Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ScuzzBuster · 08-21-2008, 02:49 PM

Philisophical contradiction arguments may be amusing around the water cooler, but the problem with them is that don't stand up because the nature of them is open to such wide interpretation to begin with...perfect examples were given above.

Honestly though, it's no argument you can go to a believer with regardless since most believers breeze right by even the most blatent inconsistent contradictions of the Bible even when it come to solid observable facts and events from one page to the next.

My personal take on it is that you can band aid and justify some of these tangible and philosophical contradictions, but by the time you have to justify and re-interpret as much as you do just to hold the basic text together I don't understand how someone can even take stock in the book at all as anything resembling truth. This is not to say that there isn't the odd "good" or "moral" principle in the pages. But to call the gospels the "inerrent" source of ANYTHING is delusion on a mass scale, much less the inerrent word of an omnipotent creator.

boneyard bill · 08-23-2008, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheUnbeliever

So, this one really straddles the fence between BC&H and EoG, but I thought I'd post it here because it relies entirely on two principles:

1. Logic, specifically the "law" of non-contradiction, and
2. Scripture.

Here we go:

1. That which is self-contradictory cannot exist. (P1)
2. God is love. (P2) Representative verse(s): 1 John 4:8
3. God is fearful (meaning "frightening"). (P3) Representative verse(s): 1 Chronicles 16:25
--> 4. God is both fearful and love (from P2 and P3).
5. God does not change (that is, God is always love and always fearful). (P4) Representative verse(s): Malachi 3:6
--> 6. God is both fearful and love at the same time (from P2 - P5).
7. There is no fear in love; that is, love and fear are mutually exclusive (P5). Representative verse(s): 1 John 4:18
--> 8. God is two mutually exclusive things at once (from P2 - P7).
--> 9. God is self-contradictory (from P8).

C. God (as described in the Bible) cannot exist (from P1 and P9).

Text of verses quoted (from the NKJV):

1 John 4:8—"He who does not love does not know God, for God is love." (Emphasis mine)
1 Chronicles 16:25—"For the LORD is great and greatly to be praised; He is also to be feared above all gods." (Emphasis mine)
Malachi 3:6—"For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob." (Emphasis mine)
1 John 4:18—"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love." (Emphasis mine)

These verses are only meant to be representative; there are a slew of verses in support of God being loving and loving God, and just as many (if not more) in favor of God inspiring fear and advocating that we fear God.

Finally, I have anticipated the objection that I may be equivocating on the verb "to fear," as it may mean "to be in awe of" in some instances. I would like the input of any forum-goers here who understand enough Biblical Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek to see how true this claim is. As far as I can tell, if I am guilty of using "to fear" to mean "to be in awe of," there is nothing to indicate that this meaning of "to fear" is not maintained throughout, and so the argument stands regardless.

Thoughts?

It's the kind of Biblical argument I would expect from an atheist and it's the kind of argument that would drive a fundamentalist nuts. That's because atheists and fundamentalists are both so literal-minded. Have you never heard of metaphor? Terms like fear and love can both be used to try to depict a relationship which is otherwise unknown to the reader without necessarily engendering a contradiction.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-21-2008, 02:49 PM	#11
ScuzzBuster Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The States Posts: 90	Philisophical contradiction arguments may be amusing around the water cooler, but the problem with them is that don't stand up because the nature of them is open to such wide interpretation to begin with...perfect examples were given above. Honestly though, it's no argument you can go to a believer with regardless since most believers breeze right by even the most blatent inconsistent contradictions of the Bible even when it come to solid observable facts and events from one page to the next. My personal take on it is that you can band aid and justify some of these tangible and philosophical contradictions, but by the time you have to justify and re-interpret as much as you do just to hold the basic text together I don't understand how someone can even take stock in the book at all as anything resembling truth. This is not to say that there isn't the odd "good" or "moral" principle in the pages. But to call the gospels the "inerrent" source of ANYTHING is delusion on a mass scale, much less the inerrent word of an omnipotent creator.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.