Perfectly logical when we are dealing with a systems concept and are thus viewing facets of a whole. Contradictions only apply when we assert or imply A [ 1 + 1 + 1 here] AND NOT-A [NOT- (1 + 1 + 1) here], in the same sense and circumstances. If the sense of the unity and that of the diversity are materially different, then LNC does not forbid complex unity.
At a simpler level, reflect on how a Shamrock is both one and three, without contradiction.
In the case of the triune view of the one true God -- your obvious rhetorical target, cf. here, understanding echad vs yachid and paying particular attention to the triquetra and scutum fide that have long been used to help clarify the point.
You are perfectly free to differ with that view [as is obvious from your web monicker . . . ], but you are not free to misrepresent it as a strawman distortion-based crude contradiction.
I should also note in passing that there is a category difference between the philosophical/worldview issues on whether theism generically conceived is a reasonable position, and specific theological disputes over particular scriptural traditions and their interpretation. Insofar as God is relevant to design theory, it is largely the former matter that is at focus, particularly with reference to the cosmological design evidence. From the beginnings of modern design theory, it has been freely conceded that design evidence from the world of life both now and for the foreseeable future, will not suffice per science, to warrant an inference on whether designers of life on earth fall within or beyond the observed cosmos.
One may argue that evidence of design of life on FSCO/I multiplied by cosmological fine tuning and the rare, privileged status of earth point to a common purpose and plan [as I do], but in the end that is a worldview discussion, not strictly a scientific case.
Likewise, the ongoing attempt to inject a priori materialism into the definition of science, is a case of bad phil and poor reasoning, without warrant from within science. But since scientism multiplied by this applied atheism is a major ideological push in our day, all of those concerned for sound science, sound education and a sound civilisation in light of the historically known consequences of materialism, have a right to challenge such ideologisation of science.
For that matter, when he was invited to address the Areopagus council c. 50 AD, the apostle Paul started from a cultural point of contact, the altar that was a municipal monument to ignorance on the root of being. He then blended a discussion of general evidence of God as root of being and common Father, with a challenge to the blind groping revealed in that monument. He then called to a change of views and attitudes thus life, on a prophesied, historically fulfilled event, suffering servant messiah, raised from the dead [with 500+ witnesses]. Notice, it is this historical, witnessed point, that is the offer of proof on which he called the Athenians, and through them the nations, to repentance.
Those who would proclaim the Christian message, would do well to heed this example.
KFkairosfocus
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT
@keiths:
keiths sez: Hey JW, who's worse in your book, atheists or trinitarians?
Both are followers of false religions. Both will not enter paradise as long as they don't repent.
From my door-to-door experience trinitarians are much worse, especially Russian-Orhtodox ones. They actually threaten you with violence.
Atheists (darwinists, btw. we alse have lot's of trinitarians who believe in evolution) comprise at least 30% of the population of my town (it's a town with two universities). Lot's of them are university students (mainly engineering, computer science, economics). In bible talks they show their stubberness and presupposition to materialism, and I don't expect to change their mind... But they are very polite and much more pleasent to speak to than to trinitarians.
It probably explains my sympathy for atheists. That and my wife's atheistic beliefs.JWTruthInLove
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
'They reckon ill who leave me out;
When me they fly, I am the wings;
I am the doubter and the doubt,
And I the hymn the Brahmin sings.'
From Ralph Waldo Emerson's BrahmaAxel
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT
You could be onto something there, Marco.Axel
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT
That was not designed, God would not have done it that way!
Evil proves there is no God!Andre
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT
Where did you get it from?
Good question - I doubt it came from an atheist.Mark Frank
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
12:27 AM
12
12
27
AM
PDT
“I want a god that I can understand.”
“I want a circle that is square.”
Hilarious stuff, lads and lassie(mebbe future [s]! But the more I think of it... very profound, Bazzer! Can't imagine a thread like this on an atheist blog. Not that I'd slum on them like you rogues/gutter-snipes!
Where did you get it from? Sounds rather like Chesterton. And all the responses, top-notch! Too high a standard to maintain, surely, but we can hope for more gems.Axel
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT
People invent their gods. Hardly surprising the concept is variable and less than perfect.Alan Fox