Stupid 'Atheist' Tricks IV

Right now, I have time only for a quick post, just a reference, really.

I present for Gentle Reader's amusement, a stupid 'atheist' trick recently posted on Victor Reppert's blog. Can you see the "stupid trick" -- by which I mean intellectual dishonesty-- without me explaining it?

Steven Carr:
Why wasn't the Christian god able to populate the Earth with Adam and Steve?

Surely with 'the power of omnipotence' that should be easy.

Perhaps this god didn't use the sight of sightedness to see how he could use the power of omnipotence to produce a miraculous birth.

Edit 2013/09/30:
First, in case one has not read it, the background of this particular stupid trick is that Mr Reppert had made a little joke post, the humor of which follows from one's familiarity with:
1) the quip that God created man as Adam and Eve, not as Adam and Steve (which is to say, that as God created man intrinsically sexed -- male and female -- then homosexual couplings are intrinsically unnatural and disordered);
2) the like-clockwork regularity of announcements by "scholars" that they've "discovered" "new" documents that are going to "rock the foundations" of Christianity.

Victor Reppert: Are there pages missing?

Actually, some recent manuscripts have been discovered which show that God first created Adam and Steve. But that didn't work out so well with regard to populating the earth, so God then created Eve to correct the situation.

So, that's the context in which the infamously intellectually dishonest

Steven Carr said:
Why wasn't the Christian god able to populate the Earth with Adam and Steve?

Surely with 'the power of omnipotence' that should be easy.

Perhaps this god didn't use the sight of sightedness to see how he could use the power of omnipotence to produce a miraculous birth.

And the "stupid 'atheist' trick" that Mr Carr is attempting to deploy is the very common atheistic dishonesty of demanding that the Judeo-Christian (conclusion and) claim that "God is omnipotent" means and must mean that we are saying that God is illogical and irrational (and even anti-rational).

This specific instance of the particular "stupid 'atheist' trick" under discussion is of the same nature as saying "If your God were *really* omnipotent, he could make a married bachelor!" But, of course, "a married bachelor" -- a man who is both married and unmarried -- is a contradiction in terms. It is as logically impossible for there to be a "married bachelor" as for there to be a "square circle".

The terms 'male' and 'female' -- and the physical-and-biological realities to which they refer -- have meaning only in mutual relation. A 'male' is a member of a sexually reproducing species who is able, in principle, to fertilize the ova of 'females' of his species. A 'female' is a member of a sexually reproducing species who is able, in principle, to have her fertilized by 'males' of her species.

At the sane time, 'males' and 'females' are not 'hermaphrodites'. Possibly, some species could have some members who are male, some who are female, and some who are hermaphroditic. Whether or not that is actually possible, given rules of biology, that is not how the human species is created.

So, when the intellectually dishonest fool, Steven Carr, said

Why wasn't the Christian god able to populate the Earth with Adam and Steve?

Surely with 'the power of omnipotence' that should be easy.

he was saing one of these two things:
1) If God were really omnipotent, he could have created 'Adam' able to impregnate 'Steve' -- in other words, the dishonest fool is saying that if God were really omnipotent, he could have crated a 'male' who is really a 'female'. But, as we have seen above, given the meanings of the terms 'male' and 'female', this is a contradiction if terms. A 'male' who is really a 'female' is like a 'circle' which is really a 'square' or a 'bachelor' who is really a 'husband'.
2) If God were really omnipotent, he would have created 'Adam' able to impregnate 'Steve', and 'Steve' able to impregnate 'Adam' -- in other words, the dishonest fool is saying that if God were really omnipotent, he would have created man as hermaphroditic, rather than as male and female. But, of course, this is both a total non sequitur ... and a self-contradiction -- for, if the (ahem) logic were sound, then *had* God created us hermaphroditic, then it would still be the case that his having made *that* choice would "prove" him to be non-omnipotent.

When the intellectually dishonest fool, Steven Carr, said

Surely with 'the power of omnipotence' that should be easy.

Perhaps this god didn't use the sight of sightedness to see how he could use the power of omnipotence to produce a miraculous birth.

he was simply:
1) expressing his willfully-chosen ignorance of the meaning of 'omnipotence';
2) expressing his willfully-chosen ignorance of the meaning of 'miracle';
3) expressing his touching faith in Magick ... which he calls 'Science!';
4) mocking the Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth ... which he ignorantly imagines is logically impossible.



*Our* God's name is "IS" ... one of the names of Mr Carr's god is "Cannot Be". Mr Carr's foolish post can be seen as an act of worship of his god, "Dis-".

In effect, Mr Carr is saying, "If your God were *real*, he would be the same as my anti-rational and anti-existent god."