Is Logic an Absolute? A Simple Test

[TheRedneckProfessor]

One of the benefits of logic is the ability to test whether a particular proposition is true or not.  It often follows the progession: A=B, B=C, C does not equal D; therefore, the proposition that A=D is not likely to be true.  With this in mind, let's look at a particular proposition and follow the progression to its logical conclusion.  

 

If logic is the absolute standard for reasoning , then everyone should either agree with the conclusion, or, if disagreeing, be able to point out a flaw in the logic.  Let's begin:

 

 

 

PROPOSITION: god is both all-loving and all-powerful. 

 

OBSERVATION: Evil exists

 

GIVEN:

A. If god is both able and willing to prevent evil, then evil would not exist.

B. If god is neither able nor willing to prevent evil, then god is neither all-loving nor all-powerful. 

 

PROGRESSION:

1. If god is able to prevent evil, but not willing to, then god is not all-loving. 

2. If god is willing to prevent evil, but not able to, then god is not all-powerful.

 

CONCLUSION: The proposition that god is both all-loving and all-powerful is not true.

 

DISCUSSION: It is possible that god is all-loving but not all-powerful.  It is possible that god is all-powerful but not all-loving.  It is possible that god is neither all-loving nor all-powerful, which raises the question: why worship god?

 

But it is not possible for god to be both all-loving and all-powerful. 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@AustinAustin, do you agree with the conclusion?

[AustinAustin]

10 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@AustinAustin, do you agree with the conclusion?

That is an argument against freewill.

 

For freewill to exist we must be able to choose, have choices to make, and to be able to enjoy the consequences of our decisions. When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, our world became a fallen one. We did this. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 minutes ago, AustinAustin said:

That is an argument against freewill.

So, god is able to prevent evil but not willing to.  That's pretty fucked up.

 

But the question I expect you to answer is "Do you agree with the conclusion?"

 

For our purposes here, it doesn't matter a gnat's dick if god is able, willing, or neither.  What we are here to determine is whether or not logic is an absolute, which is the pivotal point to your proof of god's existence. 

 

So, do you agree with the conclusion?

[nontheistpilgrim]

Freewill - an old chestnut used many years ago when I shared my non-theism with a Christian friend. If you believe what the bible says it doesn't work because god is all powerful and detests evil - or so we are led to believe.

Just a thought. I cannot follow Austin's thinking!

[AustinAustin]

8 minutes ago, nontheistpilgrim said:

Freewill - an old chestnut used many years ago when I shared my non-theism with a Christian friend. If you believe what the bible says it doesn't work because god is all powerful and detests evil - or so we are led to believe.

Just a thought. I cannot follow Austin's thinking!

?

[AustinAustin]

9 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, god is able to prevent evil but not willing to.  That's pretty fucked up.

 

But the question I expect you to answer is "Do you agree with the conclusion?"

 

For our purposes here, it doesn't matter a gnat's dick if god is able, willing, or neither.  What we are here to determine is whether or not logic is an absolute, which is the pivotal point to your proof of god's existence. 

 

So, do you agree with the conclusion?

Im sorry... Logic is the absolute standard of reason, google it...

 

You are utilizing logic now refute the point you disagree with.

 

Try refuting without using logic.

[alreadyGone]

28 minutes ago, AustinAustin said:

That is an argument against freewill.

 

For freewill to exist we must be able to choose, have choices to make, and to be able to enjoy the consequences of our decisions. When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, our world became a fallen one. We did this. 

 

@AustinAustin,

 

It has been posited here previously by someone more astute than I that in the tale of Adam and Eve in the garden, God imposed the responsibility for the fate of countless generations to follow onto Adam and Eve, two naive innocents who were incapable of understanding right from wrong.

 

 

I have made the point here previously that in that same tale, God put that temptation on Eve, the female of the species..

That gender which is driven by a need for mystery, excitement, and novelty above all else.

Then he walked away to see what she would do.

Really? So God would justify the suffering of so many on such an underhanded trick as that?

 

 

Genesis was reputedly chronicled by a man named Moses, supposedly as related to him by God himself.

There was no one there to witness those events in the garden firsthand.

 

We are to accept that a man named Moses supposedly received a personal visit by God and they sat down to chat about the earliest history of mankind.

 

And Moses wrote all that down using which language?

Hebrew? Aramaic? Greek?

 

At the time that this man Moses supposedly lived, there was no written form of those languages.

At that early point in history, the only written languages were cuneiform, the equivalent of early cave-wall drawings, etched with a sharp stick onto clay tablets.

 

You ain't gonna convince me that there's any way all that detail and dialog was rendered in such a primitive form of media. The creation, Adam and Eve, the flood and Noah's Ark..

 

You sit and read it all in the King James Version and accept that all that text was originally rendered just as it was translated by the editorial team King James assigned to the task.

But that is one massive assumption on your part.

You believe it because you want to believe it.

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

24 minutes ago, AustinAustin said:

Logic is the absolute standard of reason, google it...

Yes, yes.  So you keep saying.  Now it's time to prove it.  

 

Do you agree with the conclusion or not?

[nontheistpilgrim]

28 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

 

@AustinAustin,

 

It has been posited here previously by someone more astute than I that in the tale of Adam and Eve in the garden, God imposed the responsibility for the fate of countless generations to follow onto Adam and Eve, two naive innocents who were incapable of understanding right from wrong.

 

 

I have made the point here previously that in that same tale, God put that temptation on Eve, the female of the species..

That gender which is driven by a need for mystery, excitement, and novelty above all else.

Then he walked away to see what she would do.

Really? So God would justify the suffering of so many on such an underhanded trick as that?

 

 

Genesis was reputedly chronicled by a man named Moses, supposedly as related to him by God himself.

There was no one there to witness those events in the garden firsthand.

 

We are to accept that a man named Moses supposedly received a personal visit by God and they sat down to chat about the earliest history of mankind.

 

And Moses wrote all that down using which language?

Hebrew? Aramaic? Greek?

 

At the time that this man Moses supposedly lived, there was no written form of those languages.

At that early point in history, the only written languages were cuneiform, the equivalent of early cave-wall drawings, etched with a sharp stick onto clay tablets.

 

You ain't gonna convince me that there's any way all that detail and dialog was rendered in such a primitive form of media. The creation, Adam and Eve, the flood and Noah's Ark..

 

You sit and read it all in the King James Version and accept that all that text was originally rendered just as it was translated by the editorial team King James assigned to the task.

But that is one massive assumption on your part.

You believe it because you want to believe it.

 

 

 

 

Now that I understand!

[Astreja]

2 hours ago, AustinAustin said:

That is an argument against freewill.

 

For freewill to exist we must be able to choose, have choices to make, and to be able to enjoy the consequences of our decisions. When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, our world became a fallen one. We did this. 

 

No, the Adam and Eve fable makes a mockery of free will.  Adam and Eve didn't have the information to make an informed decision regarding the magical fruit, because at that point in the fable neither of them had sufficient knowledge of morality to know that disobedience was bad in the eyes of Biblegod.  They were given two conflicting pieces of information, one from Biblegod and one from a helpful Talking Snake™, but didn't even have sufficient context to know which one to believe.

 

And then later generations supposedly were condemned because of the actions of Adam and Eve, despite never having to make a choice regarding magical fruit.

 

And of course, in your mythology I and people like me are going to be denied our desire for simple extinction, forced into an afterlife that we did not choose and did not want.

 

Free will, my ass!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Good afternoon,  @AustinAustin.  I was wondering if, by any chance, you agree with the conclusion?

[AustinAustin]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Good afternoon,  @AustinAustin.  I was wondering if, by any chance, you agree with the conclusion?

Good afternoon, what is teh conclusion?

[AustinAustin]

4 hours ago, Astreja said:

 

No, the Adam and Eve fable makes a mockery of free will.  Adam and Eve didn't have the information to make an informed decision regarding the magical fruit, because at that point in the fable neither of them had sufficient knowledge of morality to know that disobedience was bad in the eyes of Biblegod.  They were given two conflicting pieces of information, one from Biblegod and one from a helpful Talking Snake™, but didn't even have sufficient context to know which one to believe.

 

And then later generations supposedly were condemned because of the actions of Adam and Eve, despite never having to make a choice regarding magical fruit.

 

And of course, in your mythology I and people like me are going to be denied our desire for simple extinction, forced into an afterlife that we did not choose and did not want.

 

Free will, my ass!

 ² And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees of the garden, ³ except the fruit from the tree which is in the middle of the garden. God said, ‘You shall not eat from it nor touch it, otherwise you will die.’” ⁴ But the serpent said to the woman, “You certainly will not die! ⁵ For God knows that on the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened [that is, you will have greater awareness], and you will be like God, knowing [the difference between] good and evil. 

Eve knew, and she knew she was disobeying too...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 minutes ago, AustinAustin said:

Good afternoon, what is teh conclusion?

You're a big boy.  You can read the OP for yourself.  I believe in you.

[Astreja]

But the Talking Snake™ told the truth, Austin.  Adam and Eve didn't die.

 

Your evil god is a liar, too.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 hours ago, AustinAustin said:

Eve knew, and she knew she was disobeying too...

I didn't ask you about Eve; and, quite frankly, I don't give a flying fuck on a rolling donut what your views are concerning free will.  I simply want to know if you agree with the conclusion or not.  Because this thread is about testing your claim that logic is the absolute standard of reason. 

 

You're over here whiny-bitching about free speech in one thread but refusing to voice your opinion in another.  Make up your mind and answer the god damn question, son.

[AustinAustin]

2 minutes ago, Astreja said:

But the Talking Snake™ told the truth, Austin.  Adam and Eve didn't die.

 

Your evil god is a liar, too.

 

God is life, the absence of life is death.

 

Being far from God (banished from His Presence) they did die. They also died too...

[AustinAustin]

4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I didn't ask you about Eve; and, quite frankly, I don't give a flying fuck on a rolling donut what your views are concerning free will.  I simply want to know if you agree with the conclusion or not.  Because thus thread is about testing your claim that logic is the absolute standard of reason. 

 

You're over here whiny-bitching about free speech in one thread but refusing to voice your opinion in another.  Make up your mind and answer the god damn question, son.

God bless you, I'm sure you understand my point... 

 

God is life and teh absence of life is death. Even though your hearts beat you're already dead.

[Astreja]

1 minute ago, AustinAustin said:

God is life, the absence of life is death.

 

Being far from God (banished from His Presence) they did die. They also died too...

 

Everyone dies, Austin, and everyone stays dead.  There is no heaven waiting for you, just the grave.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, AustinAustin said:

God bless you, I'm sure you understand my point... 

 

God is life and teh absence of life is death. Even though your hearts beat you're already dead.

I'm not asking you about life, death, or heartbeats.  I am asking you if you agree with the conclusion that god can not be both all-loving and all-powerful.  If you don't know, say so.  Otherwise, either agree, disagree, or show me a flaw in the logic. 

 

We're not moving on until you do so.

[sdelsolray]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm not asking you about life, death, or heartbeats.  I am asking you if you agree with the conclusion that god can not be both all-loving and all-powerful.  If you don't know, say so.  Otherwise, either agree, disagree, or show me a flaw in the logic. 

 

We're not moving on until you do so.

 

I suspect Poster AustinAustin is incapable of using intellectual honesty and curiosity to address your question, which has raised his cognitive dissonance, and thus he is avoiding it altogether.  Quite sad.

[Joshpantera]

12 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

But it is not possible for god to be both all-loving and all-powerful. 

 

The bible claims that god is both all-loving and all-powerful, a claim that isn't possible by way of logic. Therefore the bible's claims about god are false by way of logic. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The bible claims that god is both all-loving and all-powerful, a claim that isn't possible by way of logic. Therefore the bible's claims about god are false by way of logic. 

Which, by extension,  means that the proposition that the bible is the inerrant, infallible truth is also not true.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Good morning, @AustinAustin.  I was wondering if, having had a night to sleep on it, you're ready to agree or disagree with the conclusion.