| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
13 Sep 2005 08:01:36 PM |
| Object: |
A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
Since Disaster Dave put out a call for proof of god - which has been
met - I thought I'd challenge him in return to provide proof of this
god of his, using exactly the same terms he demanded. Here it is:
Hi all,
Each time I RESPOND to a claim by someone that god is a fact and is
true, period, they never seem to provide said proof. Rather...
1) They throw out insults.
2) They claim that I just don't understand religion. I am well
educated in various branches of religion. They however, are not and it
upsets them, that
the standard mantra and rhetoric doesn't work.
3) They repeat the claim that there is a "mountain of evidence" for god
and yet, still fail to provide said proof.
4) They paste in web links and claim, "There is your proof!". Yet, the
link provides no such thing and when I ask them to, in their own words,
discuss in detail how it is proof, the silence is deafening.
5) They begin to insult science and claim that religion has disproved
our scientific method. This is done, after their repeated claim that
religion
has no interest in science, nor in the factual.
6) They try to turn the tables, claiming that when I respond to their
positive claim that god is a fact and is true, that it is up to me to
disprove their claim. In other words, they get to say whatever they
want we have to disprove it.
7) They seem to think that the lack of proof is proof.
It's a shame that the people don't know, that this sort of nonsensical
behavior would not be tolerated in science. You claim god is science
and seem to think that providing zero proof, along with insults, is
proof.
God is not science and associating with science in a text book, or by
speech, does not make it science, any more than beer is athletic,
simply because it is sold at football games.
The fact is people, in no branch of science, is a request for evidence
met with insults and silence regarding said proof. Only in god, do we
see this and that should tell us all we need to know.
If it were a genuine god, the proof would have been displayed for all
to see and the opposition would have been silenced, once and for all.
And while they try to blame science for ignorance of "real religion",
the fact is, that the inventor of the religious method was anonymous!
No one knows who it was or what their motives or agenda were, yet
everyone swallows this as gospel!
The fact is, that ignorance was found in religious societies, who
always tend to be far behind in scientific advancement. It is the
scientific nations
that brought knowledge of our universe to where it is today, not
religion and
the great learning institutions, such as Yale, Harvard, etc., were
established to pursue this knowledge, nto wallow in mythology. It is
now, that they have become so assaulted by fundamentlaists, that
education in the USA has gone down in quality. Coincidence?
Absolutely not.
And btw, don't ask me to prove any of this. By YOUR OWN LOGIC, the
burden of proof is on YOU.
So now I make a call to the theists.
"Show me the money!"
Where is the proof of god?
And don't ask me about whether or not theists are lying, or to disprove
it, or paste in web links, etc., etc..
PROVE GOD, OR HAVE THE INTEGRITY TO ADMIT THAT YOU CAN'T!!!
And be ready to discuss, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, HOW AND WHY what you
provide proves what you claim it does. Saying, "scriptures prove it",
is not proof, unless you can show which exact texts and why and how
they prove what you claim and be able to respond to a rebuttal.
If you can't do that, then IT IS YOU who "DOESN'T understand science".
Even paul knew that the scientific evidence wasn't there, to support a
resurrection and so, he revived mythology and repackaged it in
a non-Jewish version, called, "Christianity".
You have one camp of theists who know that Judaism did not change and
another camp that knows that sudden religious changes do occur. They
both disprove each other and yet, it never occurs to them, that maybe
they're both wrong. Maybe neither happened.
So stop with the "what stops it from happening" garbage and show the
proof of god.
And don't bother me with the "religion doesn't work that way" garbage
either. I know that, but you don't, or you wouldn't be making the
claims you do. Thus, your approach is anti-science, from go.
You claim it's true, without a doubt. This is something that is not to
be doubted and only a fool would and so, it requires ABSOLUTE PROOF
THAT LEAVES ABSOLUTELY ZERO ROOM FOR DOUBT!!!
So cough up the proof for god and shut us all up. If you can, then I
will throw my "Ancestor's Tale" away and renounce my science.
And don't tell me it has nothing to do with me renouncing my science,
when we all know that you spend your time trashing Christianity and
claiming that "the dead hand of science" has hampered religion.
So where is it? We're all waiting. And as I said, make sure that you
can back it up, with references that you can defend, in detail, in your
own words.
I will not entertain any sidetracking, nor any questions. This is
about answers. YOUR answers, as evolutionists, PROVING BEYOND ANY
DOUBT that god is reality.
I am ready. Are you?
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
14 Sep 2005 04:21:38 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:45:16 -0600, "Douglas W. Thomas"
<douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
<his_elect_07@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126676082.032137.111380@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*HIS* "ELECT" *WROTE*:
*OF* "COURSE" *YOU* "HAVE" *IT* "RIGHT"... *DOES* "YOUR" *WIFE* "CALL"
*OUT* "TO" *GOD* "DURING" *HER* "MOMENT" *OF* "CLIMAX"??? *SHE* "MAY"
*BE* "AN" *EXCEPTION* "AS" *I* "KNOW" *OF* "SOME" *CASES* "WHERE"
*THEY* "DON'T" *SAY* "ANYTHING" *AT* "ALL"!!!
"HAVE" *A "NICE" *DAY*...
"HIS" *ELECT*
How many different women have you observed with this
phenomenon..........................................................exactly?
I'd guess none firsthand. <G>
Doug
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
16 Sep 2005 09:21:37 PM |
|
|
<his_elect_07@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126673210.713072.257390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Idiot.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
17 Sep 2005 05:54:53 AM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
Since Disaster Dave put out a call for proof of god
When was this?
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
17 Sep 2005 08:28:29 AM |
|
|
Boatwright, n. a manufacturer of empty vessels
John, n. a receptacle all-too-often full of *****
Budikka - kicking Boatwright's idiot ***** for longer than he dares to
remember
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
17 Sep 2005 10:33:06 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:54:53 GMT, "John P. Boatwright"
<name@For-God.net> spake thusly:
Since Disaster Dave put out a call for proof of god
When was this?
I started a thread calling for proof of macroevolution.
No one was able to provide said proof. All I received,
was insults, people trying to get me to prove God,
those trying to claim I had to disprove it, those
claiming that I was wrong for demanding proof,
when science doesn't prove anything (even though
they claim it is proved, when they ridicule anyone
who doesn't believe it), etc., which is what I had
expected.
Here is the message I originally sent...
*****************BEGIN QUOTE**************************
Hi all,
Each time I RESPOND to a claim by someone
that macroevolution is a fact and is true, period,
they never seem to provide said proof. Rather...
1) They throw out insults.
2) They claim that I just don't understand science.
I am well educated in various branches of science.
They however, are not and it upsets them, that
the standard mantra and rhetoric doesn't work.
3) They repeat the claim that there is a "mountain
of evidence" for macroevolution and yet, still fail
to provide said proof.
4) They paste in web links and claim, "There is
your proof!". Yet, the link provides no such
thing and when I ask them to, in their own
words, discuss in detail how it is proof, the
silence is deafening.
5) They begin to insult religion and claim that
science has disproved our belief system. This
is done, after their repeated claim that science
has no interest in religion, nor in the supernatural.
6) They try to turn the tables, claiming that when
I respond to their positive claim that macroevolution
is a fact and is true, that it is up to me to disprove
their claim. In other words, they get to say whatever
they want we have to disprove it.
7) They seem to think that the lack of proof is proof.
It's a shame that the people don't know, that this
sort of nonsensical behavior would not be tolerated
in science. You claim macroevolution is science
and seem to think that providing zero proof, along
with insults, is proof.
Macroevolution is not science and associating with
science in a text book, or by speech, does not make
it science, any more than beer is athletic, simply
because it is sold at football games.
The fact is people, in no branch of science, is a
request for evidence met with insults and silence
regarding said proof. Only in evolution, do we
see this and that should tell us all we need to know.
If it were genuine science, the proof would have been
displayed for all to see and the opposition would have
been silenced, once and for all.
And while they try to blame religion for ignorance
of "real science", the fact is, that the inventor of
the scientific method was a Bible believing, six
day creationist and the inventors of many branches
of science were also. The greatest scientist who
ever existed, according to a poll of scientists, was
Sir Isaac Newton. He was a Bible believing, six day
creationist.
The fact is, that ignorance was found in atheistic
societies, who always tend to be far behind in
scientific advancement. It is the Christian nations
that brought science to where it is today and
the great learning institutions, such as Yale,
Harvard, etc., were established by Bible believing,
six day creationists, for the advancement of learning
and science. It is now, that they have become so
secularized, that the people are complaining about
how they have gone down in quality. Coincidence?
I think not.
And btw, don't ask me to prove any of this. By YOUR
OWN LOGIC, the burden of proof is on YOU.
I will show you what the greatest scientific
philosopher of all time said...
The greatest scientific philosopher of all time,
Dr. Karl Popper, said that evolution is not a law,
nor a theory and that it doesn't even rise to the
level of an hypothesis. He said it is nothing more
than a metaphysical research program.
So now I make a call to the evolutionists.
"Show me the money!"
Where is the proof of macroevolution?
And don't ask me about whether or not scientists
are lying, or to disprove it, or paste in web links,
etc., etc..
PROVE MACROEVOLUTION, OR HAVE THE
INTEGRITY TO ADMIT THAT YOU CAN'T!!!
And be ready to discuss, IN YOUR OWN WORDS,
HOW AND WHY what you provide proves what
you claim it does. Saying, "fossils prove it", is not
proof, unless you can show which exact fossils
and why and how they prove what you claim and
be able to respond to a rebuttal.
If you can't do that, then IT IS YOU who "DOESN'T
understand science".
Even Gould knew that the fossil evidence wasn't
there, to support a slow and gradual change and so,
he revived Goldschmidt's ridiculous and dead
"Hopeful Monsters" idea and repackaged it in
a toned down version, called, "Punctuated Equilibrium".
You have one camp of evolutionists who know that
slow and gradual macroevolutionary change did not
occur and another camp that knows that sudden
macroevolutionary changes did not occur. They
both disprove each other and yet, it never occurs
to them, that maybe they're both wrong. Maybe
neither happened.
So stop with the "what stops it from happening"
garbage and show the proof of macroevolution.
And don't bother me with the "science doesn't
work that way" garbage either. I know that, but
you don't, or you wouldn't be making the claims
you do. Thus, your approach is anti-science,
from go.
You claim it's true, without a doubt. This is
something that is not to be doubted and only
a fool would and so, it requires ABSOLUTE
PROOF THAT LEAVES ABSOLUTELY ZERO
ROOM FOR DOUBT!!!
So cough up the proof for macroevolution and
shut us all up. If you can, then I will throw my
Bible away and renounce my faith.
And don't tell me it has nothing to do with me
renouncing my faith, when we all know that you
spend your time trashing Christianity and claiming
that "the dead hand of religion" has hampered science.
So where is it? We're all waiting. And as I said,
make sure that you can back it up, with references
that you can defend, in detail, in your own words.
I will not entertain any sidetracking, nor any
questions. This is about answers. YOUR answers,
as evolutionists, PROVING BEYOND ANY DOUBT
that macroevolution is reality.
I am ready. Are you?
*********************END QUOTE************************
--
Pastor Dave
Don't put a question mark where God put a period.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
18 Sep 2005 05:36:04 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:54:53 GMT, "John P. Boatwright"
<name@For-God.net> spake thusly:
Since Disaster Dave put out a call for proof of god
When was this?
I started a thread calling for proof of macroevolution.
OK, but that's not a call for a proof of god.
Buddika in saying such, is clearly confused.
Typical.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
18 Sep 2005 01:08:09 PM |
|
|
Boatwright, n. a manufacturer of empty vessels
John, n. a receptacle all-too-often full of *****
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
18 Sep 2005 09:03:57 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:36:04 GMT, "John P. Boatwright"
<name@For-God.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:54:53 GMT, "John P. Boatwright"
<name@For-God.net> spake thusly:
Since Disaster Dave put out a call for proof of god
When was this?
I started a thread calling for proof of macroevolution.
OK, but that's not a call for a proof of god.
Buddika in saying such, is clearly confused.
That was his response when he couldn't prove
macroevolution, which is one of the responses
I predicted in my message. :)
Typical.
Very. :).
--
Pastor Dave
Don't put a question mark where God put a period.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
11 Oct 2005 04:03:28 PM |
|
|
"absolute truth requires absolute proof" you said, Pastor Dave. Well
where is your absolute proof of the absolute truth of this god almighty
you invented?
Don't tell me, after all the fuss you amde about so-called
macroevolution (where your challenge has been met over 540 times
despite your dishonesty), you're now running away from the same
challenge that's been set for you in return?
If your "macroevolution" challenge was fair, then so is this. It's
precisely the same challenge. The evolution camp gave you the evidence
you asked for despite your lies and hypocrisy, and you reneged on your
promise to give up religion. Now you're running from a challenge that
is exactly the same as yours, except turned to require proof of your
absolute god instead of proof of macroevolution?
That's pretty pathetic.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
18 Sep 2005 01:10:26 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
That was his response when he couldn't prove
macroevolution, which is one of the responses
I predicted in my message. :)
Evidence for so-called macroevolution has been provided by me
personally on three occasions with more to come:
http://tinyurl.com/dxqjc
http://tinyurl.com/b5sjn
http://tinyurl.com/82oh3
Your response? **YOU RAN AWAY**.
But by all means go ahead and killfile everyone who shows you up for
the liar, fraud, cheat, hypocrite and coward that you are, then you can
keep your cosy little empty gossamer religion going strong.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
18 Sep 2005 11:13:02 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
I started a thread calling for proof of macroevolution.
No one was able to provide said proof.
You're a goddamned liar.
The fact is that I provided **THREE** such proofs and others have
provided more. **YOU RAN AWAY**.
The fact is that I asked you for help in defining certain terms so I
could be sure I was supplying precisely what you were asking for. You
offered not a shred of help and **YOU RAN AWAY**.
The fact is that when your **exact demand** was thrown back at you with
the word "god" substituted in place of "macroevolution" you whined like
a whipped dog that it was unfair - something we knew about your
fraudulent "offer" all along - and then **YOU RAN AWAY**.
You're a liar, a coward, a hypocrite and a fraud.
Those are the facts.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
17 Sep 2005 01:54:13 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:54:53 GMT, "John P. Boatwright"
<name@For-God.net> spake thusly:
Since Disaster Dave put out a call for proof of god
When was this?
I started a thread calling for proof of macroevolution.
Evolution is true and proven. Macro-evolution, the idea that
one can start from very primitive animals and millions
of years kater have much more complex animals is proven.
The problem is to make the morons accept the fact it is proven.
But they will not do that.
Because they are morons.
The simple. lowest common denomination definition of creator gods
of teh bible, teh ONLY reason teh moron people refuse to
understand evolution, is easily debunked.
I have done so but Moron Dave ignores that too.
Basically, if a creator god cannot exist and did not
create the world, and its provable, then evolution wins by
default, and it does.
And this is the only way to deal with the morons. You cannot
make a moron accept 2 + 2 = 4 if the moron does not want to.
And make no mistake, Dave is indeed a moron. Willfully stupid.
The best way to handle morons like this is to take a very
aggressive attack mode on creationism.
God cannot exist, its almost trivial to debunk creator gods
as an entire class.
Thus creationism cannot be true. Thus evolution wins.
Because evolution is all that can be. End of argument
Now again, hitting kook boy over the head, god utterly debunked.
God is dead, evolution wins all.
Part 1
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed for
the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and
Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually logically
derivable from the claimed attribute of omnipotence and
so aren't not truely independent attributes, and may be
considered special aspects of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the only
such god, that he is is immortal and that god has always
existed that are not important for this discussion and for
now, can be ignored. They are secondary arguments and in
no way are foundational or truely necessary, except those
that can be logically derived from the attributes listed
above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a definition
not for a particular god, but an entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here. Christianity
claims one may attain salvation only through Jesus, Islam
claims the Christian dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous. Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a personal,
creator, omni-everything god. I have coined a term,
The Grand God of Grand Theologies for this sort of god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have adopted this
class of god as their basic attributes concerning the nature
of god. But it is important to remember here that what is
being discussed here is a class of gods, not particular gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand Theologies
holding to this basic class of god as their basic
definitions of what god is at god's most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it collapses
rather easily into internal self contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by Epicurus
in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes back
to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is still popular,
and is championed most notably today by Alvin Plantinga.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do evil.
Ability to do evil is less evil than lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature incapable
of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature, this good
nature is not allowed to cound againts god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count against
man's free will than it does for god's free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will and god
does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free will, thus
free will is not a true necessity at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and can give
man a god like free will and a god like good nature
incapable of moral evil, god must do so or god is not
moral, not omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can have
a god like free will and a god like good nature.
Either way, free will cannot explain away the existance
of evil. This free will defense then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all in
the Universe and he knows the future of the Universe
and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, God
will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present state will
have a John Smith, god may then contemplate the future state
of Smith and decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a specific
personal
and will choice made solely by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god. In fact all moral evil done by creations of god
will be evil and do evil only because of personal and willful
creations of god allowing evil acts to be done, by direct
decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient creator god, it
is
solely and only because god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal choices of god, god
then is not as defined, omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a Universe cannot
have
any free will, not even in principle. A Universe with a god
that creates all and knows all precludes free will for all
beings god creates in the strongest possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is incoherent
and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this Grand God,
has been defined here with as few terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defence, free will is fatally flawed.
God's good nature and free will doom claims free
will makes evil necessary for man to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further doom claims of
god's omnibenevolence and man's free will Free will cannot
exist for man. All evil is the direct and knowing creation
of god contradicting claims of omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible, free will
cannot be a good quality, much less neccesary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims and viability
of an entire class of possible gods, all secondary and tertiary
claims for such a god of this class also fail, as do dogmas or
secondary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined, specific gods
cannot, nor can claims such as this or that Grand God sent this
or that relevation to man or some prophet.
***********
OMNIPOTENCE AND OMNISCIENCE
A. Omnipotence is a special sort of attribute, of all god's
alledged
attributes the most important. Because from that attribute you
can
derive others attributes, including omniscience. If you say
for
purposes of argument god is omnipotent, you are also implying
god is also omniscient.
B. If god is omnipotent, god must also have omniscience because
if he does not have omniscience, that destroys omnipotence
as a claimed attribute.
C. Thus if god is omnipotent, and created all, free will is
impossible
because creation and omniscience rule out free will as was
shown.
In this world god supposedly created, evil exists. So god
must not
be omnibenevolent as claimed.
D. So omnipotence and omnibenevolence are thus mutually exclusive
in a world that does in fact have evil in it.
Because omniscience must exist as part of omnipotence and
omniscience
and creatorhood cannot coexist with free will, omnipotence is
also not
compatible with creatorhood and omnibenevolence.
One cannot finesse this all by ignoring omniscience or
abandoning
omniscience.
E. One can only dispose of omniscience by also explicitly
abandoning omnipotence.
F. One may be tempted to abandon the idea god created all.
But that has some very strong logical problems also.
G. If god is omnipotent, he can create all. Or modify any other
creation he does not himself create. No other being or process
may create something god could not modify, by the power of
his omniscience.
H. So if for purposes of argument, we claim the Universe was
not created by god, he could, being omnipotent, change
that creation for his own purposes.
We are back to the problem of evil again, he could change
creation such that no evil John Smiths can exist.
If not he then is sole and only cause for existance of all
evil.
I. If evil exists because god could change the Universe he did
not
create, and he fails to do so, then all evil exists solely
because
of knowing and personal choices god makes.
J. God being omnipotent cannot be controlled by any other process
or
other entities. He may modify anty works or creations made by
them.
K. Omnipotence and creatorhood thus are entangled in a manner
that makes it hard to abandon the doctrine god created all.
PRE-EXISTING MATTER AND A PRE-EXISTING UNIVERSE.
The Greek writer Hesiod in his Theogony, starts with a Universe
that
is a chaotic void. This void, through the mysterious property of
emanation, created the first generation of gods, the Titans, who
in
their turn created the Olympians gods who eventually displace
the
Titans as rulers of the world.
Likewise, some theologians see Genesis as representing god
creating
the world out of a similar void, a primordial sea god did not
himself
create, but used as raw material for his creations.
God's existance is not explained.
This idea god did not create all still would not absolve an
omnipotent
god from responsibility for evil. The biblical god if he did not
create
the Universe and its component materials used them as he pleased.
If
that god is omnipotent, then he bears all responsibilty for the
world he
did create out of pre-existing material. Whether this god is
said
to be eternal or like Hesiod's Titans was somehow emanated from
the
chaos of the void does not materially change any arguments
involving
omnipotence, omniscience or omnibenevolence, if god is said to
have
these attributes.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
18 Sep 2005 05:37:46 AM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:54:53 GMT, "John P. Boatwright"
<name@For-God.net> spake thusly:
Since Disaster Dave put out a call for proof of god
When was this?
I started a thread calling for proof of macroevolution.
Evolution is true and proven.
Not it isn't.
God did whatever he wanted, when ever he wanted to.
That's all there is to it.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas W. Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
18 Sep 2005 06:39:11 AM |
|
|
"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message
news:432D4225.679C@For-God.net...
wbarwell wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:54:53 GMT, "John P. Boatwright"
<name@For-God.net> spake thusly:
Since Disaster Dave put out a call for proof of god
When was this?
I started a thread calling for proof of macroevolution.
Evolution is true and proven.
Not it isn't.
God did whatever he wanted, when ever he wanted to.
That's all there is to it.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
So..how does one know GOD didn't envoke evolution?
Doug
.
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
01 Oct 2005 09:27:40 PM |
|
|
Douglas W. Thomas wrote:
So..how does one know GOD didn't envoke evolution?
It's said specifically:
Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation
of the world are clearly seen, being understood by
the things that are made, even his eternal power
and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him
not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain
in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was
darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into
an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds,
and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through
the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own
bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped
and served the creature more than the Creator, who is
blessed for ever. Amen.
(Evolutionists give credit to creation, to the creatures that
God made, saying said creatures create themselves)
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:
for even their women did change the natural use into
that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of
the woman, burned in their lust one toward another;
men with men working that which is unseemly, and
receiving in themselves that recompence of their error
which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their
knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to
do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication,
wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy,
murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters,
inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural
affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit
such things are worthy of death, not only do the same,
but have pleasure in them that do them.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
01 Oct 2005 10:15:21 PM |
|
|
"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message
news:433F4438.154B@For-God.net...
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
You're well on your way to a usenet kook award.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
03 Oct 2005 12:55:29 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 03:15:21 GMT, "Tim K." <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message
news:433F4438.154B@For-God.net...
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
You're well on your way to a usenet kook award.
Boaty's a past honoree several times over. <G>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
04 Oct 2005 06:03:54 PM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@biziniz.net> wrote in message
news:o3s2k1t1kpt781fg9g4co7ub836mtjj03k@4ax.com...
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 03:15:21 GMT, "Tim K." <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message
news:433F4438.154B@For-God.net...
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
You're well on your way to a usenet kook award.
Boaty's a past honoree several times over. <G>
Can I spot 'em or what?!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
01 Oct 2005 09:47:06 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet John P. Boatwright
(name@For-God.net) made the light shine upon us with this:
Douglas W. Thomas wrote:
So..how does one know GOD didn't envoke evolution?
It's said specifically:
Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation
of the world are clearly seen, being understood by
the things that are made, even his eternal power
and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him
not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain
in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was
darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into
an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds,
and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through
the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own
bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped
and served the creature more than the Creator, who is
blessed for ever. Amen.
(Evolutionists give credit to creation, to the creatures that
God made, saying said creatures create themselves)
<bla-bla-bla...>
I see all you have is scripture. But you have no proof the scripture is
the word of an invisible man in the sky who makes your rules for you.
Nor do you have proof it was inspired by your invisible friend.
Why don't you have a problem with the theory of gravity? I'll tell you.
It doesn't debunk your god myth.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
http://home.comcast.net/~vickman/
Plonked by Raytard
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
18 Sep 2005 03:18:12 PM |
|
|
John P. Boatwright wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:54:53 GMT, "John P. Boatwright"
<name@For-God.net> spake thusly:
Since Disaster Dave put out a call for proof of god
When was this?
I started a thread calling for proof of macroevolution.
Evolution is true and proven.
Not it isn't.
Then refute what evolution has shown to be true and proven. Go ahead.
Where did australoptithecus come from? Explain Darwin's Finches. How
about telling me about archaeopteryx.
God did whatever he wanted, when ever he wanted to.
No, he didn't.
That's all there is to it.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Prove it.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
Your site has already been refuted. Please do not use this as evidence
in the future. Thanks, dear!
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
19 Sep 2005 06:12:43 AM |
|
|
John P. Boatwright wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:54:53 GMT, "John P. Boatwright"
<name@For-God.net> spake thusly:
Since Disaster Dave put out a call for proof of god
When was this?
I started a thread calling for proof of macroevolution.
Evolution is true and proven.
Not it isn't.
Yes, it is. You ignorant bleatings are laughably wrong.
God did whatever he wanted, when ever he wanted to.
There is no god, as I have proven. God as you myth-think
religious belivers describe god cannot exist, not even in
principle, as I have shown. Since creator, omni-everything gods
cannot exist, no religous claims you attach to such a god
can exist either. So evolution is the only viable possible
explanation even if one ignored the mountains of proof for
evolution.
What I have done is debunk god as a class of gods, the gods who
are omni-everything and who created all. The bible god of Jews
and christians, the Quranic god of Islam.
Its sort of like creationism, creationists never put
for evidence for creationism, they only try to tear down
evolution with fake arguments. They think that if
they can tear down evolution, god must stand by default.
But you cannot tear down evolution.
I can however easily destroy your stupid concept of
the creator, omni-everything god, what ever specific
creator god you can imagine.
You god does not exist, did nothing, cant do "whatever
he wanted" because he cannot exist.
Further more I prove he cannot do what he wants,
an omniscient god who creates all cannot even in principle
create man with free will, such a god can only create puppets.
Which most certainly makes the idrea of eternal damnation for
acts god created and allowed most bizarre and irrational.
Sorry, you have lost. Big, totally and forever.
Get over it.
Part 1
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed for
the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and
Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually logically
derivable from the claimed attribute of omnipotence and
so aren't not truely independent attributes, and may be
considered special aspects of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the only
such god, that he is is immortal and that god has always
existed that are not important for this discussion and for
now, can be ignored. They are secondary arguments and in
no way are foundational or truely necessary, except those
that can be logically derived from the attributes listed
above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a definition
not for a particular god, but an entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here. Christianity
claims one may attain salvation only through Jesus, Islam
claims the Christian dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous. Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a personal,
creator, omni-everything god. I have coined a term,
The Grand God of Grand Theologies for this sort of god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have adopted this
class of god as their basic attributes concerning the nature
of god. But it is important to remember here that what is
being discussed here is a class of gods, not particular gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand Theologies
holding to this basic class of god as their basic
definitions of what god is at god's most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it collapses
rather easily into internal self contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by Epicurus
in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes back
to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is still popular,
and is championed most notably today by Alvin Plantinga.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do evil.
Ability to do evil is less evil than lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature incapable
of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature, this good
nature is not allowed to cound againts god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count against
man's free will than it does for god's free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will and god
does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free will, thus
free will is not a true necessity at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and can give
man a god like free will and a god like good nature
incapable of moral evil, god must do so or god is not
moral, not omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can have
a god like free will and a god like good nature.
Either way, free will cannot explain away the existance
of evil. This free will defense then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all in
the Universe and he knows the future of the Universe
and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, God
will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present state will
have a John Smith, god may then contemplate the future state
of Smith and decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a specific
personal
and will choice made solely by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god. In fact all moral evil done by creations of god
will be evil and do evil only because of personal and willful
creations of god allowing evil acts to be done, by direct
decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient creator god, it
is
solely and only because god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal choices of god, god
then is not as defined, omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a Universe cannot
have
any free will, not even in principle. A Universe with a god
that creates all and knows all precludes free will for all
beings god creates in the strongest possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is incoherent
and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this Grand God,
has been defined here with as few terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defence, free will is fatally flawed.
God's good nature and free will doom claims free
will makes evil necessary for man to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further doom claims of
god's omnibenevolence and man's free will Free will cannot
exist for man. All evil is the direct and knowing creation
of god contradicting claims of omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible, free will
cannot be a good quality, much less neccesary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims and viability
of an entire class of possible gods, all secondary and tertiary
claims for such a god of this class also fail, as do dogmas or
secondary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined, specific gods
cannot, nor can claims such as this or that Grand God sent this
or that relevation to man or some prophet.
***********
OMNIPOTENCE AND OMNISCIENCE
A. Omnipotence is a special sort of attribute, of all god's
alledged
attributes the most important. Because from that attribute you
can
derive others attributes, including omniscience. If you say
for
purposes of argument god is omnipotent, you are also implying
god is also omniscient.
B. If god is omnipotent, god must also have omniscience because
if he does not have omniscience, that destroys omnipotence
as a claimed attribute.
C. Thus if god is omnipotent, and created all, free will is
impossible
because creation and omniscience rule out free will as was
shown.
In this world god supposedly created, evil exists. So god
must not
be omnibenevolent as claimed.
D. So omnipotence and omnibenevolence are thus mutually exclusive
in a world that does in fact have evil in it.
Because omniscience must exist as part of omnipotence and
omniscience
and creatorhood cannot coexist with free will, omnipotence is
also not
compatible with creatorhood and omnibenevolence.
One cannot finesse this all by ignoring omniscience or
abandoning
omniscience.
E. One can only dispose of omniscience by also explicitly
abandoning omnipotence.
F. One may be tempted to abandon the idea god created all.
But that has some very strong logical problems also.
G. If god is omnipotent, he can create all. Or modify any other
creation he does not himself create. No other being or process
may create something god could not modify, by the power of
his omniscience.
H. So if for purposes of argument, we claim the Universe was
not created by god, he could, being omnipotent, change
that creation for his own purposes.
We are back to the problem of evil again, he could change
creation such that no evil John Smiths can exist.
If not he then is sole and only cause for existance of all
evil.
I. If evil exists because god could change the Universe he did
not
create, and he fails to do so, then all evil exists solely
because
of knowing and personal choices god makes.
J. God being omnipotent cannot be controlled by any other process
or
other entities. He may modify anty works or creations made by
them.
K. Omnipotence and creatorhood thus are entangled in a manner
that makes it hard to abandon the doctrine god created all.
PRE-EXISTING MATTER AND A PRE-EXISTING UNIVERSE.
The Greek writer Hesiod in his Theogony, starts with a Universe
that
is a chaotic void. This void, through the mysterious property of
emanation, created the first generation of gods, the Titans, who
in
their turn created the Olympians gods who eventually displace
the
Titans as rulers of the world.
Likewise, some theologians see Genesis as representing god
creating
the world out of a similar void, a primordial sea god did not
himself ATTRIBUTES OF GOD PART THREE
Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe
or not? Is 2 + 2 = 4 something god set as part of the nature of
the Universe or is that outside and beyond god? Can god change 2
+ 2 to 5?
A. If god did in fact make the rules and laws and logic of the
Universe,
he could also change them as needed. God is claimed to be
omnipotent
as one of his attributes.
B. For example, many claim that man's free will is necessary.
That
is why evil exists. But a god that is omnipotent and
omnibenevolent
could simply make a world where man has free will yet freely
choses
only to do moral good. Since god creates the rules of the
Universe, he
could change them in name of omnibenevolence, free will is
perserved
and evil is banished. Evil no longer needs to exist to allow
for free will.
C. If god could do this and fails to, evil exists solely and
only because
of god's failure to use his omnipotence to change the rules
and laws
and logic of the Universe to give man free will and a nature
incapable
of doing evil.
D. If god can do this and fails to, god is not omnibenevolent as
claimed,
a contradiction.
E. God in fact since he is essentially the creator and
sustaining cause of all
evil that was, is, and shall be is omni-malevolent.
F. If god does not make the rules, the laws, the very logic of
the Universe,
then we have the problem of what these things are and where
they come from.
G. If these laws and rules and logic limit god, then god is
obviously not
omnipotent as claimed.
H. And thus god is not as claimed, the greatest thing that can
be imagined.
Obviously laws and rules and logic that limit the most
powerful being
in the Universe are greater still because they do in fact
limit such a being.
I. If such laws and rules and logic outside and beyond god do
exist, and are
thus greater than god, god is not the greatest thing
imaginable and all
ontological 'proofs' that are based on that basic claim fail.
J. Such rules and laws and logic must exist outside of god's
control and
must have always been outside his control. If there were
ever in god's
control, god cannot have reduced his power to abandon
omnipotence voluntarily.
Omnipotence is an inherent ability. It would be like
abandoning a sense of
taste or touch.
K. If god could indeed abandon omnipotence, he must avoid that.
After all,
he is also omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolence dictates he must
at all
times do the good thing, never an evil thing. Abandoning
omnipotence
such that he could no longer create a world where man has
free will,
and a nature incapable of evil is to allow evil to exist. To
abandon
omnipotence is to embrace the proposition evil is to be
allowed to flourish.
So any claims god might have for some greater good abandoned
omnipotence
freely are not possible.
L. If god is said to be omnipotent, if he at anytime gave up any
abilities
he can no longer said to be omnipotent, if he gave them up in
actuality.
M. Since god must have had maximum power and abilities and
cannot have at any
time vountarily relinquished any powers or abilities, the
fact that there
are laws and rules and logic of a universe outside and beyond
god, they
are truely beyond and outside god, and always were.
N. Since such laws and rules and laws are outside god, and
always were so,
and are properties of the Universe, the Universe is likewise
outside
and beyond god, with its collection of laws and rules and
logic.
O. Since the Universe and its laws and rules and logic are
outside
of god, god is not as claimed, creator of all.
P. Since the Universe no longer relies on god for its purported
existance,
nor on god for the existance of its laws and rules and logic,
god is no longer
a necessary being. If there are things that have necessary
existance, it would
have to be the Universe as whole, or possibly its laws, its
rules or its logic,
or a subset of these rules or laws or the underlying causes
of these things,
if any. None were created by god or can be modified by god.
Q. If these laws and rules and logic could be modified by god,
then the rules
and laws and logic of the Universe would have been modified
to end existance of
evil, and must be modified this if god is actually omnipotent
and omnibenevolent.
R. God then is not omnipotent, or not omnibenevolent, or is
neither, or does not
exist.
THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE
EXAMINATION OF GOD
Thus the idea god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and creator of
all, clash again
and mutually self-destruct over the issue of evil's existance.
This raises
serious questions on the nature of the Universe that cannot be as
Grand Theology
tells us it is.
A. We have shown god cannot have created the Universe.
B. We have shown god does not create the laws, rules and laws of
that Universe.
C. That god is thus not omnipotent as these laws limit him.
D. That god is not the greatest imaginable thing.
E. That ontological proofs of god's existance based on claims
god is the greatest thing imaginable are failed arguments.
F. That god cannot be a necessary being, as claimed.
G. That any possible claims god might for some reason abandon or
limit
any abilities cannot be true in any attempt to avoid this
line of
inquiry. Nor can that approach derail logical examination of
consequences
of Grand Theology's overarching claims to god's attributes
or nature.
The fact that god is alledgedly omnibenevolent and evil exists,
demonstrates
god cannot make the rules of the world. 2 + 2 = 4 because that
is the nature
of the Universe, not something god created. Because if god did
create the rules
and laws and logic of the Universe, and was omnibenevolent, we
should have no
signs of evil, especially moral evil of man, Satan, demons and
devils.
But if one admits to that, Many other important claims collapse,
many other arguments
about god and his attributes and nature no longer are viable.
Some of these claims,
god's creation of the Universe are among the oldest and most
basic of theology.
Ontological proofs started with Anselm in the 11th century,
all of these now must be abandoned.
The necessary being argument, long a rhetorical argument is
now finally dead.
Free will defenses against the problem of evil opened up a line
of attack here that is powerful and pretty final.
create, but used as raw material for his creations.
God's existance is not explained.
This idea god did not create all still would not absolve an
omnipotent
god from responsibility for evil. The biblical god if he did not
create
the Universe and its component materials used them as he pleased.
If
that god is omnipotent, then he bears all responsibilty for the
world he
did create out of pre-existing material. Whether this god is
said
to be eternal or like Hesiod's Titans was somehow emanated from
the
chaos of the void does not materially change any arguments
involving
omnipotence, omniscience or omnibenevolence, if god is said to
have
these attributes.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
17 Sep 2005 02:41:54 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:54:53 GMT, "John P. Boatwright"
<name@For-God.net> spake thusly:
Since Disaster Dave put out a call for proof of god
When was this?
I started a thread calling for proof of macroevolution.
No one was able to provide said proof.
Science is not about proof. There is a lot of evidence though:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
All I received,
was insults, people trying to get me to prove God,
those trying to claim I had to disprove it, those
claiming that I was wrong for demanding proof,
when science doesn't prove anything (even though
they claim it is proved, when they ridicule anyone
who doesn't believe it), etc., which is what I had
expected.
This is nothing but a red herring, so you don't have
to admit that you actually received a lot of evidence
for macro-evolution.
Here is the message I originally sent...
*****************BEGIN QUOTE**************************
Hi all,
Each time I RESPOND to a claim by someone
that macroevolution is a fact and is true, period,
they never seem to provide said proof. Rather...
1) They throw out insults.
Well, people do tend to lose their patience if you never
listen to them and simply hand-wave their arguments away.
2) They claim that I just don't understand science.
I am well educated in various branches of science.
Really? Then how come it never shows in your postings?
They however, are not and it upsets them, that
the standard mantra and rhetoric doesn't work.
Actually, it's all irrelevant. All that counts is that you can
back up your claims with evidence. You have offered none...
your opponents have offered *lots*.
3) They repeat the claim that there is a "mountain
of evidence" for macroevolution and yet, still fail
to provide said proof.
Let me guess: you refuse to follow that link to the
Talkorigins-site. And again: there is no concept of proof in
science, just evidence.
4) They paste in web links and claim, "There is
your proof!". Yet, the link provides no such
thing and when I ask them to, in their own
words, discuss in detail how it is proof, the
silence is deafening.
It is *you* who fails to offer detailed arguments why you
don't consider the evidence as valid. You simply wave them away,
thinking that this evasive behavior somehow supports your standpoint,
although it's nothing but a sign of weakness. Every time people
ask you what is wrong with the evidence you run away or
start hurling insults.
5) They begin to insult religion and claim that
science has disproved our belief system. This
is done, after their repeated claim that science
has no interest in religion, nor in the supernatural.
You already feel insulted when people simply say that
they don't believe in your religious claims. And
even though some people may say that science invalidates
religion, it is not held by the majority of scientists.
6) They try to turn the tables, claiming that when
I respond to their positive claim that macroevolution
is a fact and is true, that it is up to me to disprove
their claim. In other words, they get to say whatever
they want we have to disprove it.
You got that backward. You ask for evidence and you
actually do *get* that evidence, by the truckload. Then
you simply start shouting that it is not evidence after all,
without even saying what would be wrong with it in your view.
7) They seem to think that the lack of proof is proof.
Stop fiddling around. What do you think is wrong with the
presented evidence? Simpy saying that you didn't get any
is highly childish and actually gives uis the complete
right to insult and ridicule you, especially after all
the time that you have been playing this childish game.
It's a shame that the people don't know, that this
sort of nonsensical behavior would not be tolerated
in science. You claim macroevolution is science
and seem to think that providing zero proof, along
with insults, is proof.
You *did* get your friggin' evidence! You just prefer to
close you ears and eyes, screaming "It is not! It is not!"
<- snip more of the same bigoted idiocy ->
I will not entertain any sidetracking, nor any
questions. This is about answers. YOUR answers,
as evolutionists, PROVING BEYOND ANY DOUBT
that macroevolution is reality.
I am ready. Are you?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
But I doubt you're ready.
RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
17 Sep 2005 04:06:21 PM |
|
|
On 17 Sep 2005 12:41:54 -0700, "Richard Smol"
<jazzcat@dds.nl> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:54:53 GMT, "John P. Boatwright"
<name@For-God.net> spake thusly:
Since Disaster Dave put out a call for proof of god
When was this?
I started a thread calling for proof of macroevolution.
No one was able to provide said proof.
All I received,
was insults, people trying to get me to prove God,
those trying to claim I had to disprove it, those
claiming that I was wrong for demanding proof,
when science doesn't prove anything (even though
they claim it is proved, when they ridicule anyone
who doesn't believe it), etc., which is what I had
expected.
Science is not about proof. There is a lot of evidence though:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Thank you for proving my point.
Goodbye.
--
Pastor Dave
Don't put a question mark where God put a period.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas W. Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
17 Sep 2005 05:08:27 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:v81pi15lokcsn2poid9fbu4jvcu1pi5lob@4ax.com...
On 17 Sep 2005 12:41:54 -0700, "Richard Smol"
<jazzcat@dds.nl> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:54:53 GMT, "John P. Boatwright"
<name@For-God.net> spake thusly:
Since Disaster Dave put out a call for proof of god
When was this?
I started a thread calling for proof of macroevolution.
No one was able to provide said proof.
All I received,
was insults, people trying to get me to prove God,
those trying to claim I had to disprove it, those
claiming that I was wrong for demanding proof,
when science doesn't prove anything (even though
they claim it is proved, when they ridicule anyone
who doesn't believe it), etc., which is what I had
expected.
Science is not about proof. There is a lot of evidence though:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Thank you for proving my point.
Goodbye.
--
Pastor Dave
Don't put a question mark where God put a period.
The Bible is not proof. There is a lot of evidence though.
Doug
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: DOUG SAYS THE BIBLE IS NOT PROOF |
17 Sep 2005 06:46:19 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:08:27 -0600, "Douglas W. Thomas"
<douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:v81pi15lokcsn2poid9fbu4jvcu1pi5lob@4ax.com...
On 17 Sep 2005 12:41:54 -0700, "Richard Smol"
<jazzcat@dds.nl> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:54:53 GMT, "John P. Boatwright"
<name@For-God.net> spake thusly:
Since Disaster Dave put out a call for proof of god
When was this?
I started a thread calling for proof of macroevolution.
No one was able to provide said proof.
All I received,
was insults, people trying to get me to prove God,
those trying to claim I had to disprove it, those
claiming that I was wrong for demanding proof,
when science doesn't prove anything (even though
they claim it is proved, when they ridicule anyone
who doesn't believe it), etc., which is what I had
expected.
Science is not about proof. There is a lot of evidence though:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Thank you for proving my point.
Goodbye.
--
Pastor Dave
Don't put a question mark where God put a period.
The Bible is not proof. There is a lot of evidence though.
Doug
It is proof for any true Christian, who loves God
the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ.
You are now in my kill file.
--
Pastor Dave
Don't put a question mark where God put a period.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas W. Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: DOUG SAYS THE BIBLE IS NOT PROOF |
17 Sep 2005 07:57:09 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7kapi1tmc8bj01a7giov4g97gmc01vg4g8@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:08:27 -0600, "Douglas W. Thomas"
<douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:v81pi15lokcsn2poid9fbu4jvcu1pi5lob@4ax.com...
On 17 Sep 2005 12:41:54 -0700, "Richard Smol"
<jazzcat@dds.nl> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:54:53 GMT, "John P. Boatwright"
<name@For-God.net> spake thusly:
Since Disaster Dave put out a call for proof of god
When was this?
I started a thread calling for proof of macroevolution.
No one was able to provide said proof.
All I received,
was insults, people trying to get me to prove God,
those trying to claim I had to disprove it, those
claiming that I was wrong for demanding proof,
when science doesn't prove anything (even though
they claim it is proved, when they ridicule anyone
who doesn't believe it), etc., which is what I had
expected.
Science is not about proof. There is a lot of evidence though:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Thank you for proving my point.
Goodbye.
--
Pastor Dave
Don't put a question mark where God put a period.
The Bible is not proof. There is a lot of evidence though.
Doug
It is proof for any true Christian, who loves God
the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ.
You are now in my kill file.
--
Pastor Dave
Don't put a question mark where God put a period.
Dave is just a bit over sensitive!
Doug
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: DOUG SAYS THE BIBLE IS NOT PROOF |
17 Sep 2005 07:43:26 PM |
|
|
In article <7kapi1tmc8bj01a7giov4g97gmc01vg4g8@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
You are now in my kill file.
--
Pastor Dave
Typical un- Christian behavior by a typical hypocrite!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: DOUG SAYS THE BIBLE IS NOT PROOF |
17 Sep 2005 08:57:16 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:43:26 -0600, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> spake thusly:
In article <7kapi1tmc8bj01a7giov4g97gmc01vg4g8@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
You are now in my kill file.
--
Pastor Dave
Typical un- Christian behavior by a typical hypocrite!
Goodbye.
--
Pastor Dave
Don't put a question mark where God put a period.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: DOUG SAYS THE BIBLE IS NOT PROOF |
18 Sep 2005 12:38:45 AM |
|
|
In article <lbipi1hplhm8i04veoh3k7umo6q0djav7d@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:43:26 -0600, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> spake thusly:
In article <7kapi1tmc8bj01a7giov4g97gmc01vg4g8@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
You are now in my kill file.
--
Pastor Dave
Typical un- Christian behavior by a typical hypocrite!
Goodbye.
--
Pastor Dave
Don't put a question mark where God put a period.
Is your God on the rag?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs - skip the aa" |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
