The Impossible God

Just a few of the logical absurdities of the square triangular god of the incoherent christian bible.

Faith’s Failure: epistemic certainty

P1: The degree of belief/disbelief in any proposition must map to the calculated balance of relevant confirming/disconfirming evidence as assessed by the epistemic agent for that belief/disbelief to be deemed rational.
P2: A human epistemic agent accesses the world subjectively, and therefore is necessarily limited to subjectively obtained relevant confirming/disconfirming evidence when entertaining a proposition (rather than having an objective view and understanding of the totality of all the confirming/disconfirming evidence).
P3: For a human epistemic agent, the calculated balance of relevant confirming/disconfirming evidence for a given proposition necessarily falls on a continuum inside the poles of absolute confirmation/disconfirmation to qualify as rational. (P1 & P2)
P4: Any rational belief/disbelief of a human epistemic agent in a non-tautological proposition necessarily falls on a continuum inside the binary poles of absolute certainty. (P1 & P3)
P5: Any source that promotes binary and absolute belief/disbelief for human epistemic agents is promoting irrationality. (P3 & P4)
P6: The Bible promotes binary and absolute belief/disbelief for human epistemic agents. (Acts 16:31 / Acts 8:37 / Romans 10:9 / John 3:16 / Mark 11:24)
CONCLUSION: The Bible promotes irrationality. (P5 & P6)


Advertisements

Filed under: Faith's Failure

2 Responses

  1. […] P1 Any source that promotes binary and absolute belief/disbelief for human epistemic agents is promoting irrationality [Phil Stilwell, bold mine] […]

    • I have previously written on another blog “Any source that promotes binary and absolute belief/disbelief for human epistemic agents is promoting irrationality.”

      This statement is clearly wrong. It only holds for the largest subset of statements based on empirically-derived evidence.

      1. For a small subset of statements that that contain logical contradictions, the belief can be as binary and absolute as the certainty in the consistency of logic. This is what is being demonstrated in the syllogism above.

      2. For logically consistent statements statements, the degree of the certainty in a belief must map to the degree of the evidence.

      I’d be pleased if anyone can demonstrate that either of these statements do not hold.

      (It’s nice to see people are calling me out on any faulty statements. We must follow truth wherever it leads. The context of my statement does not matter. It is wrong. That’s something you might keep in mind should someone suggest you believe in a holy book that states both that no one has seen god at any time (John 1:18), and actually mentions people who have seen him (Genesis 12:7; 17:1). Such book is wrong. Don’t allow the same people who don’t allow me to invoke context to invoke context for such contradictions.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Commenting Guidelines

Anyone may respond to the arguments with rigorous argumentation and evidence. No one may offer unfocused unsubstantiated affirmations of their beliefs. The assumptions in the posted arguments reflect mainstream Christian beliefs. If you have another view of the topic that you feel better reflects the mainstream position, provided that in the form of a syllogism.

Commenting Suggestions

1: Don't merely cite the Bible as proof that the absurdity stands. My simple citing of the affirmation of an alleged authority to substantiate my claim that I am in possession of a square triangle devalues the authority, highlights my credulity, and demonstrates a lack of commitment to rational thought.
2. Keep your comments condensed. Verbosity is not a virtue. Employ syllogisms if possible as these require rigorous definitions and argumentation.
3. Don't speculate on the character or motivation of the post's author. Address the argument.
4. Don't suggest that the christian concepts under-girding the premises are not common within Christianity.
5. Don't suggest that any particular argument on this site has already been given a rational answer at some point over the centuries without including that answer.
6. Keep your tone academic. This is not a site for preaching, rants or vitriol. The editors' responses will follow your tone.

Your Golden Square Triangle

This site does not waste time debating Christians over the logical possibility of miracles, the nature of the singularity, or the historicity of Jesus. If you argue that the square triangle in your pocket is made of gold, and produce genuine gold flakes as evidence, we still know with absolute certainty that you do not have a golden square triangle in your pocket.

If the biblical god is logically incoherent as this site argues, we can stop there. Enough of the silly games Christians play by diverting attention away from Jehovah's inherent absurdities and towards issues such as an incomplete evolutionary theory as if that will somehow redeem an incoherent Jehovah.

Top Posts

%d bloggers like this: