Is God a logical contradiction?

[Anomalocaris]

What you say have been so willfully disingenuous, there's no point to replying, even had replying been worthwhile in the face of your conceit.

[LadyForCamus]

But religion will always avoid admitting its intimate interest in kneecapping.




 

 Religion is always opportunistic, and as science progress ever farther beyond the bullshit most easily continence during the bronze age that form the basis of so many religions, the opportunities for these religion will lie ever more in being anti-science, for there will certainly be ever less opportunities they can exploit in being pro-science without being exposed for the fraudulent fabrications they are.

Religion is no more intrinsically anti-science than it is anti anything that reveals or threatens to reveal its foundational fraudulence, or to challenge the validity of the reasons it has become accustomed to using for demanding acceptance of its control over the hearts and minds of the people  and for justifying aggrandizing itself.

It just so happens that science is uniquely and sustainedly good at revealing fraudulence in foundations and invalidity of reasons given.  So it is entirely disingenuous to say old religions is not intrinsically against science.    They are unescapably against science in the long run whatever they had, in their confusion and conceit, been momentarily in the past, because in the long run in science there is only death for old religion.

Countenance and continence are different. 

What you say is so faith-based, so devoid of historical knowledge, that there's no point in replying.

I’m still waiting for a reply from you, Bel. If you don’t mind, that is.

[Belacqua]

I’m still waiting for a reply from you, Bel. If you don’t mind, that is.

I appreciate your sincere questions. 

Sometimes the discourse from others falls so low that I just have to walk away. Please give me a moment to stop face-palming.

[Anomalocaris]

Right, if your didactic tone and disingenuous quibble does not inspire the proper awe and reverential agreement, then the discourse must have fallen too low for you to remain.

[Abaddon_ire]

But religion will always avoid admitting its intimate interest in kneecapping.




 

 Religion is always opportunistic, and as science progress ever farther beyond the bullshit most easily continence during the bronze age that form the basis of so many religions, the opportunities for these religion will lie ever more in being anti-science, for there will certainly be ever less opportunities they can exploit in being pro-science without being exposed for the fraudulent fabrications they are.

Religion is no more intrinsically anti-science than it is anti anything that reveals or threatens to reveal its foundational fraudulence, or to challenge the validity of the reasons it has become accustomed to using for demanding acceptance of its control over the hearts and minds of the people  and for justifying aggrandizing itself.

It just so happens that science is uniquely and sustainedly good at revealing fraudulence in foundations and invalidity of reasons given.  So it is entirely disingenuous to say old religions is not intrinsically against science.    They are unescapably against science in the long run whatever they had, in their confusion and conceit, been momentarily in the past, because in the long run in science there is only death for old religion.

Countenance and continence are different. 

What you say is so faith-based, so devoid of historical knowledge, that there's no point in replying.

Yet you felt a need to reply anyway. Funny that.

[Belacqua]

I’m still waiting for a reply from you, Bel. If you don’t mind, that is.

I've been thinking about how to answer...

I'm in kind of an odd position because I'm very much a beginner on the subject of real, difficult theology. By some odd chance I know a teeny bit more about it than most people posting here. 

It looks as though the poster called "Acrobat" knows what I'm talking about. I've seen him refer to God as "impassible," which is a part of theology. Sad to say the poster who really knew a lot isn't posting here any more. He used the name "Ignorant." I know who he is in real life and have chatted with him some. He has recently finished his doctorate in one of the world's most demanding philosophy departments. I found it useful just to search for his posts on this forum and review them. 

For the time being just let me point to some books that have been useful.

David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions 

https://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Search-B...=241582011

This is useful for getting rid of a number of misunderstandings that recent people have about Christianity. 

By the same author, The Experience of God

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/030020...bl_vppi_i2

This is a readable introduction to concepts of the type I've been talking about. The author is fantastically well-read and knowledgable. 

For Thomas Aquinas and the difference between natural and revealed theology, Edward Feser, Aquinas A Beginner's Guide

https://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners...oks&sr=1-1

For a balanced, non-comic-book version of the interactions of science and religion in European history: John Brooke, Science and Religion

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Religion-...oks&sr=1-1

My own publications have been mostly centered on Dante, and I found this most useful: Christian Moevs, The Metaphysics of Dante's Comedy. So if you are familiar with the Divine Comedy at all, this is an easy way in to Thomism.

https://www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-Ameri...oks&sr=1-1

As always, these books point to more detailed study if you're so inclined. 

Last time I checked, they are all available in e-book editions on the main academic piracy site, Library Genesis. (Despite the name this is not Bible-affiliated.) 

http://gen.lib.rus.ec

[GrandizerII]

I’m still waiting for a reply from you, Bel. If you don’t mind, that is.

I've been thinking about how to answer...

I'm in kind of an odd position because I'm very much a beginner on the subject of real, difficult theology. By some odd chance I know a teeny bit more about it than most people posting here. 

It looks as though the poster called "Acrobat" knows what I'm talking about. I've seen him refer to God as "impassible," which is a part of theology. Sad to say the poster who really knew a lot isn't posting here any more. He used the name "Ignorant." I know who he is in real life and have chatted with him some. He has recently finished his doctorate in one of the world's most demanding philosophy departments. I found it useful just to search for his posts on this forum and review them. 

For the time being just let me point to some books that have been useful.

David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions 

https://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Search-B...=241582011

This is useful for getting rid of a number of misunderstandings that recent people have about Christianity. 

By the same author, The Experience of God

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/030020...bl_vppi_i2

This is a readable introduction to concepts of the type I've been talking about. The author is fantastically well-read and knowledgable. 

For Thomas Aquinas and the difference between natural and revealed theology, Edward Feser, Aquinas A Beginner's Guide

https://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners...oks&sr=1-1

For a balanced, non-comic-book version of the interactions of science and religion in European history: John Brooke, Science and Religion

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Religion-...oks&sr=1-1

My own publications have been mostly centered on Dante, and I found this most useful: Christian Moevs, The Metaphysics of Dante's Comedy. So if you are familiar with the Divine Comedy at all, this is an easy way in to Thomism.

https://www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-Ameri...oks&sr=1-1

As always, these books point to more detailed study if you're so inclined. 

Last time I checked, they are all available in e-book editions on the main academic piracy site, Library Genesis. (Despite the name this is not Bible-affiliated.) 

http://gen.lib.rus.ec

I remember Ignorant. He knew how to converse with atheists better than most theists here without insulting our intelligence, (though there might have been one or two mildly frustrating exchanges with him) and that made me like him even more.

[Belacqua]

I remember Ignorant. He knew how to converse with atheists better than most theists here without insulting our intelligence, (though there might have been one or two mildly frustrating exchanges with him) and that made me like him even more.

He is a brilliant man! And he has the gift of bringing out the best in people during conversation -- something I lack.

He's also flying around the world to academic conferences and raising two small boys, so it's no surprise he's too busy for us!

[Fake Messiah]

He is a brilliant man! And he has the gift of bringing out the best in people during conversation -- something I lack.

Yeah you do lack the knowledge and ability to communicate because you read garbage books, like David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions

I mean look at some garbage this schmuck brainwashed you

Conditions in the world of print have never before been so propitious for sanctimonious tirades against religion, or (more narrowly) monotheism, or (more specifically) Christianity, or (more precisely) Roman Catholicism.

Oh, imagine that this schmuck sees Roman Catholicism under attack. Criticizing priests for demonizing gays and researching crimes of Catholic Church this guy sees as "sanctimonious tirades".

Then he continues

Never before have the presses or the press been so hospitable to journalists, biologists, minor philosophers, amateur moralists proudly brandishing their baccalaureates, novelists, and (most indispensable of all) film actors eager to denounce the savagery of faith

Biologists are the problem? But I thought Chruch was so pro-science - go figure. "Amateur moralists"? And who are professional moralists? Let me guess: the pope, bishops, priests.

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.

Awww, this schmuck steeps down to ad hominem attacks. If the book is so "bad" then he could have easily debunk it and not go on ad hominem tirade.

The journalist Christopher Hitchens, whose talent for intellectual caricature somewhat exceeds his mastery of consecutive logic, has just issued God Is Not Great,

What? Even more ad hominem attacks?!!

Over the past few years, Sam Harris’s extravagantly callow attack on all religious belief, The End of Faith, has enjoyed robust sales and the earnest praise of sympathetic reviewers.

Ad hominem fallacies. Needless to say religious people will embrace any book as proof for their God and that atheists are evil even if the book has nothing more than "Blah, blah blah God"

atheism that consists entirely in vacuous arguments afloat on oceans of historical ignorance,

Projecting.

In its early centuries, the church earned the enmity of genuinely imaginative and civilized critics, such as Celsus and Porphyry, who held the amiable belief that they should make some effort to acquaint themselves with the object of their critique.

Yeah, the church got so "acquaint" with Celsus works that Christian censors burned all copies of that "civilized critic's" Celsus' books meaning that Church is not civilized. Now how is afloat on oceans of historical ignorance? - David Bentley Hart.

[Belacqua]

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.

Awww, this schmuck steeps down to ad hominem attacks. If the book is so "bad" then he could have easily debunk it and not go on ad hominem tirade.

The journalist Christopher Hitchens, whose talent for intellectual caricature somewhat exceeds his mastery of consecutive logic, has just issued God Is Not Great,

What? Even more ad hominem attacks?!!

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. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

For example, if you say "this man is bald, so what he says about shampoo must be incorrect." Hart never does this kind of thing. I don't know where you got these quotes, but he and many others have made detailed records of all the errors and faulty arguments in the books of Dawkins, Hitchens, and others. They don't have to make arguments based on logical fallacies because they can explain the errors. 

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

He actually believes that Nietzsche, in announcing the death of God,
literally meant to suggest that the supreme being named God had somehow met
his demise. The title of one of his chapters is “The Metaphysical Claims of
Religion are False,” but nowhere in that chapter does he actually say what those
claims or their flaws are. Moreover, on matters of simple historical and textual
fact, Hitchens’s book is so extraordinarily crowded with errors, great and small,
that it is obvious that, while writing it, he could not even be troubled with so
much as a quick visit to the nearest encyclopaedia. Just to skim a few off the
surface, somewhat haphazardly: He speaks of the ethos of Dietrich Bonhoeffer
as “an admirable but nebulous humanism” (which is roughly on a par with
saying that Gandhi was an apostle of the ruthless conquest and spoliation of
weaker peoples). He conflates the events of the first and fourth crusades (but
what’s a century here or there?). He actually believes that there were theological
scholastic disputes regarding the number of angels that can dance on the head of
the pin. 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). He manages to quote
Tertullian correctly in Latin—credibile est, quia ineptum est—only then to
supply the traditional misquotation in English—“I believe because it is absurd”;
and he clearly is unaware of the point that (the lawyer) Tertullian is making
regarding judgments of a testimony’s credibility. He speaks of the traditional
hostility of “religion” (whatever that may be) to medicine, despite the monastic
origins of the modern hospital, or the involvement of Christian missions in
medical research and medical care from the fourth century to the present. He
tells us that countless lives were lost in the early centuries of the church over
disputes regarding which gospels were legitimate (the actual number is zero). He
asserts that Myles Coverdale and John Wycliffe were burned alive at the stake,
though both men died of natural causes. 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. He thinks there is a passage in the
Inferno that describes Christ descending into hell to save great men like
Aristotle “who presumably had been boiling away for centuries” until then,
which is wrong in just about every detail. He informs us that it is well known
that Augustine was fond of the myth of the Wandering Jew, though Augustine
died eight centuries before the legend was invented. And so on and so on (and so
on). The man, to be frank, is at most a charmingly belligerent ignoramus.
In the end, though, all his errors of fact might be tolerated in a book that
had some rough semblance of a rational argument at its core. After all, there
really is a great deal to despise in the history of religion, even if Hitchens gets
almost all the particular details extravagantly wrong. But, to be perfectly honest,
I cannot tell what Hitchens’s central argument is. It is not even clear what he
understands religion to be, assuming he understands it to be anything other than
a general designation for everything in the world he dislikes. For instance, he
denounces female circumcision, commendably enough, but what—pray tell—
has that got to do with religion as such? Clitoridectomy is a widespread cultural
tradition, principally of sub-Saharan Africa, which is of course wholly
deplorable, and which is perpetuated by persons of various religious persuasions
or of none; but it is not a specifically religious practice as such. Similarly, he
takes indignant note of the plight of young Indian brides brutalized and
occasionally murdered on account of insufficient dowries, and we all no doubt
share his horror; but what the hell is his point? Such crimes are not prescribed by
any school of Indian piety. As best I can tell, Hitchens’s case against faith
consists mostly in a series of anecdotal enthymemes—that is to say, syllogisms
of which one premise has been suppressed. Unfortunately, in each case it is the
major premise that is missing; and since it is quite impossible at any given
moment to deduce what that premise is, it is also impossible to tell whether it
can quite supply the necessary logical ligature between the minor premise and
the conclusion. One need only attempt to write out his arguments in traditional
syllogistic style to see the difficulty. For instance:
Major Premise: [omitted]
Minor Premise: Evelyn
Waugh was always something
of a bastard, and his Catholic
chauvinism often made him
even worse.
Conclusion: “Religion” is evil.
Or:
Major Premise: [omitted]
Minor Premise: There are
many bad men who are
Buddhists.
Conclusion: All religious
claims are false.
Or:
Major Premise: [omitted]
Minor Premise: Timothy
Dwight opposed smallpox
vaccinations.
Conclusion: There is no God.
It all seems rather hard to follow, frankly.