Is the evolution story really scientific?

[DarkWraith]

Farmageddon said:

DarkWraith said:

Farmageddon said:

Besides what I've said above and others before, there's a very simple reason why you can't really apply logic to disprove an all powerfull being, and it's very simple: by definition, even if implicitly, such a being has the very handy ability to tell logic to just shove it. Which solves all of those "unmovable object and irresistible force" paradoxes. God, being almighty, is the very third valid state for a binary logic. He can be both the negation and the affirmation of any given proposition. You can't say "this thing is not subject to logic, but aplying logic to it leads to a contradiction, thus this thing doesn't exist", as that's just bad logic.

And this is precisely the reason I don't believe in any such sort of being: you just can't take anything useful out of it. It's a waste of time. Still, it's not contradictory and it's impossible to prove wrong.

By the way, not to be offesnive, but you sound very immature, DarkWraith.

yeh you really have no idea what youre talking about here. when attributes like omnipotence are defined they are defined in a way as to be cohesive with logic. for example:

Omnipotence - all-powerful with respect to its nature 

thus negating any logical absurdities as those would not be within the nature of omnipotence

have you had any philosophy in your entire life, esp. about theology? it seems no...

seek out plantingas ontological argument

Formally? No, not really, I've just read about this and that. As far as I know, though, many thinkers have advanced and attacked many definitions of omnipotence under different points of view, relating it or not to the idea of an actual god, some even defending such "absolute omnipotence".

But it would seem to me that the main reasons to define it the way you talk about would be either to preserve logic, so as to be able to actually derive anything from it, or as a counter argument and deflect things like the stone paradox. My point was that I see no reason why we should impose - or really even expect - God to be bounded by logic, be it either because He abidies by it or because it's part of His very "nature" . I really can't see any a priori reason at all to expect that. If you can, please, I'm interested.

Besides, you speak of studying philosophy and theology, yet your initial argument about the impossibility of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being is as simple as possible and, I'm sure, has been tackled by any of the great thinkers who didn't see God as an impossibility or even believed on it's existence in some form or capacity.  To suppose that disproving theism, or even more specifically a Christian-like God, is by this very simple logic such an open and shut case is just preposterous.

As such I bet many, and much better, counter arguments can be found elsewhere, but here's a quick, probably way over-simplified, shot at one:

You seem to take "the good" as being an absolute, necessary and eternal quality, independent of God. That, by itself, can be seen as restricting God. Furthermore, you assume we're in a position to judge what "the good" consist of. One might, on the other hand, say that "the good" is contingent, at least in a sense, being precisely that which God wills, or that "the good" is that which conforms to the nature of God, or that we can't really define waht it is and isn't, thus removing the contradiction you proposed, if kind of tautologically, I guess.

Anyway, as I said before, I don't believe in any given kind of deity, but my broader point remains that I see no reason to expect logic (and, well, reason itself as we know it) to never break on any level of existence, infinitelly distant from our experience as it may be. Much less do I see any reason to believe or, worse yet, impose this to be necessarily the case.

(Just as an aside, a random quick though: another interesting way to argue against the impossibility of God is to notice that God and His properties might actually be impossible to even put in "words". Which I think is acutally consistent with Christian tradition, which says it's only through the Holy Spirit's guidance taht one can to truly understand the bibble. As in, you pretty much need a miracle of faith to even read about God)

okay so no education on the topic, so you tout suppositions as counters? erm...you dont get logic do you? the extent of your counter to posted logic is "well im sure someone has argued against it, IT CANT BE SO SIMPLE" it is, why do you think philosophy is the field with the lowest amount of god believers? you cant inject reason into a faith position. doesn't work.

when you argue, you have to decide with which premise you disagree. if you accept the premises, the conclusion follows necessarily.

there are no "great thinkers" on the side of theim. you have ontological and cosmological arguments which purport some non-interventionist deity. no arguments even exist for personal gods because the idea is so silly and childish. 

nope, omnibenevolence is assigned as a trait by MANY christians (nothing about good is invoked in this argument). therefore it became an a priori truth. the argument simply uses the a priori truths as defined by christianity to argue that such a deity cannot possibly exist due to contradictions with reality.

then you reject Rationalism as a way to discover truth, which is fine. 

if you cant put it into words, you can't argue in favor of it and that reduces it to an argument from ignorance fallacy.