If God were not logical, and if the Bible really did have any inconsistencies, then what would be the basis for saying that inconsistency is wrong? The law of non-contradiction is epistemologically rooted in the self-consistent nature of God. There is no rational basis for it otherwise. Thus, to accuse something of being wrong on the basis of inconsistency is to assume the truth of the Christian worldview
30 comments
Inconsistency is not wrong, it is just less right than consistency in certain circumstances, eg. the Bibles of omnigods and/or Christian gods. For instance, Biblical inconsistencies cause unintelligible mumping and word salads and much lolling among the interested masses.
Ah yes. The "It's not inconsistent but even if it is it's still all true anyway" argument. Better known as the "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" defense. Poor Jason is getting awfully desperate. Watching these idiots trying to prop up the buckling pillars of their nonsense is like watching a real life episode of South Park sometimes, except the thinking (I absolutely refuse to call it "logic") behind their position is too stupid for even Randy to entertain.
Does anyone else just know without looking at the author that it's a Jason Lisle quote?
I think it's because he makes the same stupid circular argument over and over again, with the same smug attitude of an idiot who thinks he's a philosopher.
Inconsistency isn't wrong, it's just inconsistent. You can have data, for example, that's consistent. That doesn't make it wrong. In fact, inconsistent data that is also verifiable can cause further inquiry, which is a good thing. However, when you have a being that is supposedly omniscient, always honest, and trying to give us a message and not bits of impersonal data then consistency becomes kind of important. Hell, if a human witness's testimony is slightly confused the reliability of their entire testimony becomes suspect. How much more suspect does that make a supposed god's testimony when he can't even get major ideas and events (let alone all the details) to match up?
"There is no rational basis for it otherwise."
If only there was some way of reaching presuppositionalists and tell them that THIS bit needs to be shown, not just asserted. Anyone? Bueller?
So when God is inconsistent, it's OK, but when anyone else does it, they're wrong.
I really hate presuppositionism because it's so arrogant and smug, and there's no talking sense into these people. They've got the cart firmly before the horse and they say that's the way it should be because that's the way it is.
@Ebon: I think he just said that the inconsistencies in the Bible are not actually inconsistent, because it's the word of God and therefore cannot be inconsistent by definition. One would think, then, that this would be proof that the Bible is not the word of God (besides the astoundingly obvious fact that the only other "evidence" is to take their word for it), but in fundietown it just means that 2+2=5 if God says so.
> then what would be the basis for saying that inconsistency is wrong?
The fact that all thought and reasoning falls apart when you take an inconsistency as true?
As evidenced by the confused thought of biblical literalists, of course.
He's right, historical studies show that all non-christian societies were unable to concieve the concept of two materially different things being different, and two materially identical things being the same.
Sadly, they had no way of telling whether 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 were the same or different, and as a direct result deamons and Gays and stuff gave them brown skin.
"The law of non-contradiction is epistemologically rooted in the self-consistent nature of God."
Err no. The Law of Non-contradiction is simply rooted in the fact that it makes no sense for it not to be true because from a contradiction anything can be proven (see Principle of Explosion). No god required.
No inconsistencies?
Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."
... and although any logical argument can be reduce to some axioms, logical arguments that actually work are based on axioms that are actually reasonable.
And that, my dear, is where you and your pre-suppositionalism fail!
Ahhhhh, a presuppositionalist!
Assume a god as the basis for everything all you want, that does not support your arguments. Actually it makes them rather weak to be honest.
You haven't even come close to providing evidence or a convincing argument that your god exists in the first place. Therefore, you certainly cannot logically use its existence as a basis for an argument.
Presupposing fairies or trolls can be replaced in every one of your arguments with equal effect.
No Jason. The laws of logic are not based on the Hebrew war god Yahweh. They were derived by Aristotle, a Greek thinker, not by Moses or Elijah. And we use logic for the same reason we use science: because it works. If, rather than understand the world around you and coherently convince others your understanding is accurate, you would rather scream incoherent gibberish at passersby, then you are under no obligation to use logic.
So let me get this straight... God is right, BECAUSE He can be proven wrong? Are you really proud of the fact that Christianity runs on logic worse than a four year old's?
And by the way, you have a LOT of nerve to claim God as the 'father' of logic. The Greek philosophers who actually set those principles were kicking around long before the big guy was cobbled together in the Middle East... and I'm pretty sure Christianity has always been at odds with science and critical thinking. It gets in the way of blind faith, after all.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
