The Law Of Contradiction

It starts out very civil until they realize whether or not you can debate and whether or not you have good points. The better your arguments, the more their vehemence will increase. I agree with most of what you say, but I'd say that most of the atheists on here are aware of this law and are aware that they can no more disprove God than you could prove God. Where they want to discredit you is in asking you whether or not you are Bible Literalist. If you concede then they will attempt to flame you with their skeptics annotated bible and try to discredit the Word of God, thus, tacitly discrediting God, Himself.But there is always one thing they are typically incapable of answering truthfully. The mere fact that they spend inordinate amounts of time attempting to dissuade you in your faith coupled with the fact that many of them turn rabid against Christians speaks very loudly that there is still part of them that wants to believe, and in certain respects, do still believe. Case in point: I don't believe in flying-purple elephants. Because I don't believe in them I find no compulsion to argue about their existence, much less give it any thought. But this doesnt work for the atheist, otherwise, why not just spend as much time attempting to refute the existence of the flying-purple elephant? Why not something arbitrary to argue about? Why?-- Its because there is something in them that is mindful of their Creator and the mere fact that they give Him such 'undue' attention should speak very loudly to you that they do in fact care and that they are in fact effected by the notion of God.That's how I see it anyhow. Again, welcome to EvC.Here is a simple explanation of the Law Of Contradiction (or Noncontradiction as it is sometimes called).Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

Let me rephrase. If atheists claim they don't believe in God, then why spend so much time showing all of us just how much they disbelieve? If they truly disbelieved, then what compulsion is there is in telling us all about it? Who cares, right? Why not just choose something arbitrary to get angry about? This leads me to believe that there is something in themselves that recognizes God as a threat. But a threat only comes from a fear that He might just exist. And so, I'm showing you that even the staunchest atheist on some level gives recognition to God. The best way for them to argue for their own atheism is not to engage in an argument. Talking about God only ensures that the concept of God will always exist. If they simply gave it no thought and refused to spend ridiculous amounts of time trying to disprove God, this would show everyone their truest intent. Does that make sense? That's right. But had they figured out that not talking about God is the best way to deny God, they might not be in this precarious situation that they're in. I guess the atheist isn't smart enough to figure that out. I also assume they are smart enough to figure out that being an agnostic makes more sense logically if you can't disprove the existence of God. Oh well. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

I disagree fundamentally. If God exists then there could not be any physical law that did not derive from Him. If God is the platform from which all things emerge, then ALL that IS, is directly influenced by Him in some form or other. I could agree with that statement. But what purpose does that serve, particularly if there is no purpose to the universe anyway? That's counter-intuitive. That's like saying being ridiculous is being ridiculous. (I'm using the atheistic argument here to demonstrate that its core beliefs are at odds with one another philosophically) There is no contradiction in this, only a lack of understanding it on the proponents part. That in no way negates one or the other. There are people who arrogantly esteem God and there are people who arrogantly assume that they can live without Him. I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. But truth is truth whether we know what that truth is, otherwise truth and falsehood would be meaningless, ambiguous terms. That's the hard part. That was the profound question asked by Pontious Pilate: "What is truth?" Gathering that knowledge is the fun part and the hard part. But hey, its the journey not the destination, aye? I'm aware that there are many versions of god, however, I was pointing out that we only seem to talk about one God here on EvC. Again, people don't attack strawmen, they attack things that threaten them. Draw your own conclusion. Its only inflamatory to you if you believe in relative morals. If morals were really relative you would have no basis for calling my remarks inflamatory apart from your personal opinion. So, again, why spend so much time denying what you claim already doesn't exist? No one is forcing you to come onto EvC, so right there, we can draw a logical conclusion that the topic interests you. If so, why? And if not, then why are you here defending a position of nothingness in a purposeless universe? It makes no sense. Therefore, a tacit recognition that God exists remains in the atheist, but most especially, the staunch atheist. If morals are relative then what difference does it make what somebody else thinks? If there was not a recognition of a set standard there would be nothing to argue about, much less, get angry over. Therefore, it points to a tacit recognition of God. What difference would it make in a purposeless existence what anyone thinks? It wouldn't. It would be as arbitrary as saying we all have blue blood until the blood runs out of our capillaries, veins, and arteries. If truth has no real moorings then we are adrift aimlessly. If morals are relative then we all have our own opinions, and no ones opinion would be any more or less valid than the next person. If you are angry that means somewhere along the line you are appealing to them to conform to the set standard of being compliant and courteous to your beliefs. But that would be an absolute phenomenon you are requesting us to conform to, in which case, that would dismantle your argument. What difference does it make? If truth is absolute then why not morals? If you are evil then we all are evil. But if you aren't evil then what difference does it make what somebody thinks of you? If morals are relative then it doesn't matter. If proponents of the FPE had some insight that you needed the FPE, then what would anger you about them warning you? If morals are absolute then there is nothing wrong about them doing that and there is nothing right about you being annoyed by it. Well, its not "wrong" of them. So, who cares?Alright, if you can't tell, I'm showing how the atheistic mindframe when you break it down, argument by argument, makes no sense. If you don't believe in God I can't convince you to believe, I can only show you the water. If you are thirsty, you'll drink. If you're not, you won't. But wouldn't you say that its much more prudent to claim agnosticism over atheism? It seems so much more objective and realisitic because an atheist is purporting things that he cannot logically refute, whereas, the agnostic is simply claiming that they haven't sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion one way or another. Divine and Constitutional Law respects that decision. That's news to me.

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

Well, we could request one to ascertain the majority opinion. Anyone wanna give it a shot? If not, I'll do it. Just let me know so that we don't end up writing more threads than neccesary.

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

I was speaking in generalities about many atheists. But if you must know, I've met quite alot of hostilities on EvC, just not nearly as much as my former forum. That's why I left and came here. EvC is much more cordial than some of the discourteous forums I've been on. What I'm not going to do is go back and find all of the times that someone was practically foaming at the mouth over my arguments.

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

I assume you might be able to grasp the glaring contradiction. A Christian believes that your very life is on the line and speaks with you in hopes that you might recieve the doctrine of Truth. Its because he/she actually cares enough about you. Now, I will go so far to say that in doing this, and I'm not the exception, we can get carried away in argument and lose sight of that. But its very different for the atheist. The atheist is just here to be a polemicist, or as I said, there is some recognition of God at work, otherwise, why spend so much time talking about Deities you don't believe in? Provide me with another option if you don't believe me. Is there some introspection going on inside you wondering if my assessment is correct?

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

Cool, I'll be back.

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

Oh, no... Certainly not. I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that if God exists He/She/It/They have nothing to do with physical laws. I was contending that. I'm pointing out the flaws in their logic when you place one of their theories next to another. They contain conflicting premises. If you don't know whether or not God exists because you feel that you don't have sufficient evidence but also recognize that you can't disprove a negative, then that's agnosticism. Atheism is making the claim that God does not exist. That's an absolute statement. And some atheists have gone so far to invent different kinds of atheism, i.e. strong and weak atheism. But weak atheism IS agnositicsm! Are they just wanting to keep the coveted title, atheist? Its much more prudent, much more logical to call oneself an agnostic. Atheism is a bold assertion, but agnosticism is an honest inquiry. That's not atheism, that's agnosticism. To be an atheist one has to positively affirm that God doesn't exist. To be an agnostic is to say, whether they lean pro or con, they don't have enough knowledge to make such a decision. That's honest and I can respect that. In fact, I was an agnostic for many years. I was definately leaning towards an atheistic view, but I still understood the law of contradiction, which is the only reason why I would not be an atheist.[qoute]I could agree with that statement. But what purpose does that serve, particularly if there is no purpose to the universe anyway? That's counter-intuitive. That's like saying being ridiculous is being ridiculous. (I'm using the atheistic argument here to demonstrate that its core beliefs are at odds with one another philosophically)[/quote]If there is no meaning to anything then what compels the atheist to assign meaning? The meaning in meaninglessness? Doesn't sound appealing or logical. Everything has meaning, everything has a purpose. You eat for a reason. The purpose is so you can survive. Now, you keep following that train of thought with literally everything and most assuredly you will realize that anything that exists, exists for a reason, even if we are incapable of percieving the totality of existence. If every natural phenomenon happens for a reason, then why wouldn't the conglomerate of it all? And if there is no meaning then what in the world are you arguing you about? Do you understand? No, that was your convoluted view on the subject.omnipotenceHaving unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerfulomniscienceHaving total knowledge; knowing everythingWhere in the defintions is that incompatible? Okay. I can agree with this, but there is a point where it breaks down. God cannot go against Himself, i.e. sin. That makes no sense. You can know what you are going to do and still have had an option to not do it. That's NOT even close to being a contradiction, only your inability to grasp the concept.That's like trying to pit God against Himself by asking, "Could God create a rock so heavy that He couldn't lift it" Its your lack of understanding. God can do anything that isn't contrary to Himself. God cannot sin because He is the very definition of righteousness. Righteousness has no meaning without Him, just as light means nothig without darkness, good means nothing without bad. The whole argument is built upon a non-sequitur. God has absolute power over everything. I'd say that qualifies omnipotence. He also knows what will happen within His creation. That's omniscience. The two fit perfectly. I've never seen anyone in here discussing the intricacies of Zarathustra, Zeus, Marduk, or any other deity. Again, for anything to be true there must be a set standard that contains us. This is an absolute phenomenon. If that's the case then absolutes exist. And if absolutes exist then it insinuates that we are accountable to that force, otherwise, why would there be a law? So, which is it? You are using terms that bespeak of absolutism, yet you maintain a relativistic frame of mind. This is why atheism doesn't work. It is constantly at odds with itself. Sharing or agreeing on the standard doesn't incorporate the meaning of of an absolute standard. But if its all objective, then why are you subjecting me to your rules? What basis do you have? Who is 'society?' If I'm apart of society then the argument does not stand. If I'm subject to the majority rule, none of which you are able to corroborate either way, then you are denying my 'right' to believe or say as I feel. You are appealing to me to follow your train of thought. You are tacitly requesting me to adhere to some sort of absolute rule. You really, honestly can't see why its a house of cards or a paper tiger? Every other word conflicts with the other's premise. Heh. Yeah, I guess a masochist would like it. Why? What's the mechanism? A little odd that such fine instincts could be found in humans and nowhere else in the animal kingdom. Its almost like we're completely separate from them aside from flesh.

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

quote:

---

Omnipotent = The power to do absolutely anything. No limits can ever be imposed.

---

quote:

---

I contend that these two concepts cannot co-exist in any one being since he would know everything he is ever going to do and yet still have the power to not do it. Yet the act of not doing itwould mean he was wrong.

---

Exactly. I tried to argue that point just a moment ago by using multiple sentences. I think you have managed to word it better in one sentence than I did in 9 or 10.

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

No, they attack me for a variety of reasons. They don't like my beliefs on a broad scale. But this argument extends to why anyone would attack the notion of God as if it has any consequence to them. Why hasn't anyone answered my question? If you don't believe in God then what do they care? Its irrational-- unless, of course, there is some tacit recognition that God does exist.

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

All I did was ask you whether or not you were mulling it over. If I said, hahaha, I know I've got you thinking now, you S.O.B.-- then I'd agree with you that I was being arrogant. I was just asking you a simple question. A simple yes or no would have sufficed. No, that's not true. I think Russell, Nietzche, Shermer, Hume, and the others gave it alot of thought. Perhaps you have too. I see. You've also answered my question about introspection. Thank you. So, do you believe that there is no God or do you know that there is no God? You never gave me the first reason. That was quite an arrogant statement for someone who calls other people arrogant. I accept your right to choose whether or not you want to be an atheist. Will accept my exegesis on why its irrational and self-refuting? Such profundity from Mr. Roberts. May God bless him!If you are interested in understanding the atheist position, and not just concocting a straw man that you can easily demolish, think about that statement.

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

I don't understand what you're arriving at, can you elaborate, please? That is really a non-issue. The issue is whether or not God exists, not to define what or who God is. That gets into the finer aspects of theology which is a completely separate argument. Its the same as Intelligent Design not claiming that YHWH is the Creator, but that a Creator must exist. Its also like absolute and relative morals. We aren't arguing over what the morals are, but just that they must exist. Its a broad philosophical argument, not a narrow theological discussion. Your answer about God changes depending on who asks you? Did I understand that correctly?

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

Maybe omnipotent is an ambiguous term for God. To me, God's omnipotence means that He has absolute reign over all of His creation, not that He could or would want to defy His own nature. I will go so far as to say that God is limited by His own nature. Imagine a serial killer with such a defense at his own trial.

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

Right. I believe in God for a variety of different reasons, but I don't know that He exists in the same sense that I would know whether or not my shoelaces are tied.My main question was why atheists give recognition to the notion of God if they claim to not believe in Him? And why would many of them get angry at the mere prospect of such Being existing? Doesn't that seem irrational to you? This isn't a blanket statement about all atheists, just most that I've met-- including myself at one time.My point is, if you really want to believe in the 19th century notion, "God is dead," then don't talk about Him. That is greatest way to make an argument against God. But let me extend it further. I'm very pleased that you all are arguing against God, because the one's that project the most venom against Him are the one's closest to their conversion. Its the apathetic ones that really concern me.

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

There is a fine line between reaching some cordial agreement concerning different faiths and an outright compromise of the Word. Strongheaded Bible-bashing pushes people away, but then again, so does the very word of God. Its offensive to the people who are not ready to recognize that the universe doesn't begin and end with them. Two things happen to people when they realize God. 1. They are filled with an inexpressible sadness as if their entire life was a facade. 2. After this sinks in, it is replaced with ineffable joy from one's innermost being-- at least in my own experience. Because the prevailing Christian apology reaches the shores, whereas, a flippant belief in pink elephants holds as much water as a puddle. Besides, you aren't doing much justice in defense of atheism being that the greatest atheistic mind of the 19th century, Neitzsche, died in an insane asylum. So much for German Rationalism when you can't rationalize that which transcends all of human thought. But who cares, right? We're just a collocation of well-organized molecules, aye? If my arguments were as insipid as you make them out to be, you wouldn't spend time on a refutation to my posts.... Likewise, if God is truly just a childishly fanciful notion then what does that say about you, the philospoher, who spends himself in engaged in deep conference over such notions?

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner