (no, I dont think so, but it WOULD fit what seams to be
your worldview. I dont think theism is inherently incoherent.)

>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.

You dont quite seem to understand the argument I made. Let me try again.

Some Premicies:

1) God is a being that can do anything, by which I mean there is no thing
anyone can conceive of or propose that this being cannot accomplish.

2) God exists.

3) I can propose the task: "Think of something you can't do, then do it."

A bit of reason:

If these 3 things are true then there is a being which can
think of something it can't do, and do it, since I can propose
this task. It can accomplish anything it can think of (from #1).
There are two possibilities: It can think of something it can't do,
or it cannot think of such a thing.

	If the first, then it will not be able to do it (defn of 'cant do'),
	contradicting #1.

	If the second, then there is something it can think of that it
	can't do, contradicting #1.

So, either #1, #2 or #3 is false (or Reason is invalid). I think #3
is beyond serious dispute for empirical reasons; I think #2 is false.
You think #1 is false. But if you let me define God is the right way
(The special cases I was talking about), I will define God such that
#1 is true, leaving only #2 in dispute.

I'm surprised you hadn't heard of this before.

>   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.

As a wise man once said, You No Parse Good.

"establish their prejudice"?

> The fact is, atheists have
>little use for genuinely valid logic;

I have a great deal of use, but if you hadn't noticed I tend to use
general reasoning rather than formalized mathematical logic, as said
logic is obtuse as hell, and no good at all for arguing this way.

> 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.

Oh? Well, we do USE sarcasm all the time (well I do anyway), and
ridicule occasionally? (can you find a second example of me doing it?
There IS one...) The zealous and bigotted comment needs more support.

PS: What 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!

Has it ever occured to you that if you wish to quote out of context, you
really should wait > 24 hours? How many people will fail to realize
that I wrote this because someone (you?) considered my arguments boring
and commonplace, which they were. So I provided something more interesting.

If you don't like it, too bad. But don't pretend that this is a reasonably
facimile of my opionions. Its a reasonably facimile of my sence of humor.

You don't have to like it, you can certainly take offence 
(there IS a reason for the apology you deleted you know..)
But you do have to get better at misrepresentation. This just
wont cut it here.

>   For those of you who may have missed the earlier point about the
>abuse of logic, read on ...

"abuse of logic"?

I thought you were objecting to my -USING IT AT ALL-.

>: (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.

The preceeding paragraph was not intended to be intelligible, as
you know quite well, at least if you know how to read.

If there is a flaw in the reasoning above (aside from the premicies
that is), point it out.

Calling me names just makes you look like you CAN'T answer me, which
isn't very good.

But remember that I have yet to give up on reason. So claiming that
its using reason at all is a flaw is probably not going to wash.

Oh, incidentally, did you really think trying to prentend that I
was trying to disprove God in general was going to work? I know
what I said, and the folx here can check for themselves. So who
could you fool?
---
			- 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.