| 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: "robin hood zorrro" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
15 Sep 2005 07:41:45 PM |
|
|
I should correct my grammar mistake:
"It is not a proof of .. only a Christian God, rather it is a proof of
the concept" ... of God as the cause of existence:
1) We could go back to DesCarte (who by the way I believe was also
creating this proof... I expect that this is in the "Secret Writings"
that were not published in his day due to his fear of the bizarre
Catholic church and its power back then.. and I have never heard of
DesCarte's secret writings being published???)
But starting with Descarte: "I think therefore I am"
2) Thus I know I exist.
3) Thus since I exist by the law of cause and effect (which is a basic
law of logical argument without which one cannot even have logic
itself) then I must have a cause.
4) If you want to claim that my cause is not God at this point but
rather some other cause, and then claim the cause for that other thing
is another cause... then I will use recursion and collectively define
your collection of recursions as God (being how one of the attributes
of God is "infinite" this is no problem.)
4a) On the other hand if you dont want to go into recursive denial and
just accept that I have defined God as the Cause Of Existence... then
again you have your proof... ie it is a proof by definition using the
laws of logic.
There is Existence -> therefore there is a cause of Existence. Name
that Entity God.
Now the implications are what then are the attributes of God... This
question is more complex.
.
|
|
|
| User: "navi-gater" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
15 Sep 2005 11:20:45 PM |
|
|
"robin hood zorrro" <robinhoodzorrro@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1126831305.891163.60480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Firstly I should say that I think your proof is partly reasonable
however I think there is one *potential* flaw (see below).
I think it is also worth saying that if such a God (as you define it)
were proven to exist, given the nature you described it would bear no
relation to the gods defined in the major religions....
And one more thing, the definition of God (as taken from dictionary.com)
refers to a sentient & intelligent creator-being - even though we wish
to talk about this thing that created "existence" - God may not be the
right term to use to describe it.
4) If you want to claim that my cause is not God at this point but
rather some other cause, and then claim the cause for that other thing
is another cause... then I will use recursion and collectively define
your collection of recursions as God (being how one of the attributes
of God is "infinite" this is no problem.)
4a) On the other hand if you dont want to go into recursive denial
and
just accept that I have defined God as the Cause Of Existence... then
again you have your proof... ie it is a proof by definition using the
laws of logic.
So here is potential problem one. If everything must have a cause, then
what caused God?
You go on to say "God is infinite" and the cause is (infinitely)
recursive. I retort with; what is an example of some non-abstract entity
which is infinite?
Assuming there is no example of a non-abstract infinite entity (now
there is not, in the future...who knows), then it can be concluded that
the God proposed does not exist either (at least not in this universe).
There is Existence -> therefore there is a cause of Existence. Name
that Entity God.
This is an assumption isn't it? How do we know the universe (or perhaps
cosmos is a better term here) had a cause at all? We know things
*within* the universe have a cause, but we also know that there is an
element of randomness.
However, the very existence of the universe is an interesting
philosophical problem ;) Particularly once the man-made gods are removed
from the question.
gater.
.
|
|
|
| User: "robin hood" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
16 Sep 2005 08:17:04 AM |
|
|
God is one of the axioms. God always existed... (which is one of the
properties of his infiniteness... one of the many--- perhaps "unbounded
would be a better descripter than "infinite")
As far as any other attributes (ie your dictionary attributes) I do
not not disagree with them... nor does the proof ... though the proof
makes no reference to them...
Perhaps I am being too bold to call it a proof other than a
definition...
But I also claim that attributes such a s "God is Love" are true... I
offer both your life of and my life and everyone's life as being the
proof...
But there is much question of the meaning of terms like Love... ie
learning is apparently a fundamental aspect of life... and by this I
mean learning of the highest and deepest order... learning of such
awesome levels that it can seem that everything one has learned is
nothing compared to what one is learning at this very moment... and
"Love" seems to be somehow intermixed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "navi-gater" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
16 Sep 2005 06:10:54 PM |
|
|
"robin hood" <robinhoodzorro@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1126876624.372217.290120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
God is one of the axioms. God always existed... (which is one of the
properties of his infiniteness... one of the many--- perhaps "unbounded
would be a better descripter than "infinite")
There's no proof God is an axiom for there is no proof God exists.
Your logical proof is flawed also as I said before.
You say God is infinite - the question I ask then is, can you prove that
any infinite thing exists (including God). There are no known examples of
non-abstract infinite entities.
As for the love stuff - well now you've strayed into area which can be
disproved through observation....sorry 'bout that. This latter kind of god
is fantasy not fact.
gater.
.
|
|
|
| User: "robin hood zoro" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
16 Sep 2005 08:39:51 PM |
|
|
No, because the concept of Love being absolute, eternal, and infinite
(being a synonym of God) implies that certain aspects of what will be
revealed to you will overwhelm any fears you have ever had ... ie
replacing sadness with joy.
The proof of God is valid ... at this point it is only a faulty
understanding that creates your opinion.
If you want to say that this definition of "God" is not what you meant
by God then that is something else and I cannot disagree with you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "navi-gater" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
17 Sep 2005 04:13:35 PM |
|
|
"robin hood zoro" <robinhoodzoro@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1126921190.971020.261160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
No, because the concept of Love being absolute, eternal, and infinite
(being a synonym of God) implies that certain aspects of what will be
revealed to you will overwhelm any fears you have ever had ... ie
replacing sadness with joy.
This is your fantasy....not a fact.
The proof of God is valid ... at this point it is only a faulty
understanding that creates your opinion.
You said God is infinite. I ask what evidence you have for the existence of
any infinite entity let alone God.
Infinity is a term used only to describe abstract concepts (number systems
for example).
Since there is no evidence that any infinite entity exists, I conclude your
"logical" evidence for an infinite God is flawed.
gater.
.
|
|
|
| User: "robin hood" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
21 Sep 2005 01:40:13 PM |
|
|
Since there is no evidence that any infinite entity exists, I conclude your
"logical" evidence for an infinite God is flawed.
as you said infinity is a "concept used to describe"
this is the concept that I use to describe, for instance, the power of
God, the Love of God... etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "navi-gater" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
21 Sep 2005 09:32:42 PM |
|
|
"robin hood" <robinhoodzorro@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1127328013.690980.83680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Since there is no evidence that any infinite entity exists, I conclude
your
"logical" evidence for an infinite God is flawed.
as you said infinity is a "concept used to describe"
this is the concept that I use to describe, for instance, the power of
God, the Love of God... etc.
And yet - unfortunately for your "proof" - infinite entities do not exist
in our universe....Therefore the claim for the existence of an infinite god
is flawed.
Unless you can alter your "proof" to deal with this problem, you can agree
with me that your original "proof" is flawed.
gater.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
17 Sep 2005 05:02:28 AM |
|
|
navi-gater wrote:
"robin hood" <robinhoodzorro@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1126876624.372217.290120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
God is one of the axioms. God always existed... (which is one
of the properties of his infiniteness... one of the many---
perhaps "unbounded would be a better descripter than
"infinite")
There's no proof God is an axiom for there is no proof God
exists.
There is no proof god exists because god does not exist.
That is why there is also no proof for the Easter Bunny.
And god is no more an axiom, than is the Easter Bunny or
the 10,000 gods of ancient Rome.
Axioms are either obvious basic things, such
as two parallel lines never meet, or definitional,
such as a line for purposes of discussion has no width.
God is not an observed thing and is not axiomatic in that way.
If you define god axiomatically, which theology in fact does,
that god is easily disproven by its own internal contradictions.
So that does not work.
In fact, god is easily disproven based on such basic,
lowest common denominator claims. So god cannot exist as
axiomatic, a priori claim.
Your logical proof is flawed also as I said before.
You say God is infinite - the question I ask then is, can you
prove that any infinite thing exists (including God). There are
no known examples of non-abstract infinite entities.
One can make a very good argument the Universe as a
whole is in fact infinite. I myself have no problem
with that.
Nor do I have problems with claims of infinity
when applied to the nature of god.
Since I can to my satisfaction show the class of creator,
omni-everthing gods cannot exist. Infinity is simply another
sub-claim swept away and so isn't a problem. Its rather
irrelevant actually.
As for the love stuff - well now you've strayed into area which
can be disproved through observation....sorry 'bout that. This
latter kind of god is fantasy not fact.
gater.
Yes, love-burger type gods most certainly are easily debunked.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
17 Sep 2005 05:51:02 AM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11inpibkg2f3o75@corp.supernews.com...
There is no proof god exists because god does not exist.
In other words absence of evidence = evidence of absence.
As a non-practicing spiritual agnostic, I've always taken the assertion of
no god as a leap of faith.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
17 Sep 2005 11:06:11 AM |
|
|
Tim K. wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11inpibkg2f3o75@corp.supernews.com...
There is no proof god exists because god does not exist.
In other words absence of evidence = evidence of absence.
As a non-practicing spiritual agnostic, I've always taken the
assertion of no god as a leap of faith.
Noooooooooooo......
All you have to do is look at the claims and see
how they collapse from self contradictions.
It has nothing at all to do with faith and everything
to do with noticing god as a theory is simply impossible.
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.
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.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
17 Sep 2005 09:36:02 PM |
|
|
Tim K. wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11inpibkg2f3o75@corp.supernews.com...
There is no proof god exists because god does not exist.
In other words absence of evidence = evidence of absence.
As a non-practicing spiritual agnostic, I've always taken the assertion of
no god as a leap of faith.
Actually, I have proof that there is no gods. Here it is:
Ra. Extrapolate.
Have a nice day!
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas W. Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
15 Sep 2005 09:40:46 PM |
|
|
"robin hood zorrro" <robinhoodzorrro@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126831305.891163.60480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I should correct my grammar mistake:
"It is not a proof of .. only a Christian God, rather it is a proof of
the concept" ... of God as the cause of existence:
1) We could go back to DesCarte (who by the way I believe was also
creating this proof... I expect that this is in the "Secret Writings"
that were not published in his day due to his fear of the bizarre
Catholic church and its power back then.. and I have never heard of
DesCarte's secret writings being published???)
But starting with Descarte: "I think therefore I am"
2) Thus I know I exist.
3) Thus since I exist by the law of cause and effect (which is a basic
law of logical argument without which one cannot even have logic
itself) then I must have a cause.
4) If you want to claim that my cause is not God at this point but
rather some other cause, and then claim the cause for that other thing
is another cause... then I will use recursion and collectively define
your collection of recursions as God (being how one of the attributes
of God is "infinite" this is no problem.)
4a) On the other hand if you dont want to go into recursive denial and
just accept that I have defined God as the Cause Of Existence... then
again you have your proof... ie it is a proof by definition using the
laws of logic.
There is Existence -> therefore there is a cause of Existence. Name
that Entity God.
Now the implications are what then are the attributes of God... This
question is more complex.
In order to make your case...you must first render a hypothesis.
Doug
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Happy One" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
15 Sep 2005 11:21:05 PM |
|
|
robinhoodzorrro@hotmail.com says...
There is Existence -> therefore there is a cause of Existence. Name
that Entity God.
So, I think everything started with the Big Bang. So
that is god?
.
|
|
|
| User: "robin hood" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
16 Sep 2005 08:06:37 AM |
|
|
Happy One wrote:
robinhoodzorrro@hotmail.com says...
There is Existence -> therefore there is a cause of Existence. Name
that Entity God.
So, I think everything started with the Big Bang. So
that is god?
Whatever caused the Big Bang... that would be "God" (If the Big Bang is
in fact true)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Happy One" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
16 Sep 2005 12:13:39 PM |
|
|
robinhoodzorro@hotmail.com says...
Happy One wrote:
robinhoodzorrro@hotmail.com says...
There is Existence -> therefore there is a cause of Existence. Name
that Entity God.
So, I think everything started with the Big Bang. So
that is god?
Whatever caused the Big Bang... that would be "God" (If the Big Bang is
in fact true)
Nothing caused the Big Bang. It just was. So that
makes it god, right?
[And why would you question the existence of the Big
Bang?]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
16 Sep 2005 04:10:45 PM |
|
|
robin hood wrote:
Happy One wrote:
robinhoodzorrro@hotmail.com says...
There is Existence -> therefore there is a cause of Existence. Name
that Entity God.
So, I think everything started with the Big Bang. So
that is god?
Whatever caused the Big Bang... that would be "God" (If the Big Bang is
in fact true)
And if the cause of the "Big Bang" was simply two other "universes"
colliding and creating a third "universe," then the colliding is God?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "robin hood zoro" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
16 Sep 2005 08:42:47 PM |
|
|
whatever cause that ...
You did not get the backwards recusive definition I stipulated.
As to Big Bang not having a cause... that is a bit lame... the
backwards recursion at least has some method to it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Happy One" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
16 Sep 2005 11:15:21 PM |
|
|
robinhoodzoro@hotmail.com says...
whatever cause that ...
You did not get the backwards recusive definition I stipulated.
As to Big Bang not having a cause... that is a bit lame... the
backwards recursion at least has some method to it.
How's that? Time did not exist before the Big Bang, so
nothing could have existed before it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
17 Sep 2005 04:52:21 AM |
|
|
Happy One wrote:
robinhoodzoro@hotmail.com says...
whatever cause that ...
You did not get the backwards recusive definition I
stipulated.
As to Big Bang not having a cause... that is a bit lame... the
backwards recursion at least has some method to it.
How's that? Time did not exist before the Big Bang, so
nothing could have existed before it.
Who says time did not exist?
Current cosmological thinking sees big bang type
events as imbedded in a larger Universe where time
most certainly does indeed exist. This island Universe is not
all there is.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
17 Sep 2005 05:51:54 AM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11inov1aeu2krb2@corp.supernews.com...
Happy One wrote:
robinhoodzoro@hotmail.com says...
whatever cause that ...
You did not get the backwards recusive definition I
stipulated.
As to Big Bang not having a cause... that is a bit lame... the
backwards recursion at least has some method to it.
How's that? Time did not exist before the Big Bang, so
nothing could have existed before it.
Who says time did not exist?
Steven Hawking, and he is not mocked. But you can do the funny voice...
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
17 Sep 2005 01:35:02 PM |
|
|
Tim K. wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11inov1aeu2krb2@corp.supernews.com...
Happy One wrote:
robinhoodzoro@hotmail.com says...
whatever cause that ...
You did not get the backwards recusive definition I
stipulated.
As to Big Bang not having a cause... that is a bit lame...
the backwards recursion at least has some method to it.
How's that? Time did not exist before the Big Bang, so
nothing could have existed before it.
Who says time did not exist?
Steven Hawking, and he is not mocked. But you can do the funny
voice...
He is wrong. The big bang can be tracked back to a
'singularity', which really only means, our mathematics and
physics break down at that point. To say Time ceases to
exit is meaningless here.
There are other things to consider, including where that initial
singularity came from.
If you consider that such a singularity can pop into
existance at any time, and start a new Universe, non-existance
of time is no longer viable. It has been estimated that such an
event will occur naturally over 250 billion years.
It is now pretty sure that this universe is open
and will expand indefinitely. But time here will not disappear.
But wait long enough and a new big bang will. It will be a
singularity to anybody inside it some 13 billon years later.
But it will have been born within time.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Happy One" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
17 Sep 2005 10:13:58 AM |
|
|
wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com says...
Happy One wrote:
robinhoodzoro@hotmail.com says...
whatever cause that ...
You did not get the backwards recusive definition I
stipulated.
As to Big Bang not having a cause... that is a bit lame... the
backwards recursion at least has some method to it.
How's that? Time did not exist before the Big Bang, so
nothing could have existed before it.
Who says time did not exist?
Current cosmological thinking sees big bang type
events as imbedded in a larger Universe where time
most certainly does indeed exist. This island Universe is not
all there is.
Irrelevant to my point. The point for this "prover" is
that at some point, time inself didn't exist, so
nothing came before that. Ergo, that thing - Big Bang
in my example - must be called god by his/her logic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
16 Sep 2005 11:16:00 PM |
|
|
robin hood zoro wrote:
whatever cause that ...
You did not get the backwards recusive definition I stipulated.
As to Big Bang not having a cause... that is a bit lame... the
backwards recursion at least has some method to it.
Why?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
16 Sep 2005 07:00:28 PM |
|
|
robin hood zorrro wrote:
You *did* post St Anselm's argument. Disguising it as Descartes
(notice spelling) doesn't change its flaws.
And it's refuted here:
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/god_ontological.html
1) We could go back to DesCarte
(who by the way I believe was also
creating this proof... I expect that this is in the "Secret Writings"
that were not published in his day due to his fear of the bizarre
Catholic church and its power back then.. and I have never heard of
DesCarte's secret writings being published???)
But starting with Descarte: "I think therefore I am"
2) Thus I know I exist.
First strike. We don't know we exist. Descartes's "Cogito ergo sum"
is itself flawed.
3) Thus since I exist by the law of cause and effect (which is a basic
law of logical argument without which one cannot even have logic
itself) then I must have a cause.
There is no universal "law of cause and effect". Even in *this*
universe we know of vacuum energy. How can you presume to speak for
what's elsewhere? Or is this god of yours confined only to this
universe?
Even if there were a "law of cause and effect" then the law would apply
to your god. Who caused your god, another god? And who caused that
god? And who caused that god? Ad infinitum.
4) If you want to claim that my cause is not God at this point but
rather some other cause, and then claim the cause for that other thing
is another cause... then I will use recursion and collectively define
your collection of recursions as God (being how one of the attributes
of God is "infinite" this is no problem.)
And that's logic? Combining them doesn't relieve you of your dilemma
since whatever explanation you use to overcome this purported "law of
cause and effect" (that you yourself have just circumvented, rendering
it irrelevant) can be applied equally to the universe. I define *your*
collection of recursions as the universe or the omniverse. Where do
you go from there?
There is Existence -> therefore there is a cause of Existence. Name
that Entity God.
You failed to make this assertion valid. Your "proof" failed. It was
pathetic when St. Anselm voiced it, it was just as pathetic when
Descartes re-voiced it, and it was even worse in your amateur rendition
of it.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "robin hood zoro" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
17 Sep 2005 02:32:27 AM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
....
Sorry I did not see you had responded to me till just now.
I did not learn of St. Anselm till after I had shown this proof to
someone many years ago.
1) St. Anselm's is not nearly as simply written.
2) St. Anselm does not make any claim about the rules of logic
themselves being the proof.
THUS YOUR FIRST LIE IS EXPOSED!
3) You and Doug seem to wnat to ignore the fact that the Law of Cause
and Effect is nothing but the rules of logic but being looked at from
the perspective of one who does not know formal logic.
Cause and effect is nothing more than inference.
I see that you and Doug both have this chip on your shoulder about
proving to everyone else that you are smarter... THUS EVEN WHEN THE
TRUTH IS SHOWN TO YOU YOU DENY.
Existentialism is itself simply a rip off of the basic concepts of
Christianity. Sarte et al give no valid reason based on their premise
for ethis though they bend over backwards to make it sound like they
are.
And it does appear that you general starting point is from
existentialism.
If you start with the premise that no one can prove anything then of
course you will have trouble learning otherwise.... but you will
eventually.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
17 Sep 2005 04:42:54 AM |
|
|
robin hood zoro wrote:
Sorry I did not see you had responded to me till just now.
I did not learn of St. Anselm till after I had shown this proof to
someone many years ago.
Yet still you failed to address this. This is very revealing.
1) St. Anselm's is not nearly as simply written.
This is irrelvant. If the logic is flawed it doesn't matter how it's
written. Deal with the flaws in your logic or withdraw your argument.
2) St. Anselm does not make any claim about the rules of logic
themselves being the proof.
This is irrelvant. If the logic is flawed it doesn't matter how it's
written. Deal with the flaws in your logic or withdraw your argument.
THUS YOUR FIRST LIE IS EXPOSED!
I'm not the one dishonestly presenting a case as though it has never
been presented (and thoroughly refuted) before and then failing even at
a pretence of supporting it.
3) You and Doug seem to wnat to ignore the fact that the Law of Cause
and Effect is nothing but the rules of logic but being looked at from
the perspective of one who does not know formal logic.
Cause and effect is nothing more than inference.
There is no such "law", and even if there were, it is overthrown once
you step beyond this universe. And vacuum energy proves you are wrong
on this point. Deal with the flaws in your logic or withdraw your
argument.
I see that you and Doug both have this chip on your shoulder
The one who has the chip is the one who feels compelled to go into
atheist news groups with ***** and then cannot even support it, and
rather than try to overcome these flaws takes the arrogant position
that he is right no matter what and will not even address the flaws
that are brought to his attention. Do you actually think that *you*
are god almighty? Deal with the flaws in your logic or withdraw your
argument.
about
proving to everyone else that you are smarter
I'm smarter than someone who evidently doesn't understand logic and
cannot present a logical analysis because of flaws in his logic. Deal
with the flaws in your logic or withdraw your argument.
... THUS EVEN WHEN THE
TRUTH IS SHOWN TO YOU YOU DENY.
Now you're reduced to stamping your little feet and chanting "yes it
is, YES IT IS!". Where is your logic? Deal with the flaws in your
logic or withdraw your argument.
Existentialism is itself simply a rip off of the basic concepts of
Christianity.
Uh-huh! Given that Christianity (which was invented not by Christ but
by Paul, so it ought to be called Paulianity) was ripped off from the
worship of Mithra, this doesn't help you.
Sarte
That would be Sartre.
et al give no valid reason based on their premise
for ethis though they bend over backwards to make it sound like they
are.
This is irrlevant. I don't care what Sartre et al did or didn't do.
Deal with the criticisms of your "proof" or admit you cannot and
withdraw it.
And it does appear that you general starting point is from
existentialism.
My starting point is from the feeble "logic" you presented. Deal with
the criticisms of your "proof" or admit you cannot and withdraw it.
If you start with the premise that no one can prove anything then of
course you will have trouble learning otherwise.... but you will
eventually.
Deal with the criticisms of your "proof" or admit you cannot and
withdraw it. The one who is having trouble learning is the one who is
running from reality. You're trying to climb above the failure of your
position by using one flawed step after another. Did you never read
about the man who built his house upon sand? You're that man.
Just because you sat through Philosphy 101 and stayed awake half the
time doesn't make you god. It doesn't even make you a philosopher.
Now either address the flaws or withdraw your argument. It really is
that simple.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
17 Sep 2005 01:15:33 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
.... Given that Christianity was ripped off from the
worship of Mithra, ...
Document this improbable assertion from ancient evidence, or withdraw
it and apologise for asserting as fact that which you did not know to
be true.
Deal with the criticisms of your "proof" or admit you cannot and
withdraw it. The one who is having trouble learning is the one who is
running from reality. You're trying to climb above the failure of your
position by using one flawed step after another. Did you never read
about the man who built his house upon sand? You're that man.
The parable you need to read is the one about the chap with a beam in
his eye...
Now either address the flaws or withdraw your argument. It really is
that simple.
Indeed it is.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "robin hood" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
17 Sep 2005 06:04:30 PM |
|
|
I know that you are not too stupid to know when you are beaten.
I proved that you simply lie rather than bring up valid points.
Thus your continual pseudo-claim to something becomes moot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Happy One" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD |
17 Sep 2005 07:37:25 PM |
|
|
robinhoodzorro@hotmail.com says...
I know that you are not too stupid to know when you are beaten.
I proved that you simply lie rather than bring up valid points.
Thus your continual pseudo-claim to something becomes moot.
Unfortunately, as you haven't got clue one about how
to properly reply to an article - appropriate quoting
- nobody here has any idea of who your vitriol is
aimed at.
And, of course, for someone who claimed s/he could
"prove" something, you become very insultingly
defensive when someone points out weaknesses in your
"proof."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
