Ros,
First you ask a question, then you claim that those who claim logic lead them to disbelief are wrong, and when challenged on this, you "don't play those games." This has become a recurring pattern. If you can't deal with a rational discussion on these topics, why do you keep bringing it up?
This is what I call an example of flawed logic.
Ros, do youself a favour and don't try to explain what logic is and is not. You haven't the faintest idea, as you repeatedly demonstrate.
First of all, premises 2 and 3 are reversed; logically premises 2 should follow 3.
LOL. Please explain how the order is significant. I am waiting.
Second, the word "good", if you are applying it in the sense of Genesis 1, and "good" in your premisis 4 have different meanings.One (2) means accomplished according to plan, and the other (4) means wicked or painful. The two do not correlate.So you say, but you have done nothing to substantiate this assertion. of course, if there were two meanings of "good", your attempted debunking could be successful. I did not post that example of a deductive argument to prove god's nonexistence conclusively (which requires more elaborate work and discussion!), but to show that as long as premises and arguments are correct, the conclusion is necessarily true and in accordance with facts.
However, I have not seen any evidence that the word "good" in Genesis has such a restricted meaning.
The New Jerome Biblical Commentary says:
"God pronounces the light good, beautiful; the phrase will be repeated six times of created elements ... The declaration is not a deduction from human experience but a divine declaration that all creation is good. ...
31. All creation tout ensemble, not only its component parts, is pronbounced "very good", the climactic seventh divine pronouncement. There is no evil, only beauty, in the world that God makes." (Richard J. Clifford and Roland E. Murphy, "Genesis", The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Prentice Hall, NJ, 1990. Page 11.)
Naturally, this leads directly into a contradiction with the existence of evil.
However, before this gets off on a prove-or-disprove-God by deductive reasoning (logic), we both know that cannot be done.Of course that is just rubbish. The universe does behave in accordance with deductive logic. There exists and cannot exist anything that leads into a logical contradiction. What you say above is totally absurd, and again demonstrates you don't know what logic is.
Either God exists or He does not, and neither way can be proved by logical deduction. Otherwise you could surely have presented a much better example.Yes, either God exists and he does not! How can you know? Because logic dictates it! And in the next sentence, you contradict yourself by asserting that logic does not apply. Again, you do not know what logic is or how to use it.
To me, basing disbelief in a Creator on the fact that evil exists is not viable deductive reasoning. You might not like God because of it, but it is not evidence for the non-existence of a Creator IMO.
It is conclusive evidence against the existence of an all-powerful and all-good deity. Such a thing cannot coexist with evil. Of course it does not disprove an impotent, insane or evil deity. But few people believe in such a deity.
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]