Is God a logical contradiction?

[Fake Messiah]

He makes no ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy when you declare that a person's argument must be incorrect because of something about the person himself.

And he does makes attacks on Dawkin's, Hitchens, and some other personas instead of what they said/ wrote.

For example, here is some of what he wrote about Hitchens' book:

And, of course, you had to find something that's not in the David Bentley Hart's book

He conflates the events of the first and fourth crusades (but
what’s a century here or there?).

So did he put one Christian massacre in the first crusade when it happened in fourth?

He actually believes that there were theological
scholastic disputes regarding the number of angels that can dance on the head of
the pin.
[quote]

WOW!! He really got him! So Aquinas in “Treatise on the Angels” makes theological to existence of angels, number, nature, how they move, what they know, and what they want but not how many can dance on top of the pin - so far off: I mean that's desperate.

[quote]
He repeats as fact the long discredited myth that Christians destroyed the
works of Aristotle, or of Lucretius, or systematically burned the books of pagan
antiquity (the very opposite of what did in fact happen)

lol "very opposite". Let's see what Hitch says in the book

To come last to Baghdad. This is one of the greatest centers of learning and culture in history. It was here that some of the lost works of Aristotle and other Greeks (“lost” because the Christian authorities had burned some, suppressed others, and closed the schools of philosophy, on the grounds that there could have been no useful reflections on morality before the preaching of Jesus) were preserved, retranslated, and transmitted via Andalusia back to the ignorant “Christian” West.

This is true. When Christians discovered Aristotle's works they were not written in Greek and stored in clay jars, but written in Arabic and housed in the libraries of the great universities at Baghdad, Cairo, Toledo, and Cordoba. And why do you think it was like that? Because Christians were preserving it? Not just that but Arabs and Jews introduced to Europe Euclid's mathematics, Ptolemy's astronomy and optics, Archimedes' engineering principles, the medical science of Hippocrates and Galen, and other classical treasures.

He speaks of the traditional
hostility of “religion” (whatever that may be) to medicine

If religion is not hostile then why are Christians forbidding stem cell research? But again Bentley doesn't really say what Hitchens says about religion and medicine. It's not like he took Hitchen's exact words from his book and showed it was not true, but rather oversimplifies it in a crude way.

He
asserts that Myles Coverdale and John Wycliffe were burned alive at the stake, though both men died of natural causes.

Yeah they were "only" accused as heretics and left to die in shame and loneliness. He did make a mistake.

He knows that the last twelve verses of
Mark 16 are a late addition to the text, but imagines this means that the entire
account of the resurrection was as well.

Yeah how dare he dismiss the whole books on blatant lies.

And so on.

EDIT I Don't know what is wrong with QUOTE tags. They keep appearing at the end and mess everything up

[Belacqua]

And, of course, you had to find something that's not in the David Bentley Hart's book

This is all in The Dream Child's Progress and Other Essays by David Bentley Hart.

And he does makes attacks on Dawkin's, Hitchens, and some other personas instead of what they said/ wrote.

He calls them some names because he has found so many errors in their books. But an insult is not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack would be something like: this person is a Christian therefore he can't think straight. 

If you point out a couple of dozen errors and then say that the person makes a lot of errors, that's not an ad hominem. 

Did you look at the Wikipedia page?

[Fake Messiah]

He calls them some names because he has found so many errors in their books. But an insult is not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack would be something like: this person is a Christian therefore he can't think straight. 

If you point out a couple of dozen errors and then say that the person makes a lot of errors, that's not an ad hominem. 

Did you look at the Wikipedia page?

You clearly can't understand that his dismissal of Dawkins is because "he is a biologist" and not what he writes, is ad hominem fallacy. Just like you are not able check all the lies he wrote about Hitchens book.

[Belacqua]

You clearly can't understand that his dismissal of Dawkins is because "he is a biologist" and not what he writes, is ad hominem fallacy. Just like you are not able check all the lies he wrote about Hitchens book.

No one dismisses Dawkins' statements about religion due to the fact that he's a biologist. In fact Dr. Hart specifically says that Dawkins' books on biology are pretty good, and he should stick to what he does well. 

If you look again at what you quoted, you'll see it doesn't say that his errors are due to his being a biologist. It says he's a zoologist (a true fact), a "tireless tractarian" (a judgment call), and a writer who "never fails to entrance his eager readers." It says he doesn't do philosophical reasoning well -- and why should he, since biologists don't need to do that? And that his rhetoric is reckless -- another judgment call, but one which his Tweets have reinforced. 

The God Delusion, an energetic attack on all religious belief, has just been released by Richard Dawkins, the zoologist and tireless tractarian, who—despite his embarrassing incapacity for philosophical reasoning—never fails to entrance his eager readers with his rhetorical recklessness.

We dismiss Dawkins' statements about religion because they are overly simple and often in error. Not because of his former day job.

[Tom Fearnley]

Thanks for all the posts. I will get back to everyone asap.

[Lek]

Is God a logical contradiction? Is saying an [all-powerful] immaterial intelligence [God] like saying a square circle or married bachelor? To the best of my knowledge there are no immaterial things, such as energy waves, that exhibit intelligence. I need help with this. Anyone?

Can you give me a list of all immaterial things known to us? Do any of them exhibit intelligence? Are all immaterial things known to us (as in there can't be anymore)?

The problem with the above: Is it possible there could be something immaterial which is intelligent? Maybe, maybe not imo. This could be like asking "is it possible that a bachelor could be married?" No, it's not possible. But then maybe I'm wrong.

Thanks.

Trying to use science to disprove God is like using philosophy to solve a mathematical equation.  Science only deals with natural phenomena, whereas God is supernatural and is not bound by natural laws.  We can bring forth philosophical arguments for God's existence, but the only reason I believe is that God has put that belief in me.  I've been through all the arguments ad nauseam and still believe.

[LadyForCamus]

Is God a logical contradiction? Is saying an [all-powerful] immaterial intelligence [God] like saying a square circle or married bachelor? To the best of my knowledge there are no immaterial things, such as energy waves, that exhibit intelligence. I need help with this. Anyone?

Can you give me a list of all immaterial things known to us? Do any of them exhibit intelligence? Are all immaterial things known to us (as in there can't be anymore)?

The problem with the above: Is it possible there could be something immaterial which is intelligent? Maybe, maybe not imo. This could be like asking "is it possible that a bachelor could be married?" No, it's not possible. But then maybe I'm wrong.

Thanks.

Trying to use science to disprove God is like using philosophy to solve a mathematical equation.  Science only deals with natural phenomena, whereas God is supernatural and is not bound by natural laws.  We can bring forth philosophical arguments for God's existence, but the only reason I believe is that God has put that belief in me.  I've been through all the arguments ad nauseam and still believe.

What is “supernatural”? What are it’s characteristics? What attributes disqualify it from the category of “natural”?

[GrandizerII]

Is God a logical contradiction? Is saying an [all-powerful] immaterial intelligence [God] like saying a square circle or married bachelor? To the best of my knowledge there are no immaterial things, such as energy waves, that exhibit intelligence. I need help with this. Anyone?

Can you give me a list of all immaterial things known to us? Do any of them exhibit intelligence? Are all immaterial things known to us (as in there can't be anymore)?

The problem with the above: Is it possible there could be something immaterial which is intelligent? Maybe, maybe not imo. This could be like asking "is it possible that a bachelor could be married?" No, it's not possible. But then maybe I'm wrong.

Thanks.

Trying to use science to disprove God is like using philosophy to solve a mathematical equation.  Science only deals with natural phenomena, whereas God is supernatural and is not bound by natural laws.  We can bring forth philosophical arguments for God's existence, but the only reason I believe is that God has put that belief in me.  I've been through all the arguments ad nauseam and still believe.

In a way we do sometimes use philosophy to do maths ...

And yes you'll believe no matter the evidence to the contrary. Good for you bud.

[Lek]

Trying to use science to disprove God is like using philosophy to solve a mathematical equation.  Science only deals with natural phenomena, whereas God is supernatural and is not bound by natural laws.  We can bring forth philosophical arguments for God's existence, but the only reason I believe is that God has put that belief in me.  I've been through all the arguments ad nauseam and still believe.

What is “supernatural”? What are it’s characteristics? What attributes disqualify it from the category of “natural”?

Supernatural is above or beyond natural.  Something not confined to natural laws.

[LadyForCamus]

What is “supernatural”? What are it’s characteristics? What attributes disqualify it from the category of “natural”?

Supernatural is above or beyond natural.  Something not confined to natural laws.

Yeah, but what is it?  If it exists, you should be able to provide me with positive descriptors. The simple negation of “natural” isn’t going to cut it. If it’s real, you should be able to tell me more about it than what it’s not. You should be able to tell me what it is.