>What about the Incoherence Argument such as the proof
>of the non-existence of BOD:
>
>1. BOD is a benevolent omnipotent deity.
>2. Since It is benevolent, it wishes to end human suffering.
>3. Since It is omnipotent, it has the power to end human suffering.
>4. Human suffering exists.
>5. Therefore BOD does not exist.
>
>The conclusion follows because *we can't imagine* propositions
>1-4 being simultaneously true, so it is an argument from
>incredulity (like, I claim, all logical arguments).
This syllogism suffers from more than an illogical faith in logic.
Supposition #1 is fantastic. Conclusions #2 and #3 are questionable.
But even so, aren't you being needlessly reductionist? Logic has value
beyond the simple gut feeling of incredulity often used irrationally to
argue against things like the origin of species.
Richard Brodie RBrodie@brodietech.com +1.206.688.8600
CEO, Brodie Technology Group, Inc., Bellevue, WA, USA
http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie
Do you know what a "meme" is?
http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
>