tronvillain

What are you on? I'm a Christian now because I criticize your disproof of God?

tronvillain

Now, why did you shift from logical proof to evidence? I'm with you on the evidence - it is the reason for my strong atheism, so we don't need to talk about that. What we were talking about was logical proof, and in admitting the physical possibility of spontaneous resurrection, you seem to have abandoned your claim of logical inconsistency.

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

99Percent

tronvillain: Do you seriously believe I am writing this just for you? This a public forum you know

I know you are an atheist, but I think it would be interesting to see a philosophical development between die hard atheists in a thread called "Logical Inconsistency of Atheism". Too funny, don't you think?

And this has even been going on for a several pages now, with not a single input from a theistical perspective so far!

tronvillain

Ah, you moved directly from a response to me to a statement to theists then. I think you can see why I'd find it odd.

99Percent

Now, why did you shift from logical proof to evidence?

But isn't logical proof equal to evidence or viceversa? And if not why not?

99Percent

Never mind, that was a stupid question. Peace ok?

I mean it.

tronvillain

You shifted from claiming that something was logically impossible (having a probability of zero) to admitting that that it is physically possible but that there is little or no evidence it has ever happened (having an extremely low probability).

tronvillain

*shrugs* Sure.

joedad

I admit that when it comes to logical proofs, I'm completely uninformed. Maybe you or someone else can simply go step by step through the logical sequence that demonstrates how strong atheism is logically inconsistent. That would be a big help to me personally.

Perhaps also due to my lack of logical expertise, I don't understand the separation between logic and the use of evidence. If the two are mutually exclusive, then it would seem any logical inconsistency of strong atheism would be due to an assumption that gods can exist. A further complication would arise when we tried to define the word god.

But actually, with thegod you have given me an example of your idea of a god that is in your view logically consistent. It seems to imply some kind of perfect god, not any of the ones that people have thus far deduced or imagined. But doesn't such a concept take us squarely back to the definition of a god in the first place?

It seems that we could use that same above analogy (if I've read you correctly) and line of reasoning with just about any phenomenon. I could imagine theperson who has the ability to jump to the moon. Is that logically consistent? I don't know. It certainly appears unreasonable and perhaps even irrational however.

If you see the existence of such a theperson as logically consistent, then I can understand how the existence of a thegod is logically consistent. And I'm not trying to be a smartass here. It's just that I could do the same thing with any observed or imagined phenomenon, theriver, that flows uphill and defies gravity, theplanet,that isn't spherical, or maybe thepower. But we would still require that the concept have a working definition. Or are you saying simply that thegod is an idea without a working definition, and that we have to assume such an entity exists?

But the main thing I need personally, and hope someone would provide, is the sequence of steps showing how strong atheism is inconsistent. Perhaps it is earlier in the thread and I missed it, so I will have a look.

joe

Pomp

99Percent,

Frankly I have been thinking about this greatly, since that discussion you mention.

So have I.

I have to admit that I have no idea what your most recent post to me means. Can you restate your point more clearly? Thanks.

I think your basic argument is that any being that we might think of as god is, by definition, supernatural but any being that interacts with us in a manner consistent enough for us to gain knowledge of it must be bound by some set of laws and, therefore, should be considered natural. A natural being is, by definition, not a god, so no god can exist. Is this correct?

Edit: I want to be clear that I didn't intend the "I have no idea what your post means" bit to be rude. i simply can't figure out what you're saying there, and I hoped you could restate it somehow so that I would understand.

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>