yguy

Actually it is.

Pain Paien

The burden is on you to prove it. You have not done so, therefore, for the sake of this argument, it is not.

yguy

"If the Bible is the innerant word of God, Jesus rose from the dead three days after the Crucifixion".

That statement is true without regard to whether the Bible is the word of God. Most atheists around here are able to grasp this, I'm sure. My statement is true by the same reasoning.

Pain Paien

I'm afraid you're not fooling anyone. This new statement has the caveat "If the Bible is the innerant word of God". Your first did not, and thus cannot be said to be true. Besides, this new statement has no value whatsoever in an argument. You'd have to prove your premise for it to be relevant. In the same vein, you'd have to prove your unspoken premise in order for your other statement to have value.

Here, I'll try your trick: "If I am an all-powerful being, yguy's arguments are automatically wrong". I make this statement in order to support that you are wrong. Whew, that was easy.

yguy

It most certainly did.

"It's only a contradiction if YHWH is a pretender. If He is not, then the Allah the terrorists believe in is."

Your premise having been shown to be false, the conclusion is as well.

Had you made such a statement, I would have called it meaningless, but I would not have called it false, or said it didn't follow.

yguy

If so, He's a pretender. My statement doesn't allow for that.

Pain Paien

It's still not a contradiction. That possibility is not the only one. People could have misinterpretted the being, (seeing as he's obviously rather vague if he does exist), for example. He still could have commanded the acts. Since this statement is false, the second

Quote:

If He is not, then the Allah the terrorists believe in is."

is as well. Your entire premise is incorrect, because you failed to account for the reality of the situation.

Sorry, you haven't done that.

My apologies; it was both. Here, I'll amend the comment: "This does not follow, is false, and is in addition meaningless."

yguy

There is no evidence for the possibility of God saying "chill" and the Israelites hearing "kill". We're not talking about a Monty Python remake of the OT here. And my premise assumes the OT to be substantially veridical, which means that when Joshua committed genocide, for instance, he did so with God's approval. Had that not been the case there would have been some record of his having been reprimanded by God, as there was for so many who committed far less serious offenses. On the contary, Joshua's record was almost completely unblemished. If an Israelite had been considered a mass murderer by God and was portrayed in such glowing terms, then the OT is a fraud, and so is YHWH as He is commonly perceived by Jews/Christians.

Obviously. My statement assumes that. So what?

It isn't, because implicit in the premise was the assumption that we are talking about YHWH as portrayed in the OT.

Pain Paien

As I find this entire diversion boring and pointless, I don't plan on quibbling any further past this.

There are 4 possibilities relevant to this situation:

1. There is no omnipotent being at all (The most likely possibility and the one most congruous with logic).
2. There is an omnipotent being that is not a pretender and that does not order terrorist attacks by islamic militants (you believe this based on no well-founded basis).
3. There is an omnipotent being that is not a pretender and that does order terrorist attacks by islamic militants.
4. There is an omnipotent god that is a pretender that orders terrorist attacks by islamic militants.

There is no reason for you to choose number 2 over any of the others on any logical basis, and all the others counter your point, rendering this entire digression a moot point. If you can make a point that is actually relevant to the issues, then perhaps it will be worth discussing.

yguy

There is no reason to choose any of them on any logical basis. #1 is not a whit more "logically congruous" than any of the others in and of itself.