The most significant contradiction or inconcistency?

[shnarkle]

There are no shortage of online sites providing numerous examples of contradictions and inconsistencies from the biblical texts. While some of these are quite simply the result of poor reading comprehension skills or an unfamiliarity with the texts, others seem legitimate. Many of those that are legitimate are inconsequential, but some could be quite controversial and may have significant ramifications.

Of all the contradictions found in scripture, which ones could prove to be most disturbing, or have the most serious ramifications for "believers"?


One that I think fits this bill is Paul's view on eating food sacrificed to false gods. He doesn't seem to have a problem with it if it doesn't have a negative effect over a fellow believer's faith. While I can see his point, and also agree that none of those pagan deities are real, I do wonder how he is able to disregard the law which he upholds; a law that forbids eating anything that is sacrificed to idols.

The reason this could be looked at as disturbing is because it indicates to me that Paul has attributed capriciousness to Paul's God.

[shnarkle]

The problem is that atheists are incapable of properly reading it. The only people who think about the bible as much as those who believe in the bible are those who don't believe in it. The problem is that it isn't a potent force for atheism; just a potent force for drawing people who don't understand how to read the bible. The blind leading the blind.

I really liked this quote, primarily because it spotlights the magnificent incomprehensible stupidity that develops from this form of seething condescension. While it is quite true that abstract thought invents the gods, it also invents one's identity, and at an age prior to inventing the gods. It is that abstract thought that invents the gods, and that same abstract thought that thinks the gods are nobody, never understanding that their identity is just as insignificant...

Ad hominem. Hasty generalization.

There's no ad hominem as I'm not addressing you in the first place. My statement was addressed to atheists in general. Fail. It's also not a hasty generalization when ALL athehists will address their arguments simply to fundamental interpretations. Moreover, their insistence on ignoring any other interpreation proves my point everytime.

When one arguments are impotent one goes to ad hominem.

The fact that your responses are repeatedly about me rather than the topic of this OP is getting tiresome. Sentences beginning with the second person singular verb, i.e. "you" should be a clear indication of an ad hominem, not to mention a clear indication of just who is in love with the appeal to ad hominem. Perhaps it might be more productive to learn about logical fallacies somewhere else rather than commenting on them when you think you may have identified one. Asserting a logical fallacy is not proof of a logical fallacy. Evidence should be supplied.

The fact remains that the pillars of theism rest upon a flimsy foundation composed of impotent theological arguments, impotent evidence and a whole lot of nonsense. 8-)

Sure, no one's arguing against that fact. Once again this isn't the subject of this OP.

[shnarkle]

So we have a contradiction. Perhaps someone can elaborate on why they think this would cause believers to become concerned, disturbed, troubled, faithless, etc. Perhaps there are believers who could respond with why this wouldn't bother them...

Having their bible portraing an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent-morally perfect, infinitely wise, just, merciful who admits some of the humans are innocent but still punishes them is really disturbing for the believers for it points to some disturbing conslusion : either their God is not omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent-morally perfect, infinitely wise, just, merciful but a capricious, malevolent, infanticidal bully or he does not exist(he was just conjured up by bronze age goat herders).

Now you're just agreeing with me; make up your mind.

The fact is that no one can know what is all knowing. If one is known, they cannot be all knowing. If one is omniscient they cannot be partly ignorant. How can one be ignorant of what one already knows?

I really don't know what nonsense are you babbling about.

And you never will until you learn the ramifications of being "all knowing'. As I've pointed out repeatedly, it's so obvious most people don't notice it. For example, Mark KNOWS Sally. Sally is therefore KNOWN by Mark. Do you understand the difference between to know and to be known? I know the directions from Los Angeles to Miami That information is known, but what is KNOWN doesn't KNOW itself. Sally may not know what Mark knows because Sally is who is KNOWN in the equation. She is not the KNOWER. Miami cannot know the information because Miami is what is known, not the knower.

Water is ALL wet, it cannot be the opposite of wet. It cannot be dry, not even partially dry as it would not be water. Blue cannot be red. If even a little bit of blue admits to the color red it ceases to be blue and becomes some shade of green.

ALL knowing cannot admit to being known, not even in the slightest as it would be then partially known. What is known cannot be ALL knowing. That is a contradiction in terms.

I never said a being can be both omniscient and not omniscient.

It's practically what you've been saying the whole time. Your entire argument depends on an omniscient being being known. You began your argument by presenting a list of attributes to an all knowing deity then pretending that all of these attributes can be known. It's inherently contradictory. One can't attribute anything to omniscience as it would then be a KNOWN attribute.

You're just going to continue to repeat these contradictions because you haven't addressed what I posted on the subject. You just dismissed it because you admittedly don't understand it. At least you're honest in that respect, but this is beside the point. The point is that until you understand simple logic you will never understand the arguments.

For the question to be asked indicates an admittedly limited level of understanding. As Socrates pointed out, the unexamined life isn't worth living. You're off to a good start by admitting that you know you don't know...

You should take this advice, embrace it yourself and not claim to know what you don't really know(that Jews and Christians don't believe deep down in God and are trolling us).

I embraced that advice the first time ai heard it. There is no should about it. It's blatantly obvious to anyone with any sense at all. Ultimately it makes no difference why people are triggered. The fact is that trolling is trolling, and it makes no difference what the reason may be when a troll has taken the bait and become a triggered troll.

Given that most trolls, UNbeKNOWNst to themselves; are gluttons for punishment, they provide innumerable hours of gratuitous enjoyment at their expense. This can only be KNOWN by the one who KNOWS the difference. When a wanna be troll is triggered by a compliment, they have ignorantly bestowed upon the master troller one of the most significant flatteries imaginable because the wanna be troll is so bent out of shape that he UNKNOWINGLY believes he's been insulted.

This is where the fine art of trolling becomes sublime. The Ascended Master of Trolling isn't actually trolling at all. They can raise the ire of their verbal opponent with a genuine compliment and trigger them into foaming at the mouth. In other words it just comes naturally to them.

This is something Paul pointed out when he suggested that the church be gracious in all things as it will effectively result in hot coals being poured upon those who would persecute them. The ultimate compliment would be to have your opponent crucify you. Hence Jesus and Paul were Ascended Masters of Trolling.

[alexxcJRO]

There's no ad hominem as I'm not addressing you in the first place. My statement was addressed to atheists in general. Fail. It's also not a hasty generalization when ALL athehists will address their arguments simply to fundamental interpretations. Moreover, their insistence on ignoring any other interpreation proves my point everytime.
The fact that your responses are repeatedly about me rather than the topic of this OP is getting tiresome. Sentences beginning with the second person singular verb, i.e. "you" should be a clear indication of an ad hominem, not to mention a clear indication of just who is in love with the appeal to ad hominem. Perhaps it might be more productive to learn about logical fallacies somewhere else rather than commenting on them when you think you may have identified one. Asserting a logical fallacy is not proof of a logical fallacy. Evidence should be supplied.

You said: “ primarily because it spotlights the magnificent incomprehensible stupidity that develops from this form of seething condescension. “ which was addressed to me.

Rather then talking about contradictions in the bible you started out of nowhere to reply to my signatures which are irrelevant to the subject of the op and you implied in your post I was stupid.

Saying all atheists will do something is a hasty generalization. You are not omniscient, don’t have the evidence to prove this.
You made a faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence.

Sure, no one's arguing against that fact. Once again this isn't the subject of this OP.

Says the one who started out of nowhere to talk about my signatures which are irrelevant to the subject of the op.
You start a forest fire then complain why the forest is burning.

Q: What’s up with that dear sir?

[shnarkle]

There's no ad hominem as I'm not addressing you in the first place. My statement was addressed to atheists in general. Fail. It's also not a hasty generalization when ALL athehists will address their arguments simply to fundamental interpretations. Moreover, their insistence on ignoring any other interpreation proves my point everytime.
The fact that your responses are repeatedly about me rather than the topic of this OP is getting tiresome. Sentences beginning with the second person singular verb, i.e. "you" should be a clear indication of an ad hominem, not to mention a clear indication of just who is in love with the appeal to ad hominem. Perhaps it might be more productive to learn about logical fallacies somewhere else rather than commenting on them when you think you may have identified one. Asserting a logical fallacy is not proof of a logical fallacy. Evidence should be supplied.

You said: “ primarily because it spotlights the magnificent incomprehensible stupidity that develops from this form of seething condescension. “ which was addressed to me.

Just because you admit that you fit the description doesn't mean that I was addressing you. You walked right into that one, dude.

Rather then talking about contradictions in the bible you started out of nowhere to reply to my signatures which are irrelevant to the subject of the op and you implied in your post I was stupid.

Reply to your signature? What are you talking about? Practically none of what you post it relevant to the topic of this OP. Obviously I have nothing better to do so I'm just replying to whatever you post. You are free to read into my posts whatever implications you please; make no difference to me. You seem to be taking this a bit too personal. This is why I suggested that you please refrain from addressing me and instead try to focus on the topic of this OP. Conflating the person with the content of the post always leads to confusion. Separating them usually clears up this confusion. Give it a try dude, and you'll see that I'm addressing what you're posting rather than you, and these feelings of inadequacy should disappear.

Saying all atheists will do something is a hasty generalization.

Not when they all do something.

You are not omniscient,

Never implied that I was. I even pointed out that is was impossible.

don’t have the evidence to prove this.

Don't need to prove what I never claimed.

You made a faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence.

I could say the same thing about atheists.

Sure, no one's arguing against that fact. Once again this isn't the subject of this OP.

Says the one who started out of nowhere to talk about my signatures which are irrelevant to the subject of the op.

I don't know why you're bringing up your signature. I never commented on your signature. I don't even see your signature.

You start a forest fire then complain why the forest is burning.

Complain? I'm not the one who can't focus on the topic. I'm just responding to what you're posting out of sheer boredom.

Q: What’s up with that dear sir?

Not much. A whole lotta nuthin.

[alexxcJRO]

Now you're just agreeing with me; make up your mind.

I did not said I didn’t.

You said: “Perhaps someone can elaborate on why they think this would cause believers to become concerned, disturbed, troubled, faithless, etc.�

I am that someone. I have explained why my contradiction would cause believers to become concerned, disturbed, troubled, faithless. Their beloved God is either a malevolent, capricious bully or does not exist.

Q: It is pretty disturbing, is it not?!

And you never will until you learn the ramifications of being "all knowing'. As I've pointed out repeatedly, it's so obvious most people don't notice it. For example, Mark KNOWS Sally. Sally is therefore KNOWN by Mark. Do you understand the difference between to know and to be known? I know the directions from Los Angeles to Miami That information is known, but what is KNOWN doesn't KNOW itself. Sally may not know what Mark knows because Sally is who is KNOWN in the equation. She is not the KNOWER. Miami cannot know the information because Miami is what is known, not the knower.

Water is ALL wet, it cannot be the opposite of wet. It cannot be dry, not even partially dry as it would not be water. Blue cannot be red. If even a little bit of blue admits to the color red it ceases to be blue and becomes some shade of green.

ALL knowing cannot admit to being known, not even in the slightest as it would be then partially known. What is known cannot be ALL knowing. That is a contradiction in terms.
It's practically what you've been saying the whole time. Your entire argument depends on an omniscient being being known. You began your argument by presenting a list of attributes to an all knowing deity then pretending that all of these attributes can be known. It's inherently contradictory. One can't attribute anything to omniscience as it would then be a KNOWN attribute.
You're just going to continue to repeat these contradictions because you haven't addressed what I posted on the subject. You just dismissed it because you admittedly don't understand it. At least you're honest in that respect, but this is beside the point. The point is that until you understand simple logic you will never understand the arguments.

Firstly,
Me knowing something about a being that has perfect knowledge does take away from it’s perfect knowledge.

Hypothetical example:

A being with perfect knowledge could say to me that he is omnipotent. That does not mean that suddenly his perfect knowledge becomes less perfect because I know he is omnipotent. Capish?!:eyebrow:

There is no contradiction in the statement: “I know something about a being with perfect knowledge cuz’ he told me�.

Secondly,
I did not conjure the attributes: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent-morally perfect, super wise, just and merciful out of thin air.
The biblical text say God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent-morally perfect, super wise, just and merciful. I already provided the text that support this.

I embraced that advice the first time ai heard it. There is no should about it. It's blatantly obvious to anyone with any sense at all.

You did not embrace it cuz’ you claim to know what you don't really know.
I may be wrong.
In that case please present the evidence that support the claim: “that Jews and Christians don't believe deep down in God and are trolling us�.

Let’s not forget about the rules:
“5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.�
viewtopic.php?t=6

[alexxcJRO]

Just because you admit that you fit the description doesn't mean that I was addressing you. You walked right into that one, dude.

Yeah, yeah you were not talking about me.
You were talking about Santa Claus. 😊))

Not when they all do something.

So please bring the evidence that “ALL athehists will address their arguments simply to fundamental interpretations.�

Let’s not forget about the rules:
“5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.�
viewtopic.php?t=6

Reply to your signature? What are you talking about? Practically none of what you post it relevant to the topic of this OP. Obviously I have nothing better to do so I'm just replying to whatever you post. You are free to read into my posts whatever implications you please; make no difference to me. You seem to be taking this a bit too personal. This is why I suggested that you please refrain from addressing me and instead try to focus on the topic of this OP. Conflating the person with the content of the post always leads to confusion. Separating them usually clears up this confusion. Give it a try dude, and you'll see that I'm addressing what you're posting rather than you, and these feelings of inadequacy should disappear.
I don't know why you're bringing up your signature. I never commented on your signature. I don't even see your signature.

This is just ridiculous. )
Dear sir ““It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.�
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
“Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.�� it is my signature.

I attach my signature to every post.
I do this by checking the “Attach signature (signatures can be changed in profile)�.

[shnarkle]

Now you're just agreeing with me; make up your mind.

I did not said I didn’t.

I doesn't know what you talking about.

You said: “Perhaps someone can elaborate on why they think this would cause believers to become concerned, disturbed, troubled, faithless, etc.�

I am that someone. I have explained why my contradiction would cause believers to become concerned, disturbed, troubled, faithless. Their beloved God is either a malevolent, capricious bully or does not exist.

Thanks for sharing.

Q: It is pretty disturbing, is it not?!

Not really, but then I'm not easily disturbed; especially by works of fiction.

And you never will until you learn the ramifications of being "all knowing'. As I've pointed out repeatedly, it's so obvious most people don't notice it. For example, Mark KNOWS Sally. Sally is therefore KNOWN by Mark. Do you understand the difference between to know and to be known? I know the directions from Los Angeles to Miami That information is known, but what is KNOWN doesn't KNOW itself. Sally may not know what Mark knows because Sally is who is KNOWN in the equation. She is not the KNOWER. Miami cannot know the information because Miami is what is known, not the knower.

Water is ALL wet, it cannot be the opposite of wet. It cannot be dry, not even partially dry as it would not be water. Blue cannot be red. If even a little bit of blue admits to the color red it ceases to be blue and becomes some shade of green.

ALL knowing cannot admit to being known, not even in the slightest as it would be then partially known. What is known cannot be ALL knowing. That is a contradiction in terms.
It's practically what you've been saying the whole time. Your entire argument depends on an omniscient being being known. You began your argument by presenting a list of attributes to an all knowing deity then pretending that all of these attributes can be known. It's inherently contradictory. One can't attribute anything to omniscience as it would then be a KNOWN attribute.
You're just going to continue to repeat these contradictions because you haven't addressed what I posted on the subject. You just dismissed it because you admittedly don't understand it. At least you're honest in that respect, but this is beside the point. The point is that until you understand simple logic you will never understand the arguments.

A being with perfect knowledge could say to me that he is omnipotent.

That assumes that a being with perfect knowledge would tell you he is omniscient, and there's no way for you to know that until that happens. Have you had a revelation from this fictional God? The biblical God is not part of the known world, if he were, then he would be part of creation, and the biblical God is not what is created. The biblical God is the creator. He isn't part of his creation. The biblical authors are not pantheists or panentheists.

There is no contradiction in the statement: “I know something about a being with perfect knowledge cuz’ he told me�.

Sure, but about all you could know is that a being with perfect knowledge is omniscient which is effectively just the definition of omniscient. The definition is not what is defined, and one cannot define the indefinable. One cannot put limits on what has no limits. More importantly God is not part of the known world, therefore he cannot be known. As the texts state,

now that you know God--or rather are known by God

you claim to know what you don't really know.

Not really

I may be wrong.

It would fit the pattern.

In that case please present the evidence that support the claim: “that Jews and Christians don't believe deep down in God and are trolling us�.

Sure, here's the context:

The thing that is absolutely baffling is to consider that the texts themselves even point out that he doesn't exist. Perhaps that's why Jews and Christians aren't bothered by it so much. Deep down inside they know God doesn't exist. They're just pretending because they like to troll people.

The word "perhaps" is quite commonly used to express uncertainty or the possibility that somethign may exist or be true. It inidcates speculation which is what I was doing. My admitted speculation was not without evidence as you have just admitted that you are an atheist and are quite obviously triggered. Other examples include Christopher HItchens, Richard Dawkins, Bart Ehrmen, Jack Spong as well as just about every garden variety atheist that trolls the internet today. Perhaps we could add those who are neither Jew or Christian to the list as well.

[shnarkle]

Just because you admit that you fit the description doesn't mean that I was addressing you. You walked right into that one, dude.

Yeah, yeah you were not talking about me.
You were talking about Santa Claus. 😊))

I was explicitly talking about atheists as that is what the statement I quoted was about. Up until that point you hadn't stated anything about being an atheist. Moreover it matters not one iota if you are an atheist or not. I'm not interested in you, I'm interested in the content of your posts, especially with regards to if they have anything to do with the topic of this OP. Despite your protestations, this isn't about you.

So please bring the evidence that “ALL athehists will address their arguments simply to fundamental interpretations.�

That would require a bit too much space, perhaps a quicker method would be simply supply that one argument that isn't a response to a fundamentalist interpretation.

I attach my signature to every post.
I do this by checking the “Attach signature (signatures can be changed in profile)�.

I still don't see your signature. I don't know how or why one would want to provide a signature or why or how they would want to in the first place. I don't know where to find profiles either. I"m technologically inept. I have no idea what you're talking about and don't really care to know as it has nothing to do with the topic. Capish?

[alexxcJRO]

Not really, but then I'm not easily disturbed; especially by works of fiction.

I meant it is pretty disturbing for believers.

That assumes that a being with perfect knowledge would tell you he is omniscient, and there's no way for you to know that until that happens. Have you had a revelation from this fictional God? The biblical God is not part of the known world, if he were, then he would be part of creation, and the biblical God is not what is created. The biblical God is the creator. He isn't part of his creation. The biblical authors are not pantheists or panentheists.

Dear sir it was a hypothetical example to illustrate my point.

Q: Do you not know what an hypothetical example is?:))

Sure, but about all you could know is that a being with perfect knowledge is omniscient which is effectively just the definition of omniscient. The definition is not what is defined, and one cannot define the indefinable. One cannot put limits on what has no limits. More importantly God is not part of the known world, therefore he cannot be known. As the texts state,

Firstly,

Again:

Me knowing something about a being that has perfect knowledge does take away from it’s perfect knowledge.
God is not going to suddenly know less just because I know something about him.
You are not making any sense.

Secondly,

Dear sir we are talking about the personal God of the bible who intervenes in the universe and talks to humans, has a relationship with them, helps them not about a deistic God.
We are talking about the biblical text.

Thirdly,
You your self know something about God. He is not part of the known world.
You yourself are limiting God. He is not omnipresent.
Your shooting yourself in the foot. 😊)

Sure, here's the context:


Quote:
The thing that is absolutely baffling is to consider that the texts themselves even point out that he doesn't exist. Perhaps that's why Jews and Christians aren't bothered by it so much. Deep down inside they know God doesn't exist. They're just pretending because they like to troll people.

The word "perhaps" is quite commonly used to express uncertainty or the possibility that somethign may exist or be true. It inidcates speculation which is what I was doing. My admitted speculation was not without evidence as you have just admitted that you are an atheist and are quite obviously triggered. Other examples include Christopher HItchens, Richard Dawkins, Bart Ehrmen, Jack Spong as well as just about every garden variety atheist that trolls the internet today. Perhaps we could add those who are neither Jew or Christian to the list as well.

Perhaps you are just dodging now that you saw you can’t back up your statement.
Perhaps you are just a troll that spouts out nonsense to trigger responses.

[alexxcJRO]

I was explicitly talking about atheists as that is what the statement I quoted was about. Up until that point you hadn't stated anything about being an atheist. Moreover it matters not one iota if you are an atheist or not. I'm not interested in you, I'm interested in the content of your posts, especially with regards to if they have anything to do with the topic of this OP. Despite your protestations, this isn't about you.

So you replied to my signature, my phrase; made fun of it yet you were not talking about me at all, but about all other atheists.
Sure. 😊)

That would require a bit too much space, perhaps a quicker method would be simply supply that one argument that isn't a response to a fundamentalist interpretation.

The rules are clear:
“5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.�
viewtopic.php?t=6

So please present the evidence.

I still don't see your signature. I don't know how or why one would want to provide a signature or why or how they would want to in the first place. I don't know where to find profiles either. I"m technologically inept. I have no idea what you're talking about and don't really care to know as it has nothing to do with the topic. Capish?

Yeah but you started to go off topic then complained why we are off topic.
You start a forest fire then complain why the forest is burning.

The signature cannot be seen yet you replied to it. Dude stop.))