Religions > Atheism > ** Losing Maddy for ever 'would test our faith' <= superstitious imbeciles! **
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"¥ UltraMan ¥" |
| Date: |
16 Jun 2007 12:24:20 AM |
| Object: |
** Losing Maddy for ever 'would test our faith' <= superstitious imbeciles! ** |
Losing Maddy for ever 'would test our faith'
By Richard Edwards in Praia da Luz
Last Updated: 1:23am BST 16/06/2007
The parents of Madeleine McCann said yesterday that their Roman
Catholic faith would be "severely tested" if their daughter was not returned
safe and well.
Gerry and Kate McCann have relied heavily on prayer to help them
survive the ordeal of Madeleine's disappearance which has now moved into a
sixth week.
They have visited Portugal's holy shrine at Fatima and met the Pope in
Rome. But Mr McCann said yesterday the prospect of the four-year-old not
coming home would stretch their belief.
In an interview with The Tablet, a Catholic newspaper, Mr McCann said:
"If we don't get Madeleine back alive and well, I am sure our faith will be
severely tested. At the end of it, we will still have our faith and we will
also have comfort that Madeleine will be looked after."
Mrs McCann added: "I have felt guilty asking, 'Will this make or break
my faith?' You could argue that what happened in the first place could make
or break your faith and it hasn't. It's done the opposite. It has given us
hope and strength."
advertisement
Mr McCann also told of an "extraordinary experience" inside the church
in Praia da Luz within days of Madeleine's disappearance which inspired him
to launch the global campaign to find his daughter.
He said: "I had this mental image of being in a tunnel and instead of
the light at the end of the tunnel being extremely narrow and a distant
spot, the light opened up and the tunnel got wider and wider and went in
many different directions.
"I can't say it was a vision because I am not clear what a vision is
but I had a mental image and it certainly helped me decide. I became a man
possessed that night. The next day I was up at dawn, making phone calls."
Yesterday police ruled out claims that Madeleine was buried in
scrubland nine miles from where she was abducted.
A letter and two maps had been sent to the Dutch newspaper De
Telegraaf claiming to pinpoint the area where the child was buried "under
branches and rocks".
Yesterday around 30 beat officers and four sniffer dogs moved into the
hamlet of Canafechal, near Odiaxere, in southern Portugal. They were
accompanied by 20 detectives from the Judicial Police.
The search was called off shortly after 9.30am.
.
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
24 Jun 2007 05:53:48 PM |
|
|
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5e7c8iF36qjfdU1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5e294qF36mnojU1@mid.individual.net...
Dude, put down the bong and clear you head for a few minutes ...
Sorry .. does thinking hurt your brain?
Give it a try and let us know.
It's never hurt me before .. maybe you're not doing it right?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
21 Jun 2007 10:10:34 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f5g1f8$ncr$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5e0mm5F35klmiU1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5dvbepF36df09U1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Kent Wills" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:objj73d97s7ta8aj1ljjugje6fl695rnpf@4ax.com...
'No X' (whatever the proposition in question) is the only
reasonable default presumption (that which is reasonably taken
for granted by default) in any case.
So .. come on then .. don't be shy sipp .. Is it impossible for any
god to exist?
Define god.
Who are you?
The one who asked you to define that which you ask
me to declare impossible.
Anyway .. are You saying that you cannot say it is impossible for any
god to exist, because you don't know what god is?
You've got to define what it is you're asserting before we can
discuss further details.
So if we don't know that its impossible,
What's not impossible?
it might well be possible
What might be possible?
(note: that is
not saying definitely that a god DOES exists, only that we don't know
its impossible)
You haven't defined what you mean by god.
I can certainly declare that what the Judeo-Christian cults have defined
as "god" is utterly impossible. Is that the god you are referring to?
No .. I was referring to any god.
So you would agree, it seems, that one cannot correctly say that the
existence of any god is impossible.
Indeed, it is the opposite .. it IS possible that some god exists,
exactly due to the fact that I have not defined what god means. I could
define "god" to mean "rocks", and then gods exist. If it exists, it is
possible. So it is possible that it is possible that some god exists ..
ie it is possible some god exists.
Your problem lies much deeper than that. You haven't defined what "exists"
means.
Indeed :)
With some not-unreasonable definitions of 'God' and 'Exists', god would
indeed be impossible, as to satisfy being god it would be outside the domain
of things that exist. We're definitely in the realm of the ontological now
!
Does a thought exist? if it does, and god is imaginary, then does god exist
because it is a thought? Or is it only the thought of god that exists, and
god itself doesn't? If one considers god existing as a though, then do you
need to be actively thinking a thought for the though to exist .. is it
enough for the thought to have been thought some time in the past ?
We could get into some interesting metaphysical and philosophical discussion
:)
I doubt it, metaphysics has been proved to be nonsense. It mostly consists of
putative statements of fact, yet no observations are relevant to determining
their truth or falsehood.
However, I think it is still valid to say that we cannot claim it is
impossible that for any god to exist. Certainly not without defining
existence and god. The strong atheist position of denying the existence of
any god, then, seems a little premature. The agnostic position of saying
that we do not know is the more correct.
No statement about god can possess any literal significance.
Once we can define god (or even better refer to a particular well defined
god), and define existence, then it may be possible to make a logical (or at
least reasonable) argument about existence, and come up with a logical (or
at least reasonable) conclusion. The argument, and conclusion, may well be
different for different 'gods' and 'existence'.
In A J Ayer's main work "Language truth and logic" published in 1936, most of
the questions you are proposing are disposed of. For the most part they are
shown to be meaningless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
23 Jun 2007 06:43:04 AM |
|
|
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f5gp0f$n01$1$830fa7a5@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
Indeed, it is the opposite .. it IS possible that some god exists,
exactly due to the fact that I have not defined what god means. I
could define "god" to mean "rocks", and then gods exist. If it exists,
it is possible. So it is possible that it is possible that some god
exists .. ie it is possible some god exists.
Your problem lies much deeper than that. You haven't defined what
"exists" means.
Indeed :)
With some not-unreasonable definitions of 'God' and 'Exists', god would
indeed be impossible, as to satisfy being god it would be outside the
domain of things that exist. We're definitely in the realm of the
ontological now !
Does a thought exist? if it does, and god is imaginary, then does god
exist because it is a thought? Or is it only the thought of god that
exists, and god itself doesn't? If one considers god existing as a
though, then do you need to be actively thinking a thought for the though
to exist .. is it enough for the thought to have been thought some time
in the past ?
We could get into some interesting metaphysical and philosophical
discussion :)
I doubt it, metaphysics has been proved to be nonsense. It mostly consists
of putative statements of fact, yet no observations are relevant to
determining their truth or falsehood.
Doesn't mean you can't discuss it .. ceratinly the ontological questions are
interesting .. many have tried to find ontological 'proofs' that god must
exist .. each that I've seen is flawed, of course.
However, I think it is still valid to say that we cannot claim it is
impossible that for any god to exist. Certainly not without defining
existence and god. The strong atheist position of denying the existence
of any god, then, seems a little premature. The agnostic position of
saying that we do not know is the more correct.
No statement about god can possess any literal significance.
Yes .. it can .. the Agnostic position ceratinly does, as does that ot
theological nocognitivism
Once we can define god (or even better refer to a particular well defined
god), and define existence, then it may be possible to make a logical (or
at least reasonable) argument about existence, and come up with a logical
(or at least reasonable) conclusion. The argument, and conclusion, may
well be different for different 'gods' and 'existence'.
In A J Ayer's main work "Language truth and logic" published in 1936, most
of the questions you are proposing are disposed of. For the most part they
are shown to be meaningless.
So you think existence is meaningless?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
23 Jun 2007 08:50:29 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f5gp0f$n01$1$830fa7a5@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
Indeed, it is the opposite .. it IS possible that some god exists,
exactly due to the fact that I have not defined what god means. I
could define "god" to mean "rocks", and then gods exist. If it exists,
it is possible. So it is possible that it is possible that some god
exists .. ie it is possible some god exists.
Your problem lies much deeper than that. You haven't defined what
"exists" means.
Indeed :)
With some not-unreasonable definitions of 'God' and 'Exists', god would
indeed be impossible, as to satisfy being god it would be outside the
domain of things that exist. We're definitely in the realm of the
ontological now !
Does a thought exist? if it does, and god is imaginary, then does god
exist because it is a thought? Or is it only the thought of god that
exists, and god itself doesn't? If one considers god existing as a
though, then do you need to be actively thinking a thought for the though
to exist .. is it enough for the thought to have been thought some time
in the past ?
We could get into some interesting metaphysical and philosophical
discussion :)
I doubt it, metaphysics has been proved to be nonsense. It mostly consists
of putative statements of fact, yet no observations are relevant to
determining their truth or falsehood.
Doesn't mean you can't discuss it ..
Discussing metaphysical propositions is analogous to discussing 'propositions'
such as "The cup on my desk is angry".
ceratinly the ontological questions are
interesting .. many have tried to find ontological 'proofs' that god must
exist .. each that I've seen is flawed, of course.
I wouldn't bother looking they are all flawed, indeed they all *have* to be flawed.
However, I think it is still valid to say that we cannot claim it is
impossible that for any god to exist. Certainly not without defining
existence and god. The strong atheist position of denying the existence
of any god, then, seems a little premature. The agnostic position of
saying that we do not know is the more correct.
No statement about god can possess any literal significance.
Yes .. it can .. the Agnostic position ceratinly does, as does that ot
theological nocognitivism
No. The agnostic does not deny that the two sentences 'There is a transcendent
god' and 'There is no transcendent god' express propositions one of which is
true and the other false. Yet the sentences do not express propositions at all.
Once we can define god (or even better refer to a particular well defined
god), and define existence, then it may be possible to make a logical (or
at least reasonable) argument about existence, and come up with a logical
(or at least reasonable) conclusion. The argument, and conclusion, may
well be different for different 'gods' and 'existence'.
In A J Ayer's main work "Language truth and logic" published in 1936, most
of the questions you are proposing are disposed of. For the most part they
are shown to be meaningless.
So you think existence is meaningless?
I think questions about the state of mind of the cup on my desk are
meaningless. I think almost all discussions about existence fall into that
category, particularly on Usenet. This may be because most participants are
ignorant of 20th century philosophy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "° Shanghai Lil °" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
25 Jun 2007 05:52:39 PM |
|
|
Scott wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f5gp0f$n01$1$830fa7a5@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
Indeed, it is the opposite .. it IS possible that some god
exists, exactly due to the fact that I have not defined what god
means. I could define "god" to mean "rocks", and then gods
exist. If it exists, it is possible. So it is possible that it
is possible that some god exists .. ie it is possible some god
exists.
Your problem lies much deeper than that. You haven't defined what
"exists" means.
Indeed :)
With some not-unreasonable definitions of 'God' and 'Exists', god
would indeed be impossible, as to satisfy being god it would be
outside the domain of things that exist. We're definitely in the
realm of the ontological now !
Does a thought exist? if it does, and god is imaginary, then does
god exist because it is a thought? Or is it only the thought of
god that exists, and god itself doesn't? If one considers god
existing as a though, then do you need to be actively thinking a
thought for the though to exist .. is it enough for the thought to
have been thought some time in the past ?
We could get into some interesting metaphysical and philosophical
discussion :)
I doubt it, metaphysics has been proved to be nonsense. It mostly
consists of putative statements of fact, yet no observations are
relevant to determining their truth or falsehood.
Doesn't mean you can't discuss it ..
Discussing metaphysical propositions is analogous to discussing
'propositions' such as "The cup on my desk is angry".
Try a different brand of coffee ....
ceratinly the ontological questions are
interesting .. many have tried to find ontological 'proofs' that god
must exist .. each that I've seen is flawed, of course.
I wouldn't bother looking they are all flawed, indeed they all *have*
to be flawed.
However, I think it is still valid to say that we cannot claim it
is impossible that for any god to exist. Certainly not without
defining existence and god. The strong atheist position of
denying the existence of any god, then, seems a little premature. The
agnostic position of saying that we do not know is the more
correct.
No statement about god can possess any literal significance.
Yes .. it can .. the Agnostic position ceratinly does, as does that
ot theological nocognitivism
No. The agnostic does not deny that the two sentences 'There is a
transcendent god' and 'There is no transcendent god' express
propositions one of which is true and the other false. Yet the sentences
do not express
propositions at all.
Once we can define god (or even better refer to a particular well
defined god), and define existence, then it may be possible to
make a logical (or at least reasonable) argument about existence,
and come up with a logical (or at least reasonable) conclusion. The
argument, and conclusion, may well be different for different
'gods' and 'existence'.
In A J Ayer's main work "Language truth and logic" published in
1936, most of the questions you are proposing are disposed of. For
the most part they are shown to be meaningless.
So you think existence is meaningless?
I think questions about the state of mind of the cup on my desk are
meaningless.
But according to numbnuts, your cup "could" have a state of mind, if
you don't define "cup" or "state of mind", so numbnuts concludes
that "god exists", since you haven't disproven that some undefined cup
somewhere in the universe may actually be angry ...
LOL!
I think almost all discussions about existence fall into
that category, particularly on Usenet. This may be because most
participants are ignorant of 20th century philosophy.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
22 Jun 2007 10:46:08 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
The agnostic position of saying
that we do not know is the more correct.
# 101 ARGUMENT FROM AGNOSTICISM
(1) I don't know and you don't know either.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/iom3
In actuality, agnosticism is not about knowledge as Jack and the theists
claim, agnosticism is about denial and repudiation of religious belief
(belief without logically satisfactory evidence), as Huxley explains:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity" http://preview.tinyurl.com/2n24hs
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
23 Jun 2007 06:58:28 AM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:QvSdnXMR1ptcc-bbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
The agnostic position of saying that we do not know is the more correct.
# 101 ARGUMENT FROM AGNOSTICISM
(1) I don't know and you don't know either.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
LIAR. That is NOT the argument I am presenting
[snip more lies and misrepresentations]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
22 Jun 2007 05:58:51 PM |
|
|
In article <QvSdnXMR1ptcc-bbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
The agnostic position of saying
that we do not know is the more correct.
# 101 ARGUMENT FROM AGNOSTICISM
(1) I don't know and you don't know either.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
So that Septic, in claiming to be an agnostic, must be claiming God
exists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
23 Jun 2007 04:54:44 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <QvSdnXMR1ptcc-bbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
The agnostic position of saying
that we do not know is the more correct.
# 101 ARGUMENT FROM AGNOSTICISM
(1) I don't know and you don't know either.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
So that Septic, in claiming to be an agnostic, must be claiming God
exists.
No. There is the possibility that there exists a Wedgwood china teapot in orbit
around Pluto. At some point something becomes so improbable that one denies its
existence rather than clutching at increasingly improbable straws. I "know"
there is no god in same way I "know" there is no Wedgwood china teapot in orbit
around Pluto. That is what most people mean by the word "know" when they use it
in everyday language.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cynic" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
22 Jun 2007 05:24:14 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:36:58 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:
So .. come on then .. don't be shy sipp .. Is it impossible for any
god to exist?
Define god.
Who are you?
Anyway .. are You saying that you cannot say it is impossible for any god to
exist, because you don't know what god is? So if we don't know that its
impossible, it might well be possible (note: that is not saying definitely
that a god DOES exists, only that we don't know its impossible)
The impossibility or otherwise is not the biggest issue. Showing that
something is *possible* is a far cry from showing that it actually
exists.
It is, for example, far from being an impossibility that you have a
treasure chest with millions of pounds worth of gold buried in your
back garden. I don't think you could get your bank to lend you as
much as a fiver using the gold as collateral simply because you prove
that it is a possibility.
--
Cynic
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
22 Jun 2007 08:24:52 AM |
|
|
"Cynic" <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rc8n73p2sl9hvinu3c5ak74e8ir5qdctaf@4ax.com...
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:36:58 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:
So .. come on then .. don't be shy sipp .. Is it impossible for any
god to exist?
Define god.
Who are you?
Anyway .. are You saying that you cannot say it is impossible for any god
to
exist, because you don't know what god is? So if we don't know that its
impossible, it might well be possible (note: that is not saying definitely
that a god DOES exists, only that we don't know its impossible)
The impossibility or otherwise is not the biggest issue. Showing that
something is *possible* is a far cry from showing that it actually
exists.
I am well aware of that .. I am only here talking of impossible , necessary,
possible (modal logic).
.
|
|
|
| User: "¥ UltraMan ¥" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
22 Jun 2007 10:47:10 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Cynic" <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rc8n73p2sl9hvinu3c5ak74e8ir5qdctaf@4ax.com...
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:36:58 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:
So .. come on then .. don't be shy sipp .. Is it impossible for
any god to exist?
Define god.
Who are you?
Anyway .. are You saying that you cannot say it is impossible for
any god to
exist, because you don't know what god is? So if we don't know
that its impossible, it might well be possible (note: that is not
saying definitely that a god DOES exists, only that we don't know
its impossible)
The impossibility or otherwise is not the biggest issue. Showing
that something is *possible* is a far cry from showing that it
actually exists.
I am well aware of that .. I am only here talking of impossible ,
necessary, possible (modal logic).
Is it possible that god made himself impossible ?
Can a god have that power?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
23 Jun 2007 07:00:35 AM |
|
|
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5e2980F347605U1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Cynic" <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rc8n73p2sl9hvinu3c5ak74e8ir5qdctaf@4ax.com...
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:36:58 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:
So .. come on then .. don't be shy sipp .. Is it impossible for
any god to exist?
Define god.
Who are you?
Anyway .. are You saying that you cannot say it is impossible for
any god to
exist, because you don't know what god is? So if we don't know
that its impossible, it might well be possible (note: that is not
saying definitely that a god DOES exists, only that we don't know
its impossible)
The impossibility or otherwise is not the biggest issue. Showing
that something is *possible* is a far cry from showing that it
actually exists.
I am well aware of that .. I am only here talking of impossible ,
necessary, possible (modal logic).
Is it possible that god made himself impossible ?
Can a god have that power?
In that case, God would have made himself not exist, as that which is not
possible must necessarily not be the case (by modal logic)
Not a wise move on behalf of God :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "¥ UltraMan ¥" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
24 Jun 2007 09:20:35 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5e2980F347605U1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Cynic" <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rc8n73p2sl9hvinu3c5ak74e8ir5qdctaf@4ax.com...
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:36:58 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:
So .. come on then .. don't be shy sipp .. Is it impossible for
any god to exist?
Define god.
Who are you?
Anyway .. are You saying that you cannot say it is impossible for
any god to
exist, because you don't know what god is? So if we don't know
that its impossible, it might well be possible (note: that is not
saying definitely that a god DOES exists, only that we don't know
its impossible)
The impossibility or otherwise is not the biggest issue. Showing
that something is *possible* is a far cry from showing that it
actually exists.
I am well aware of that .. I am only here talking of impossible ,
necessary, possible (modal logic).
Is it possible that god made himself impossible ?
Can a god have that power?
In that case, God would have made himself not exist, as that which is
not possible must necessarily not be the case (by modal logic)
So an omnipotent god could no make his own existence impossible?
Not a wise move on behalf of God :)
Which god?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
24 Jun 2007 06:36:36 PM |
|
|
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5e7ctnF36ev19U1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5e2980F347605U1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Cynic" <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rc8n73p2sl9hvinu3c5ak74e8ir5qdctaf@4ax.com...
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:36:58 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:
So .. come on then .. don't be shy sipp .. Is it impossible for
any god to exist?
Define god.
Who are you?
Anyway .. are You saying that you cannot say it is impossible for
any god to
exist, because you don't know what god is? So if we don't know
that its impossible, it might well be possible (note: that is not
saying definitely that a god DOES exists, only that we don't know
its impossible)
The impossibility or otherwise is not the biggest issue. Showing
that something is *possible* is a far cry from showing that it
actually exists.
I am well aware of that .. I am only here talking of impossible ,
necessary, possible (modal logic).
Is it possible that god made himself impossible ?
Can a god have that power?
In that case, God would have made himself not exist, as that which is
not possible must necessarily not be the case (by modal logic)
So an omnipotent god could no make his own existence impossible?
If it is retrospective, then no. Are you simply trying to make the case
that it is impossible for an omnipotent god to do things that are
impossible? (ie similar to the omnipotence paradox?). The problem there
depends on how you define omnipotent .. there are number of ways of defining
it .. if it means able to do all things that are not impossible to do, then
there is no problem. So really .. the problem is with the concept of
omnipotence.
Not a wise move on behalf of God :)
Which god?
You're the one asking the question. You tell me.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
24 Jun 2007 12:06:50 PM |
|
|
¥ UltraMan ¥ wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5e2980F347605U1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Cynic" <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rc8n73p2sl9hvinu3c5ak74e8ir5qdctaf@4ax.com...
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:36:58 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:
So .. come on then .. don't be shy sipp .. Is it impossible for
any god to exist?
Define god.
Who are you?
Anyway .. are You saying that you cannot say it is impossible for
any god to
exist, because you don't know what god is? So if we don't know
that its impossible, it might well be possible (note: that is not
saying definitely that a god DOES exists, only that we don't know
its impossible)
The impossibility or otherwise is not the biggest issue. Showing
that something is *possible* is a far cry from showing that it
actually exists.
I am well aware of that .. I am only here talking of impossible ,
necessary, possible (modal logic).
Is it possible that god made himself impossible ?
Can a god have that power?
In that case, God would have made himself not exist, as that which is
not possible must necessarily not be the case (by modal logic)
So an omnipotent god could no make his own existence impossible?
Not a wise move on behalf of God :)
Which god?
I think that, truth be known, Jack is arguing for the god with a capital
G (see above). Jack's laughable lame old theist argument is well known:
#101 ARGUMENT FROM AGNOSTICISM
(1) I don't know and you don't know either.
(2) Therefore, there might be a magic invisible God.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
24 Jun 2007 06:40:46 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:C6WdnWW84rA2OePbnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com...
¥ UltraMan ¥ wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5e2980F347605U1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Cynic" <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rc8n73p2sl9hvinu3c5ak74e8ir5qdctaf@4ax.com...
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:36:58 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:
So .. come on then .. don't be shy sipp .. Is it impossible for
any god to exist?
Define god.
Who are you?
Anyway .. are You saying that you cannot say it is impossible for
any god to
exist, because you don't know what god is? So if we don't know
that its impossible, it might well be possible (note: that is not
saying definitely that a god DOES exists, only that we don't know
its impossible)
The impossibility or otherwise is not the biggest issue. Showing
that something is *possible* is a far cry from showing that it
actually exists.
I am well aware of that .. I am only here talking of impossible ,
necessary, possible (modal logic).
Is it possible that god made himself impossible ?
Can a god have that power?
In that case, God would have made himself not exist, as that which is
not possible must necessarily not be the case (by modal logic)
So an omnipotent god could no make his own existence impossible?
Not a wise move on behalf of God :)
Which god?
I think that, truth be known, Jack is arguing for the god with a capital G
(see above).
I'm not arguing for any god .. why would I?
Jack's laughable lame old theist argument is well known:
#101 ARGUMENT FROM AGNOSTICISM
(1) I don't know and you don't know either.
(2) Therefore, there might be a magic invisible God.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
If 'might be' means 'not impossible' then we would have to accept that there
might be a god.
If we are talking about a particular god, like the Christian 'God', then we
can look at the claimed attributes of the god, and if they are shown to not
be the case, then the god as defined by those attributes can be said not to
exist. Of course, the theists will then change their claims with 'no true
Scotsman' logical fallacies etc.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
22 Jun 2007 10:28:59 AM |
|
|
Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:36:58 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:
So .. come on then .. don't be shy sipp .. Is it impossible for any
god to exist?
Define god.
Who are you?
Anyway .. are You saying that you cannot say it is impossible for any god to
exist, because you don't know what god is? So if we don't know that its
impossible, it might well be possible (note: that is not saying definitely
that a god DOES exists, only that we don't know its impossible)
The impossibility or otherwise is not the biggest issue. Showing that
something is *possible* is a far cry from showing that it actually
exists.
It is, for example, far from being an impossibility that you have a
treasure chest with millions of pounds worth of gold buried in your
back garden. I don't think you could get your bank to lend you as
much as a fiver using the gold as collateral simply because you prove
that it is a possibility.
But Jack has not established it is a possibility, in fact he cannot even
produce an operational definition of it!
operational definition: a description of something in terms of how it is
actually observed and measured.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/248ept
All Jack and Virgil friends have done so far is rehash the same old lame
old theist argument from lack of disproof. See #109 at
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
23 Jun 2007 06:44:49 AM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:Z7CdnayojqEmd-bbnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d@comcast.com...
Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:36:58 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:
So .. come on then .. don't be shy sipp .. Is it impossible for any
god to exist?
Define god.
Who are you?
Anyway .. are You saying that you cannot say it is impossible for any
god to exist, because you don't know what god is? So if we don't know
that its impossible, it might well be possible (note: that is not saying
definitely that a god DOES exists, only that we don't know its
impossible)
The impossibility or otherwise is not the biggest issue. Showing that
something is *possible* is a far cry from showing that it actually
exists.
It is, for example, far from being an impossibility that you have a
treasure chest with millions of pounds worth of gold buried in your
back garden. I don't think you could get your bank to lend you as
much as a fiver using the gold as collateral simply because you prove
that it is a possibility.
But Jack has not established it is a possibility,
And you have not esatblished it to be impossible .. so is it the case that
it is impossible for any god to exist?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
22 Jun 2007 05:56:47 PM |
|
|
In article <Z7CdnayojqEmd-bbnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:36:58 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:
So .. come on then .. don't be shy sipp .. Is it impossible for any
god to exist?
Define god.
Who are you?
Anyway .. are You saying that you cannot say it is impossible for any god
to
exist, because you don't know what god is? So if we don't know that its
impossible, it might well be possible (note: that is not saying definitely
that a god DOES exists, only that we don't know its impossible)
The impossibility or otherwise is not the biggest issue. Showing that
something is *possible* is a far cry from showing that it actually
exists.
It is, for example, far from being an impossibility that you have a
treasure chest with millions of pounds worth of gold buried in your
back garden. I don't think you could get your bank to lend you as
much as a fiver using the gold as collateral simply because you prove
that it is a possibility.
But Jack has not established it is a possibility
Nor has Septic established anything as an impossibility.
And until one of them IS established, the other cannot be eliminated.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?windows-1252?Q?God=AE?= |
21 Jun 2007 12:59:30 PM |
|
|
Kent Wills wrote:
As I understand it, on Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:41:43 -0700, Sippuddin
<sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Kent Wills wrote:
... someone who is found not guilty ...
*
Not FOUND not guilty, the accused is PRESUMED not guilty from the start.
The jury must find either guilty or not guilty.
*
You are missing the point. 'Not guilty' is not a FINDING (a conclusion
based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt), it is a VERDICT (a speaking
of truth), the full burden of proof is always on the affirmative, so
'Not guilty' is the only reasonable default PRESUMPTION going in, and
that default presumption stands unless guilt is found in some concrete
evidence probative of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Start thinking like a lawyer instead of like a kid with a brain full of
mush.
As I said, not FOUND not guilty, the accused is PRESUMED not guilty from
the start. 'No X' (whatever the proposition in question) is the only
reasonable default presumption (that which is reasonably taken for
granted by default) in any case.
It's the same principle all over. See the design of the scientific
investigation at SETI for example:
"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what’s called the null form: "resolved that there are no
civilizations in the cosmos which could be recognized by their radio
emissions." Now a single, unambiguous signal is all it takes to disprove
the null hypothesis, and negate the notion of humankind's uniqueness."
-- http://preview.tinyurl.com/2n9v9o
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
21 Jun 2007 01:30:51 PM |
|
|
In article <N5mdnXOskekeIefbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Kent Wills wrote:
As I understand it, on Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:41:43 -0700, Sippuddin
<sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Kent Wills wrote:
... someone who is found not guilty ...
*
Not FOUND not guilty, the accused is PRESUMED not guilty from the start.
The jury must find either guilty or not guilty.
*
You are missing the point. 'Not guilty' is not a FINDING (a conclusion
based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
Then why do judges ask juries "How do you find?"?
And why is the verdict expressed as "We find ...."?
Start thinking like a lawyer instead of like a kid with a brain full of
mush.
Apparently it is Septic's brain that is full of mush here. as ever.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
20 Jun 2007 11:30:57 PM |
|
|
In article <cKKdnYuZ-JvUVOTbnZ2dnUVZ_qupnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Kent Wills wrote:
... someone who is found not guilty ...
Not FOUND not guilty
Those who are not found not guilty are the convicted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "News Reader" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
20 Jun 2007 11:51:29 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-38DDC8.22305720062007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <cKKdnYuZ-JvUVOTbnZ2dnUVZ_qupnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Kent Wills wrote:
... someone who is found not guilty ...
Not FOUND not guilty
Those who are not found not guilty are the convicted.
lol?
I imagine this is ' Not "found not guilty" ' .
?
:)
Best wishes,
News Reader
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Norris" |
|
| Title: Re: No God |
21 Jun 2007 12:18:43 AM |
|
|
On Jun 21, 5:51?am, "News Reader" <n...@email.invalid> wrote:
"Virgil" <vir...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-38DDC8.22305720062007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <cKKdnYuZ-JvUVOTbnZ2dnUVZ_qupn...@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Kent Wills wrote:
... someone who is found not guilty ...
Not FOUND not guilty
Those who are not found not guilty are the convicted.
lol?
I imagine this is ' Not "found not guilty" ' .
?
:)
Best wishes,
News Reader
I have to say that your insightful and well-written remarks about this
complex topic really impressed me. Your have restored my faith in
usenet newsgroups as a medium for meaningful discussions between
intelligent human beings. Well done!
============================================
"If one doesn't clean the windows, the cat will be perplexed!"
Albert Einstein
http://archetype.com/macro_001.html
===========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim" |
|
| Title: Re: No God |
21 Jun 2007 12:21:53 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:18:43 -0700, James Norris <JimNorris02@aol.com>
wrote:
I have to say that your insightful and well-written remarks about this
complex topic really impressed me. Your have restored my faith in
usenet newsgroups as a medium for meaningful discussions between
intelligent human beings. Well done!
......
He He He <smirk> Ho Ho Ho.Ohh Deary Deary me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?windows-1252?Q?God=AE?= |
21 Jun 2007 01:04:36 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <cKKdnYuZ-JvUVOTbnZ2dnUVZ_qupnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Kent Wills wrote:
... someone who is found not guilty ...
Not FOUND not guilty
Those who are not found not guilty are the convicted.
*
'Guilty' is a finding based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt; 'not
guilty is the only reasonable default presumption going in, no proof
ever required. See the difference?
So the accused is not FOUND not guilty, the accused is PRESUMED not
guilty from the start. 'No X' (whatever the proposition in question) is
the only reasonable default presumption (that which is reasonably taken
for granted by default) in any case.
It's the same principle all over. See the design of the scientific
investigation at SETI for example:
"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what’s called the null form: "resolved that there are no
civilizations in the cosmos which could be recognized by their radio
emissions." Now a single, unambiguous signal is all it takes to disprove
the null hypothesis, and negate the notion of humankind's uniqueness."
-- http://preview.tinyurl.com/2n9v9o
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
21 Jun 2007 01:33:49 PM |
|
|
In article <trydnQbYmaUoIOfbnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <cKKdnYuZ-JvUVOTbnZ2dnUVZ_qupnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Kent Wills wrote:
... someone who is found not guilty ...
Not FOUND not guilty
Those who are not found not guilty are the convicted.
*
'Guilty' is a finding based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt; 'not
guilty is the only reasonable default presumption going in, no proof
ever required.
So the accused is not FOUND not guilty
Then why does the jury, in that case, state
"We find the defendant not guilty"?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "¥ UltraMan ¥" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
21 Jun 2007 01:21:00 PM |
|
|
Sippuddin wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <cKKdnYuZ-JvUVOTbnZ2dnUVZ_qupnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Kent Wills wrote:
... someone who is found not guilty ...
Not FOUND not guilty
Those who are not found not guilty are the convicted.
*
'Guilty' is a finding based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt; 'not
guilty is the only reasonable default presumption going in, no proof
ever required. See the difference?
So the accused is not FOUND not guilty, the accused is PRESUMED not
guilty from the start. 'No X' (whatever the proposition in question)
is the only reasonable default presumption (that which is reasonably
taken for granted by default) in any case.
You're tying to educate a pig-ignorant simpleton:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote:
When the jury finds that the person you accused
of being pregnant is in fact not pregnant, then, ipso facto,
your initial allegation/charge is false.
Kent "the imbecile" Wills responded:
If the woman in question had put on a great deal of weight and
was seen shopping in the maternity section of the store, there was
probable cause to believe she was pregnant. That she turned out not
to be pregnant doesn't mean the allegation was false.
It's the same principle all over. See the design of the scientific
investigation at SETI for example:
"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what’s called the null form: "resolved that there are no
civilizations in the cosmos which could be recognized by their radio
emissions." Now a single, unambiguous signal is all it takes to
disprove the null hypothesis, and negate the notion of humankind's
uniqueness." -- http://preview.tinyurl.com/2n9v9o
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?windows-1252?Q?God=AE?= |
21 Jun 2007 01:28:26 PM |
|
|
¥ UltraMan ¥ wrote:
Sippuddin wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <cKKdnYuZ-JvUVOTbnZ2dnUVZ_qupnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Kent Wills wrote:
... someone who is found not guilty ...
Not FOUND not guilty
Those who are not found not guilty are the convicted.
*
'Guilty' is a finding based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt; 'not
guilty is the only reasonable default presumption going in, no proof
ever required. See the difference?
So the accused is not FOUND not guilty, the accused is PRESUMED not
guilty from the start. 'No X' (whatever the proposition in question)
is the only reasonable default presumption (that which is reasonably
taken for granted by default) in any case.
You're tying to educate a pig-ignorant simpleton:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote:
When the jury finds that the person you accused
of being pregnant is in fact not pregnant, then, ipso facto,
your initial allegation/charge is false.
Kent "the imbecile" Wills responded:
If the woman in question had put on a great deal of weight and
was seen shopping in the maternity section of the store, there was
probable cause to believe she was pregnant. That she turned out not
to be pregnant doesn't mean the allegation was false.
"Doesn't prove it's false." That's just theists trying their same old
lame old argument from lack of disproof. See #109 at
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
It's the same principle all over. See the design of the scientific
investigation at SETI for example:
"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what’s called the null form: "resolved that there are no
civilizations in the cosmos which could be recognized by their radio
emissions." Now a single, unambiguous signal is all it takes to
disprove the null hypothesis, and negate the notion of humankind's
uniqueness." -- http://preview.tinyurl.com/2n9v9o
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
