| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"wcb" |
| Date: |
13 Sep 2006 03:28:42 PM |
| Object: |
AA - New essay, strong atheism and its mission |
CAN GOD BE DISPROVEN?
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - YES
STRONG ATHEISM'S PROGRAM
Key to disproving god is the concept of classes of gods.
Consider the class of omni-everything creator gods, the OEC
class of gods. This class can be abstracted out from the gods
of Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
These religions depend on revelation, bible and quran.
These books explicitly claim god created all, and is omnipotent,
all good and omniscient. But these claims soon contradict each
other. A god that creates all and is omniscient destroys free
will and makes god creator of all moral evil acts, which
contradicts claims of gods love for us, mercy, omnibenevolence
and more. Omnipotence soon creates problems,for example and
omnipotent god must be outside of time and thus there is no past
or future for god. Since he creates all at once, again free will
is impossible and god creates all man's acts to the smallest details,
omnigenesis.
Using a small handfull of claims made for these gods, they
can be debunked. And we know why specifically.
1. God is personal, god has consciousness and will
2. God is intelligent
3. God has free will
4. God created all
5. God is omnipotent
6. God is omniscient
7. God is omnibenevolent
8. God is that which is so great, nothing greater
can be imagined.
These small handful of attributes destroy viablity of
the class of omni-everything creator gods.
We need not consider other possible attributes, and out
of the thousands of claims made for god, if these few assertions
allow us to debunk god, we need not bother with other assertions.
We star out with bible and Quran and note assertions made for
these gods. We note this small handful create impossible contradictions
showing these gods cannot exist.
We note that if we abstract this out to a general class of OEC gods,
no OEC god that has these characteristics is possible.
We thus do not have to worry about other OEC gods, or chasing
them down one by one to be exhaustive in name of being exhaustively
complete. Any god with these OEC characteristics is impossible,
known or unknown.
God of Sikhs, Bahis, and others, are impossible also because they
have these OEC claims explicitly made for their god. Any gods we
do not know about that have these assertions made for that god
is automatically debunked.
This general principle means if we can debunk a broad class of gods,
then we automatically debunk all gods with these characteristics.
This is obviously far more efficient than debunking gods one by one.
The next issue is to sort out possible gods by broad classes
that can be debunked as efficiently as possible using broad
characteristics, small in number. This it turns out
is not particularly hard, only about 25 classes of gods and
god-like ideas are needed.
Further more, these form a sort of natural hierarchy.
At top, supergods, OEC gods and working our way down
to nature gods, animism, and finally down to supernatural
creatures such as fairies and leprechauns.
Once these general concepts are understood, it is then possible
for strong atheism to systematically attempt to debunk all gods,
class by class.
Mapping. Sometimes a class of gods maps to another. OEC gods
are debunked, but there are some secondary claims worth noting
from a class perspective.
A god that is transcendent, that is in a supernatural realm
apart from this physical world is different from
a maya god that dreams this illusionary world of matter
and ourselves. But all claim to have created all,
to be all powerful and all good. Thus all fall to the same
contradictions. A transcendent god that creates all at once,
omnigenesis, destroying free will and creating all moral evils,
is no different from a Maya god that merely dreams the same reality.
Immanent gods hat are the basis and sustaining cause of all
creation likewise are debunked as they claim to be omni-everything,
creator of all an omnigenesis is the same result.
Thus transcendent gods, immanent gods and maya gods map
OEC gods and are impossible.
Supergods. Gods that are explicitly supergods can have certain
assertions made for them. A god that is greater than anything
imaginable would be a god that is not limited by logic. A god
that creates logic. But if a god that is so unlimited is also all
good and hates evil, there is no excuse for existence of evil.
Such a god could easily eliminate all evil, having no logic limits.
But evil exists, such a god cannot exist.
This means a real god must at best be limited by logic.
And that needs to be explained. A god that is limited
cannot be omnipotent.
So OEC gods are destroyed by the concept of supergods.
This is a case of a class of gods the self destructs and
that destruction leaves big problems for lesser classes of gods.
No greater class than supergods can exist.
So we see Supergods, OEC class of gods, transcendent, maya, immanent
classes of gods are impossible.
We need not waste much time considering anything beyond the
small number of claims meant to destroy these classes as viable
classes of gods.
Metaphysical gods of Greeks and philosophers do not work.
Aristotle's prime mover has been debunked by cosmology, the big
bang and turbulence explain the movement of matter in the Universe.
No prime mover needed.
So much for #1 of Aquinas's 5 ways.
No creator of a metaphysical system has outguessed nature yet.
The layest version of metaphysical god classes, process theology
likewise came a cropper. Alfred North Whitehead metaphysically
defined his own physics and guessed wrong. As a result his
designed metaphysical god does not work with modern physics
and is not viable.
Going down the ladder we find Pantheism.
Deism.
Nature-tutelary gods.
Allegorical gods.
Millions of myth cycle gods.
Myth cycle gods map to either OEC gods, or nature gods
or allegorical gods. Thus all are easily debunked.
We start looking at ideas like spiritism/animism.
Souls. Apotheosis of humans to a god like state.
Lares, pentates and ancestor spirits.
And down to animism, every plant, rock, tree has its spirit.
Fairies, pookahs, imps, djinn, and other supernatural beings.
There are only so many broad classes of beings from supergods
to leprechauns.
And we have metaphysical considerations such as monism, dualism,
monism as idealism/maya gods, or as atomism, matter is supreme.
Stoics and others believed in monism, atomism, but matter was of
course kinds such as found in the world, and finer types of matter
that made up souls and gods. Can we eliminate supernaturalism
logically?
We have to account of logic and physics and the regularity of the
natural world and these implications for gods. Logic is particularly
a problem for OEC gods and supergods.
This then is Strong Atheism's program, to systematically as possible
sort gods out into classes that can be disproven with the simplest
and most economical assertions that can be used to describe a class.
By showing gods and related ideas are not viable, strong atheism
puts us on the path to truth and reason.
Strong atheism needs to explore secondary claims. What is logic
and what does that say about possibility of gods? What do we mean
by supernatural?
This is purely destructive, critical. It makes no arguments for
any particular science, or much anything else. It will imply some
metaphysical ideas, naturalism, that logic counts, that occultism,
supernatural religion, mysticism and other failed metaphysical
world views lead only to error.
If god can be disproven, strong atheism debunks tertiary claims,
creationism, laws against homosexuals being given to Moses by god
and more. What is left to replace them is not argued much here, it is
good enough to remove gods from considerations of such things.
Strong atheism then debunks gods to clear the way for correct,
true, naturally thinking.
(End)
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - New essay,DEBUNKED |
13 Sep 2006 03:44:41 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12ggqh6t7em6l65@corp.supernews.com...
CAN GOD BE DISPROVEN?
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - YES
STRONG ATHEISM'S PROGRAM
Key to disproving god is the concept of classes of gods.
And since you cannot disprove a god in the non-omnipotent class, you cannot
disprove the existence of god.
Q.E.D.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - New essay,DEBUNKED |
13 Sep 2006 04:54:18 PM |
|
|
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> said:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12ggqh6t7em6l65@corp.supernews.com...
CAN GOD BE DISPROVEN?
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - YES
STRONG ATHEISM'S PROGRAM
Key to disproving god is the concept of classes of gods.
And since you cannot disprove a god in the non-omnipotent class, you cannot
disprove the existence of god.
Q.E.D.
I would like to posit that we can think of a non-omnipotent creator
(NOEC) god as one that created our world, but did not create, and does
not entirely control, its own existential niche or "world". I will
explain.
Consider a hypothetical entity that is not in the class of OC gods
because it lacks omnipotence. Given that the potency of even OEC gods
is agreed to be constrained to the logically possible, non-omnipotence
means there is some constraint *in addition* to the constraint of
logical possibility.
The most general statement of such constraints is that they are
nomological, having to do with aspects of the natural world in which
the entity operates. For example in our world, gravity appears to be a
universal constraint on the actions of existent entities. Physical
particles and electromagnetic radiation is affected by it in
nomological ways.
While it is not necessarily the case that the world in which a god
operates is the same natural world in which we operate, the concept of
non-omnipotence does imply the concept of a "nature" in which the god
operates, and which presents constraints on her actions. ("Actions"
can be a very general term, including what the god can do, think, be,
etc.). In fact, the "natural world" in which the god operates can be
completely defined and specified, as the set of constraints upon that
god.
We can conclude about this world (the set of constraints), that they
are not subject to the control of the god. We can also conclude that
this world exists contemporaneously with the god, and was not created
by her, because if it were created by her, then there was a time when
the god existed without those constraints.
(A side bar needs to consider whether it makes sense to say that a
non-omnipotent god can come about by an omnipotent god irreversibly
terminating her omnipotence. I think not, because this god's inability
to terminate her chosen non-omnipotence would have been an existing
limitation even before she terminated her omnipotence, hence, such a
god is not omnipotent in the first place.)
So, with this background, how do we proceed to prove that such a god
is *logically* impossible?
-- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - New essay,DEBUNKED |
13 Sep 2006 06:05:11 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dftgg21kltmtmf0m409qchb7pl1nbo761n@4ax.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> said:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12ggqh6t7em6l65@corp.supernews.com...
CAN GOD BE DISPROVEN?
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - YES
STRONG ATHEISM'S PROGRAM
Key to disproving god is the concept of classes of gods.
And since you cannot disprove a god in the non-omnipotent class, you
cannot
disprove the existence of god.
Q.E.D.
I would like to posit that we can think of a non-omnipotent creator
(NOEC) god as one that created our world, but did not create, and does
not entirely control, its own existential niche or "world". I will
explain.
Consider a hypothetical entity that is not in the class of OC gods
because it lacks omnipotence. Given that the potency of even OEC gods
is agreed to be constrained to the logically possible, non-omnipotence
means there is some constraint *in addition* to the constraint of
logical possibility.
The most general statement of such constraints is that they are
nomological, having to do with aspects of the natural world in which
the entity operates. For example in our world, gravity appears to be a
universal constraint on the actions of existent entities. Physical
particles and electromagnetic radiation is affected by it in
nomological ways.
While it is not necessarily the case that the world in which a god
operates is the same natural world in which we operate, the concept of
non-omnipotence does imply the concept of a "nature" in which the god
operates, and which presents constraints on her actions. ("Actions"
can be a very general term, including what the god can do, think, be,
etc.). In fact, the "natural world" in which the god operates can be
completely defined and specified, as the set of constraints upon that
god.
We can conclude about this world (the set of constraints), that they
are not subject to the control of the god. We can also conclude that
this world exists contemporaneously with the god, and was not created
by her, because if it were created by her, then there was a time when
the god existed without those constraints.
(A side bar needs to consider whether it makes sense to say that a
non-omnipotent god can come about by an omnipotent god irreversibly
terminating her omnipotence. I think not, because this god's inability
to terminate her chosen non-omnipotence would have been an existing
limitation even before she terminated her omnipotence, hence, such a
god is not omnipotent in the first place.)
So, with this background, how do we proceed to prove that such a god
is *logically* impossible?
I don't think we can. That's been the point of Barwell's exercise from the
beginning. My personal belief is that atheists need offer no proof of the
non-existence of that for which there is no good argument and no proof. The
notion of a god fails due to the three laws of thought. We cannot "know"
there is a god, and there's no good reason to believe in what cannot be
known. Nevertheless, when an individual makes a claim, such as "I can prove
that the existence of any god is logically impossible" the burden of proof
falls on them to do so.
In other words, I believe it to be a fool's errand. Barwell said it would
be "easy" and he's been dancing around the issue ever since, either
attempting to avoid it by attacking strawmen or employing fallacious
arguments and arguments by assertion.
-- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - New essay,DEBUNKED |
13 Sep 2006 07:36:41 PM |
|
|
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> said:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dftgg21kltmtmf0m409qchb7pl1nbo761n@4ax.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> said:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12ggqh6t7em6l65@corp.supernews.com...
CAN GOD BE DISPROVEN?
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - YES
STRONG ATHEISM'S PROGRAM
Key to disproving god is the concept of classes of gods.
And since you cannot disprove a god in the non-omnipotent class, you
cannot
disprove the existence of god.
Q.E.D.
I would like to posit that we can think of a non-omnipotent creator
(NOEC) god as one that created our world, but did not create, and does
not entirely control, its own existential niche or "world". I will
explain.
Consider a hypothetical entity that is not in the class of OC gods
because it lacks omnipotence. Given that the potency of even OEC gods
is agreed to be constrained to the logically possible, non-omnipotence
means there is some constraint *in addition* to the constraint of
logical possibility.
The most general statement of such constraints is that they are
nomological, having to do with aspects of the natural world in which
the entity operates. For example in our world, gravity appears to be a
universal constraint on the actions of existent entities. Physical
particles and electromagnetic radiation is affected by it in
nomological ways.
While it is not necessarily the case that the world in which a god
operates is the same natural world in which we operate, the concept of
non-omnipotence does imply the concept of a "nature" in which the god
operates, and which presents constraints on her actions. ("Actions"
can be a very general term, including what the god can do, think, be,
etc.). In fact, the "natural world" in which the god operates can be
completely defined and specified, as the set of constraints upon that
god.
We can conclude about this world (the set of constraints), that they
are not subject to the control of the god. We can also conclude that
this world exists contemporaneously with the god, and was not created
by her, because if it were created by her, then there was a time when
the god existed without those constraints.
(A side bar needs to consider whether it makes sense to say that a
non-omnipotent god can come about by an omnipotent god irreversibly
terminating her omnipotence. I think not, because this god's inability
to terminate her chosen non-omnipotence would have been an existing
limitation even before she terminated her omnipotence, hence, such a
god is not omnipotent in the first place.)
So, with this background, how do we proceed to prove that such a god
is *logically* impossible?
I don't think we can.
But investigating that possibility is more interesting IMO than
pissing on rocks.
By the way, I should have included the idea that a limited-potency god
would have limitations on the kind of worlds she could create.
Otherwise, it's indistinguishable from a OEC god and is dispensed with
the same way as they are.
That's been the point of Barwell's exercise from the
beginning. My personal belief is that atheists need offer no proof of the
non-existence of that for which there is no good argument and no proof. The
notion of a god fails due to the three laws of thought. We cannot "know"
there is a god, and there's no good reason to believe in what cannot be
known. Nevertheless, when an individual makes a claim, such as "I can prove
that the existence of any god is logically impossible" the burden of proof
falls on them to do so.
In other words, I believe it to be a fool's errand. Barwell said it would
be "easy" and he's been dancing around the issue ever since, either
attempting to avoid it by attacking strawmen or employing fallacious
arguments and arguments by assertion.
Anyway, I think I have explored the idea of NOEC gods more than both
of you put together. ;-)
-- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - New essay,DEBUNKED |
13 Sep 2006 08:23:54 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:sq8hg2dnaiavapmp1h8drpsi6n2qn5lr09@4ax.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> said:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dftgg21kltmtmf0m409qchb7pl1nbo761n@4ax.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> said:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12ggqh6t7em6l65@corp.supernews.com...
CAN GOD BE DISPROVEN?
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - YES
STRONG ATHEISM'S PROGRAM
Key to disproving god is the concept of classes of gods.
And since you cannot disprove a god in the non-omnipotent class, you
cannot
disprove the existence of god.
Q.E.D.
I would like to posit that we can think of a non-omnipotent creator
(NOEC) god as one that created our world, but did not create, and does
not entirely control, its own existential niche or "world". I will
explain.
Consider a hypothetical entity that is not in the class of OC gods
because it lacks omnipotence. Given that the potency of even OEC gods
is agreed to be constrained to the logically possible, non-omnipotence
means there is some constraint *in addition* to the constraint of
logical possibility.
The most general statement of such constraints is that they are
nomological, having to do with aspects of the natural world in which
the entity operates. For example in our world, gravity appears to be a
universal constraint on the actions of existent entities. Physical
particles and electromagnetic radiation is affected by it in
nomological ways.
While it is not necessarily the case that the world in which a god
operates is the same natural world in which we operate, the concept of
non-omnipotence does imply the concept of a "nature" in which the god
operates, and which presents constraints on her actions. ("Actions"
can be a very general term, including what the god can do, think, be,
etc.). In fact, the "natural world" in which the god operates can be
completely defined and specified, as the set of constraints upon that
god.
We can conclude about this world (the set of constraints), that they
are not subject to the control of the god. We can also conclude that
this world exists contemporaneously with the god, and was not created
by her, because if it were created by her, then there was a time when
the god existed without those constraints.
(A side bar needs to consider whether it makes sense to say that a
non-omnipotent god can come about by an omnipotent god irreversibly
terminating her omnipotence. I think not, because this god's inability
to terminate her chosen non-omnipotence would have been an existing
limitation even before she terminated her omnipotence, hence, such a
god is not omnipotent in the first place.)
So, with this background, how do we proceed to prove that such a god
is *logically* impossible?
I don't think we can.
But investigating that possibility is more interesting IMO than
pissing on rocks.
By the way, I should have included the idea that a limited-potency god
would have limitations on the kind of worlds she could create.
Otherwise, it's indistinguishable from a OEC god and is dispensed with
the same way as they are.
As a matter of fact, no it's not.
But you're welcome to try.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - New essay,DEBUNKED |
14 Sep 2006 11:24:38 AM |
|
|
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> said:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:sq8hg2dnaiavapmp1h8drpsi6n2qn5lr09@4ax.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> said:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dftgg21kltmtmf0m409qchb7pl1nbo761n@4ax.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> said:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12ggqh6t7em6l65@corp.supernews.com...
CAN GOD BE DISPROVEN?
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - YES
STRONG ATHEISM'S PROGRAM
Key to disproving god is the concept of classes of gods.
And since you cannot disprove a god in the non-omnipotent class, you
cannot
disprove the existence of god.
Q.E.D.
I would like to posit that we can think of a non-omnipotent creator
(NOEC) god as one that created our world, but did not create, and does
not entirely control, its own existential niche or "world". I will
explain.
Consider a hypothetical entity that is not in the class of OC gods
because it lacks omnipotence. Given that the potency of even OEC gods
is agreed to be constrained to the logically possible, non-omnipotence
means there is some constraint *in addition* to the constraint of
logical possibility.
The most general statement of such constraints is that they are
nomological, having to do with aspects of the natural world in which
the entity operates. For example in our world, gravity appears to be a
universal constraint on the actions of existent entities. Physical
particles and electromagnetic radiation is affected by it in
nomological ways.
While it is not necessarily the case that the world in which a god
operates is the same natural world in which we operate, the concept of
non-omnipotence does imply the concept of a "nature" in which the god
operates, and which presents constraints on her actions. ("Actions"
can be a very general term, including what the god can do, think, be,
etc.). In fact, the "natural world" in which the god operates can be
completely defined and specified, as the set of constraints upon that
god.
We can conclude about this world (the set of constraints), that they
are not subject to the control of the god. We can also conclude that
this world exists contemporaneously with the god, and was not created
by her, because if it were created by her, then there was a time when
the god existed without those constraints.
(A side bar needs to consider whether it makes sense to say that a
non-omnipotent god can come about by an omnipotent god irreversibly
terminating her omnipotence. I think not, because this god's inability
to terminate her chosen non-omnipotence would have been an existing
limitation even before she terminated her omnipotence, hence, such a
god is not omnipotent in the first place.)
So, with this background, how do we proceed to prove that such a god
is *logically* impossible?
I don't think we can.
But investigating that possibility is more interesting IMO than
pissing on rocks.
By the way, I should have included the idea that a limited-potency god
would have limitations on the kind of worlds she could create.
Otherwise, it's indistinguishable from a OEC god and is dispensed with
the same way as they are.
As a matter of fact, no it's not.
Yes, it would be "distinguishable" from an OEX god by someone who
actually saw it operating and could "test" it. But I will explain what
i mean, below.
But you're welcome to try.
An example: it is logically possible that the speed of light (c) could
be different than it is. Supposing that the speed of light were "set"
by an OEC god, then it could be set at, say, half, or twice, or any
multiple of the value it happens to have in this world. Further, it is
logically possible that the each of several other fundamental
constants of our world, say, the gravitational constant (G) could be
different than it is.
But -- is there a limit on the values that these different constants
can take, beyond which a universe cannot persist in time? Imagine that
there is a relationship between h-bar, c and G such that if the
Newtonian constant of gravitation over h-bar c is not exactly what it
is in our universe, our universe could not have persisted for more
than one second after it began.
(http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html) under "universal"
This would not be a logical constraint, if is a sort of "superlaw"
that applies to any universe. My position is that if the creator-god
cannot change this fact, it is not omnipotent, and its limitation is
not due to logical necessity, it is due to nomological necessity. it
is a "law" in that god's world, that the god can't change.
Now, what I mean by indistinguishable is, how could we distinguish
whether a god was such that she *decided* it to be the case that if
G/h-bar c is not equal to 6.7087 x 10-39 (GeV/c^2)^-2 no universe can
persist for more than one second, or she was such that she only
*knows* this fact, but cannot change it?
I don't think *we* could see this distinction, if it were there. Only
she would know.
Where is this headed? I'll tell you. The limitation on the relation of
h-bar, G and C is *irrelevant* to an argument that finds a logical
contradiction in the asserted powers of god that are related to our
supposed free will and the existence of evil in the world.
What you need, if you are going to carve out a class of gods each of
which is immune to such arguments, is a *relevant* limitation that is
not a limitation of logic, but is nomological. Otherwise, if there are
only irrelevant nomological limitations, the OEC argument applies
For example, suppose that no god can make a being with free will that
does not do at least some evil. Suppose that it is an immutable law of
the god's world, that somewhere in every god-created free being's
life, it will do an evil act. This is clearly not a logical necessity;
so if it is a limitation, the god is non-omnipotent for a nomological
reason -- it is a "law of that god's world".
By definition, that god would not be ruled out by the OEC god
argument, because the limitation is relevant.
We can explore another argument that rules out this god, but I will
await your comments.
-- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - New essay,DEBUNKED |
14 Sep 2006 11:33:59 AM |
|
|
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:8ssig29q5g4ntgtb9a83t2da2av6on5v6u@4ax.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> said:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:sq8hg2dnaiavapmp1h8drpsi6n2qn5lr09@4ax.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> said:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dftgg21kltmtmf0m409qchb7pl1nbo761n@4ax.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> said:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12ggqh6t7em6l65@corp.supernews.com...
CAN GOD BE DISPROVEN?
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - YES
STRONG ATHEISM'S PROGRAM
Key to disproving god is the concept of classes of gods.
And since you cannot disprove a god in the non-omnipotent class, you
cannot
disprove the existence of god.
Q.E.D.
I would like to posit that we can think of a non-omnipotent creator
(NOEC) god as one that created our world, but did not create, and does
not entirely control, its own existential niche or "world". I will
explain.
Consider a hypothetical entity that is not in the class of OC gods
because it lacks omnipotence. Given that the potency of even OEC gods
is agreed to be constrained to the logically possible, non-omnipotence
means there is some constraint *in addition* to the constraint of
logical possibility.
The most general statement of such constraints is that they are
nomological, having to do with aspects of the natural world in which
the entity operates. For example in our world, gravity appears to be a
universal constraint on the actions of existent entities. Physical
particles and electromagnetic radiation is affected by it in
nomological ways.
While it is not necessarily the case that the world in which a god
operates is the same natural world in which we operate, the concept of
non-omnipotence does imply the concept of a "nature" in which the god
operates, and which presents constraints on her actions. ("Actions"
can be a very general term, including what the god can do, think, be,
etc.). In fact, the "natural world" in which the god operates can be
completely defined and specified, as the set of constraints upon that
god.
We can conclude about this world (the set of constraints), that they
are not subject to the control of the god. We can also conclude that
this world exists contemporaneously with the god, and was not created
by her, because if it were created by her, then there was a time when
the god existed without those constraints.
(A side bar needs to consider whether it makes sense to say that a
non-omnipotent god can come about by an omnipotent god irreversibly
terminating her omnipotence. I think not, because this god's inability
to terminate her chosen non-omnipotence would have been an existing
limitation even before she terminated her omnipotence, hence, such a
god is not omnipotent in the first place.)
So, with this background, how do we proceed to prove that such a god
is *logically* impossible?
I don't think we can.
But investigating that possibility is more interesting IMO than
pissing on rocks.
By the way, I should have included the idea that a limited-potency god
would have limitations on the kind of worlds she could create.
Otherwise, it's indistinguishable from a OEC god and is dispensed with
the same way as they are.
As a matter of fact, no it's not.
Yes, it would be "distinguishable" from an OEX god by someone who
actually saw it operating and could "test" it. But I will explain what
i mean, below.
But you're welcome to try.
An example: it is logically possible that the speed of light (c) could
be different than it is. Supposing that the speed of light were "set"
by an OEC god, then it could be set at, say, half, or twice, or any
multiple of the value it happens to have in this world. Further, it is
logically possible that the each of several other fundamental
constants of our world, say, the gravitational constant (G) could be
different than it is.
But -- is there a limit on the values that these different constants
can take, beyond which a universe cannot persist in time? Imagine that
there is a relationship between h-bar, c and G such that if the
Newtonian constant of gravitation over h-bar c is not exactly what it
is in our universe, our universe could not have persisted for more
than one second after it began.
(http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html) under "universal"
This would not be a logical constraint, if is a sort of "superlaw"
that applies to any universe. My position is that if the creator-god
cannot change this fact, it is not omnipotent, and its limitation is
not due to logical necessity, it is due to nomological necessity. it
is a "law" in that god's world, that the god can't change.
Now, what I mean by indistinguishable is, how could we distinguish
whether a god was such that she *decided* it to be the case that if
G/h-bar c is not equal to 6.7087 x 10-39 (GeV/c^2)^-2 no universe can
persist for more than one second, or she was such that she only
*knows* this fact, but cannot change it?
I don't think *we* could see this distinction, if it were there. Only
she would know.
Where is this headed? I'll tell you. The limitation on the relation of
h-bar, G and C is *irrelevant* to an argument that finds a logical
contradiction in the asserted powers of god that are related to our
supposed free will and the existence of evil in the world.
What you need, if you are going to carve out a class of gods each of
which is immune to such arguments, is a *relevant* limitation that is
not a limitation of logic, but is nomological. Otherwise, if there are
only irrelevant nomological limitations, the OEC argument applies
For example, suppose that no god can make a being with free will that
does not do at least some evil. Suppose that it is an immutable law of
the god's world, that somewhere in every god-created free being's
life, it will do an evil act.
You seem to inevitably get caught in that notion. Free will has no
necessary logical connection with 'having to do some evil within the course
of a lifetime.'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - New essay,DEBUNKED |
14 Sep 2006 11:39:09 AM |
|
|
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> said:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:8ssig29q5g4ntgtb9a83t2da2av6on5v6u@4ax.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> said:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:sq8hg2dnaiavapmp1h8drpsi6n2qn5lr09@4ax.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> said:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dftgg21kltmtmf0m409qchb7pl1nbo761n@4ax.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> said:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12ggqh6t7em6l65@corp.supernews.com...
CAN GOD BE DISPROVEN?
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - YES
STRONG ATHEISM'S PROGRAM
Key to disproving god is the concept of classes of gods.
And since you cannot disprove a god in the non-omnipotent class, you
cannot
disprove the existence of god.
Q.E.D.
I would like to posit that we can think of a non-omnipotent creator
(NOEC) god as one that created our world, but did not create, and does
not entirely control, its own existential niche or "world". I will
explain.
Consider a hypothetical entity that is not in the class of OC gods
because it lacks omnipotence. Given that the potency of even OEC gods
is agreed to be constrained to the logically possible, non-omnipotence
means there is some constraint *in addition* to the constraint of
logical possibility.
The most general statement of such constraints is that they are
nomological, having to do with aspects of the natural world in which
the entity operates. For example in our world, gravity appears to be a
universal constraint on the actions of existent entities. Physical
particles and electromagnetic radiation is affected by it in
nomological ways.
While it is not necessarily the case that the world in which a god
operates is the same natural world in which we operate, the concept of
non-omnipotence does imply the concept of a "nature" in which the god
operates, and which presents constraints on her actions. ("Actions"
can be a very general term, including what the god can do, think, be,
etc.). In fact, the "natural world" in which the god operates can be
completely defined and specified, as the set of constraints upon that
god.
We can conclude about this world (the set of constraints), that they
are not subject to the control of the god. We can also conclude that
this world exists contemporaneously with the god, and was not created
by her, because if it were created by her, then there was a time when
the god existed without those constraints.
(A side bar needs to consider whether it makes sense to say that a
non-omnipotent god can come about by an omnipotent god irreversibly
terminating her omnipotence. I think not, because this god's inability
to terminate her chosen non-omnipotence would have been an existing
limitation even before she terminated her omnipotence, hence, such a
god is not omnipotent in the first place.)
So, with this background, how do we proceed to prove that such a god
is *logically* impossible?
I don't think we can.
But investigating that possibility is more interesting IMO than
pissing on rocks.
By the way, I should have included the idea that a limited-potency god
would have limitations on the kind of worlds she could create.
Otherwise, it's indistinguishable from a OEC god and is dispensed with
the same way as they are.
As a matter of fact, no it's not.
Yes, it would be "distinguishable" from an OEX god by someone who
actually saw it operating and could "test" it. But I will explain what
i mean, below.
But you're welcome to try.
An example: it is logically possible that the speed of light (c) could
be different than it is. Supposing that the speed of light were "set"
by an OEC god, then it could be set at, say, half, or twice, or any
multiple of the value it happens to have in this world. Further, it is
logically possible that the each of several other fundamental
constants of our world, say, the gravitational constant (G) could be
different than it is.
But -- is there a limit on the values that these different constants
can take, beyond which a universe cannot persist in time? Imagine that
there is a relationship between h-bar, c and G such that if the
Newtonian constant of gravitation over h-bar c is not exactly what it
is in our universe, our universe could not have persisted for more
than one second after it began.
(http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html) under "universal"
This would not be a logical constraint, if is a sort of "superlaw"
that applies to any universe. My position is that if the creator-god
cannot change this fact, it is not omnipotent, and its limitation is
not due to logical necessity, it is due to nomological necessity. it
is a "law" in that god's world, that the god can't change.
Now, what I mean by indistinguishable is, how could we distinguish
whether a god was such that she *decided* it to be the case that if
G/h-bar c is not equal to 6.7087 x 10-39 (GeV/c^2)^-2 no universe can
persist for more than one second, or she was such that she only
*knows* this fact, but cannot change it?
I don't think *we* could see this distinction, if it were there. Only
she would know.
Where is this headed? I'll tell you. The limitation on the relation of
h-bar, G and C is *irrelevant* to an argument that finds a logical
contradiction in the asserted powers of god that are related to our
supposed free will and the existence of evil in the world.
What you need, if you are going to carve out a class of gods each of
which is immune to such arguments, is a *relevant* limitation that is
not a limitation of logic, but is nomological. Otherwise, if there are
only irrelevant nomological limitations, the OEC argument applies
For example, suppose that no god can make a being with free will that
does not do at least some evil. Suppose that it is an immutable law of
the god's world, that somewhere in every god-created free being's
life, it will do an evil act.
You seem to inevitably get caught in that notion. Free will has no
necessary logical connection with 'having to do some evil within the course
of a lifetime.'
I didn't say it did have any logical connection. Read my post again.
It is a supposed nomological law of that god's world.
I am now convinced that neither you nor wcb is going to add anything
of value to this discussion and so, am ending it with both of you.
-- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - New essay,DEBUNKED |
14 Sep 2006 11:47:05 AM |
|
|
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:v81jg2dnmlk8jhr9fd2khafc756njdrdca@4ax.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> said:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:8ssig29q5g4ntgtb9a83t2da2av6on5v6u@4ax.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> said:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:sq8hg2dnaiavapmp1h8drpsi6n2qn5lr09@4ax.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> said:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dftgg21kltmtmf0m409qchb7pl1nbo761n@4ax.com...
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> said:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12ggqh6t7em6l65@corp.supernews.com...
CAN GOD BE DISPROVEN?
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - YES
STRONG ATHEISM'S PROGRAM
Key to disproving god is the concept of classes of gods.
And since you cannot disprove a god in the non-omnipotent class, you
cannot
disprove the existence of god.
Q.E.D.
I would like to posit that we can think of a non-omnipotent creator
(NOEC) god as one that created our world, but did not create, and
does
not entirely control, its own existential niche or "world". I will
explain.
Consider a hypothetical entity that is not in the class of OC gods
because it lacks omnipotence. Given that the potency of even OEC
gods
is agreed to be constrained to the logically possible,
non-omnipotence
means there is some constraint *in addition* to the constraint of
logical possibility.
The most general statement of such constraints is that they are
nomological, having to do with aspects of the natural world in which
the entity operates. For example in our world, gravity appears to be
a
universal constraint on the actions of existent entities. Physical
particles and electromagnetic radiation is affected by it in
nomological ways.
While it is not necessarily the case that the world in which a god
operates is the same natural world in which we operate, the concept
of
non-omnipotence does imply the concept of a "nature" in which the
god
operates, and which presents constraints on her actions. ("Actions"
can be a very general term, including what the god can do, think,
be,
etc.). In fact, the "natural world" in which the god operates can be
completely defined and specified, as the set of constraints upon
that
god.
We can conclude about this world (the set of constraints), that they
are not subject to the control of the god. We can also conclude that
this world exists contemporaneously with the god, and was not
created
by her, because if it were created by her, then there was a time
when
the god existed without those constraints.
(A side bar needs to consider whether it makes sense to say that a
non-omnipotent god can come about by an omnipotent god irreversibly
terminating her omnipotence. I think not, because this god's
inability
to terminate her chosen non-omnipotence would have been an existing
limitation even before she terminated her omnipotence, hence, such a
god is not omnipotent in the first place.)
So, with this background, how do we proceed to prove that such a god
is *logically* impossible?
I don't think we can.
But investigating that possibility is more interesting IMO than
pissing on rocks.
By the way, I should have included the idea that a limited-potency god
would have limitations on the kind of worlds she could create.
Otherwise, it's indistinguishable from a OEC god and is dispensed with
the same way as they are.
As a matter of fact, no it's not.
Yes, it would be "distinguishable" from an OEX god by someone who
actually saw it operating and could "test" it. But I will explain what
i mean, below.
But you're welcome to try.
An example: it is logically possible that the speed of light (c) could
be different than it is. Supposing that the speed of light were "set"
by an OEC god, then it could be set at, say, half, or twice, or any
multiple of the value it happens to have in this world. Further, it is
logically possible that the each of several other fundamental
constants of our world, say, the gravitational constant (G) could be
different than it is.
But -- is there a limit on the values that these different constants
can take, beyond which a universe cannot persist in time? Imagine that
there is a relationship between h-bar, c and G such that if the
Newtonian constant of gravitation over h-bar c is not exactly what it
is in our universe, our universe could not have persisted for more
than one second after it began.
(http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html) under "universal"
This would not be a logical constraint, if is a sort of "superlaw"
that applies to any universe. My position is that if the creator-god
cannot change this fact, it is not omnipotent, and its limitation is
not due to logical necessity, it is due to nomological necessity. it
is a "law" in that god's world, that the god can't change.
Now, what I mean by indistinguishable is, how could we distinguish
whether a god was such that she *decided* it to be the case that if
G/h-bar c is not equal to 6.7087 x 10-39 (GeV/c^2)^-2 no universe can
persist for more than one second, or she was such that she only
*knows* this fact, but cannot change it?
I don't think *we* could see this distinction, if it were there. Only
she would know.
Where is this headed? I'll tell you. The limitation on the relation of
h-bar, G and C is *irrelevant* to an argument that finds a logical
contradiction in the asserted powers of god that are related to our
supposed free will and the existence of evil in the world.
What you need, if you are going to carve out a class of gods each of
which is immune to such arguments, is a *relevant* limitation that is
not a limitation of logic, but is nomological. Otherwise, if there are
only irrelevant nomological limitations, the OEC argument applies
For example, suppose that no god can make a being with free will that
does not do at least some evil. Suppose that it is an immutable law of
the god's world, that somewhere in every god-created free being's
life, it will do an evil act.
You seem to inevitably get caught in that notion. Free will has no
necessary logical connection with 'having to do some evil within the
course
of a lifetime.'
I didn't say it did have any logical connection. Read my post again.
It is a supposed nomological law of that god's world.
I am now convinced that neither you nor wcb is going to add anything
of value to this discussion and so, am ending it with both of you.
Do me a favor, will you Jim. Just keep me in your killfile. You have all
the patience and ability to communicate of a five year old.
-- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - New essay,DEBUNKED |
14 Sep 2006 05:16:31 PM |
|
|
Jim07D6 wrote:
I didn't say it did have any logical connection. Read my post again.
It is a supposed nomological law of that god's world.
I am now convinced that neither you nor wcb is going to add anything
of value to this discussion and so, am ending it with both of you.
You didn't try very hard either.
As I have shown, you, supergods self destruct, logic is a
questionable thing in relation to possible gods.
With gods claimed to be all good, logic is a problem.
If you think that saying that god may not care about good and evil,
that then shows us that nomological considerations with you do
not extend to ethics or morals.
Either god does not care or such considerations are outside god (the
Eurythro problem) Since we cannot tell which, that is a problem.
Since we cannot likewise tell is all logic is gods creation or
outside god likewise, we are talking about mere hypothesis.
If a god does not have nomological stand of ethics, we can
see that some things are excluded from nomological
considerations of god.
That calls all nomological considerations into question,
logic may not be something god controls for example.
Logic may not be one thing.
IS THERE A GOD? - No.
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - PART 3
1. MORE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
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?
2. IF GOD DID IN FACT MAKE THE RULES, LAWS, AND
LOGIC OF THE UNIVERSE.
A. If god did in fact make the rules and laws and
logic of the Universe, God could also change
them as needed.
B. A god that creates the rules, laws and logic
of the world he creates could simply make a
world where man has free will yet freely
chooses only to do moral good. Since such a
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 a 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 a god can do this and fails to, that god is
not omnibenevolent as claimed, a contradiction
in definitions of god as omnibenevolent and
omnipotent.
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.
3. IF GOD DOES NOT MAKE THE LAWS, RULES AND
LOGIC OF THE UNIVERSE - THE SECOND HORN
OF THE DILEMMA.
A. 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.
B. If these laws and rules and logic limit god,
then god is obviously not omnipotent as
claimed.
C. 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.
D. 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.
E. 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.
This observation forstalls attempts at
apologisms claiming god abandoned any
abilities.
F. And 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.
G. 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 actually
gave up any abilities. A contradiction with
the claim god has all powers and abilities.
H. Since god must have had maximum power and
abilities and cannot have at any time
voluntarily relinquished any powers or
abilities, at least in the name of banishing
evil the fact that there are laws and rules
and logic of a universe outside and beyond
god, they are truly beyond and outside god,
and always were.
I. 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 laws and rules and
logic.
J. Since the Universe and its laws and rules and
logic are outside and beyond god, god is not
as, creator of the Universe, of all. A
contradiction again of the claim god created
all.
K. Since the Universe no longer relies on god for
its purported existence, nor on god for the
existence of its laws and rules and logic,
god is no longer a necessary being. If there
are things that have necessary existence, 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.
L. 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 existence of evil, and must
have modified this if god is actually
omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
M. God then is not omnipotent, or not
omnibenevolent, or is neither, or
does not exist.
4. POSSIBLE DODGES - LOGIC IS PART OF GOD
A. One possible dodge is to say logic is part
of god. An attribute.
B. God is said to be a necessary being, he
must exist, and is necessary for all other
things to exist, all other things rely on god
to create and sustain them, they are
contingent.
C. A house is contingent, it is made of lumber
and bricks and roofing tiles et al. Those
things must exist for the house to exist and
precede the house.
D. God is said to have attributes, intelligence,
personality, all powers and abilities,
foreknowledge, omnipotence, and on and on.
E. But then god cannot be necessary, we must
account for these attributes god is
contingent on.
F. Thus we have an ad hocism in theology,
simplicity. God is said to be simple, that
all these alledged attributes are single, part
of a large, whole attribute. This ad hoc
dodge is created to pretend god is not
contingent as a house is contingent on
its materials. And theology claims it
does not have to account for these attributes
much as we ask for an account of where the
House's bricks and lumber come from.
G. God is said to be simple, not made of parts,
physically or metaphysically, he is a whole,
indivisible.
H. If somehow god is said to be the source of
logic, theology must account how that
somehow becomes the laws and rules and logic
of a Universe god is transcendent to.
I. Since god is also intelligent, and all
powerful, and since all these attributes are a
single simple attribute, then the Universe
should not only have logic, it should also be
intelligent and all powerful, merciful, just
et al.
J. Thus ad hoc claims god is somehow logic
itself and the ad hoc claim god is simple, not
made of parts, metaphysically or physically
create an impossible and contradictory and
incoherent set of claims.
5. MORE PROBLEMS WITH SIMPLICITY
A. What is logic, is it one thing or many?
Is 2 + 2 = 4 a different logic than E=MC**2?
Is Physics something god creates? What
about morality, it that a sort of logic?
B. If physics is something god does, why do
we have massive earthquakes that kill many,
or is that somehow, part of god's nature
and out of his control? If so, god is then
not omnipotent, this doctrine of simplicity
contradicts the claim god is all powerful.
C. How does theology plan to investigate these
issues or is simplicity simply an ad hocism
that theology has no intention of following
up on? Its claims create a tremendous
amount of issues.
Another essay will be written dealing in greater
detail with the issue of simplicity and its
implications.
6. THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF
THE ABOVE EXAMINATION OF GOD
A. Thus the idea god is omnipotent,
omnibenevolent, and creator of all, clash again
and mutually self-destruct over the issue of
evil's existence.
This raises serious questions on the nature
of the Universe that cannot be as Grand
Theology claims it is. The class of
omni-everything, creator gods cannot exist as
asserted.
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 existence
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 allegedly 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
10th 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 very final.
**************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - New essay,DEBUNKED |
14 Sep 2006 06:04:28 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gjl7v2reck194@corp.supernews.com...
IS THERE A GOD? - No.
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - PART 3
BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DEBUNKED ARGUMENT
DEAR READER:
THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED FOR YOUR READING SAFETY
1. MORE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of
the Universe or not?
Why? What does that have to do with the necessary existence of God?
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.
Of course they don't.
1.None of these attributes are necessary to the existence of God.
2.Only Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence clash over the issue of evil's
existence.
3.Nowhere have you shown anything else.
This raises serious questions on the nature of the
Universe that cannot be as Grand Theology claims
it is.
That may be but you haven't shown it to be true.
The class of omni-everything, creator
gods cannot exist as asserted.
Unproven as I've already demonstrated in dozens of posts.
A. We have shown god cannot have created the
Universe.
No you haven't. And once again, you're pulling the same dishonest trick
you've pulled from the first. You make claims which you don't prove, then
you go on to compound your error by pretending your original claim has
proved more than you initially said it would.
1. You make fallacious claims.
2. You make no attempt to prove them.
3. When criticized you insist that you have proved them.
4. You go on to insist that they prove more than you claimed they would
prove.
5. When the criticism gets too strong, you backpedal your claims and revise
your comments to pretend that they now are more narrow.
6. You then trot out the original debunked arguments.
7. And you then go on to insist that these arguments, once again, prove more
than you said they would.
As we have seen, in this second attempt of yours after having your initial
argument debunked by myself and others, you said your 'new argument does not
aim at all gods but only particular gods. Yet here in your summary, you
start right out MAKING A UNIVERSAL CLAIM concerning the existence of god.
So once again, you've lied, and your subsequent arguments are essentially
the same arguments that have already been debunked.
You're a scam artist, Barwell. You have no argument. You never had an
argument, just a bunch of assertions that you pasted off the web. I doubt
that you have any intention of writing a book; that too was all part of the
scam. All you've ever had is a cloud of rhetoric that you pretend is
scientific and logical.
At this point, there's one conclusion about you that covers all the facts.
I believe you're a stalking horse placed here intentionally by the right to
play the part of a cardboard cutout scientist as the right conceives of
them.
Certainly your argument has done more damage to humanism, rationality and
science than many an argument coming from the religious right. Your
portrayal of an intellectual is a comedy pastiche of all the bigotry and
stupidity that is the very antithesis of real science.
But even as a stalking-horse for the right wing, you've done a poor job.
You're too 1-dimensional and take offense too easily to be believable as a
real scientist, your logic is simply too sophomoric to believe that you have
any knowledge of logic beyond what you've been coached on, and your tendency
to simply repost your fallacies is far more like the technique of the right
wing than the predictable response of any real scholar.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - New essay |
14 Sep 2006 01:16:18 AM |
|
|
Jim07D6 wrote:
In other words, I believe it to be a fool's errand. Barwell said it would
be "easy" and he's been dancing around the issue ever since, either
attempting to avoid it by attacking strawmen or employing fallacious
arguments and arguments by assertion.
Anyway, I think I have explored the idea of NOEC gods more than both
of you put together. ;-)
I wouldn't bet on that. I studied cults for a long time and there are
some odd god ideas flo9ating around.
As for Gandys crack I hav ebeen dancing around it,
*****.
You just cant read and think, there has been no dancing
around, its a done deal.
You are just to stupid to deal with any of it.
Incipient senility it seems.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - New essay |
14 Sep 2006 11:26:05 AM |
|
|
wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
In other words, I believe it to be a fool's errand. Barwell said it would
be "easy" and he's been dancing around the issue ever since, either
attempting to avoid it by attacking strawmen or employing fallacious
arguments and arguments by assertion.
Anyway, I think I have explored the idea of NOEC gods more than both
of you put together. ;-)
I wouldn't bet on that. I studied cults for a long time and there are
some odd god ideas flo9ating around.
That's not really what needs exploring. I'm doing it in my replies to
Gandalf.
As for Gandys crack I hav ebeen dancing around it,
*****.
You just cant read and think, there has been no dancing
around, its a done deal.
You are just to stupid to deal with any of it.
Incipient senility it seems.
I dislike you, too.
-- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - New essay |
14 Sep 2006 11:36:04 AM |
|
|
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:pi0jg21a4afqqlefvd5i5fmto5ktmnsnht@4ax.com...
wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
In other words, I believe it to be a fool's errand. Barwell said it
would
be "easy" and he's been dancing around the issue ever since, either
attempting to avoid it by attacking strawmen or employing fallacious
arguments and arguments by assertion.
Anyway, I think I have explored the idea of NOEC gods more than both
of you put together. ;-)
I wouldn't bet on that. I studied cults for a long time and there are
some odd god ideas flo9ating around.
That's not really what needs exploring. I'm doing it in my replies to
Gandalf.
As for Gandys crack I hav ebeen dancing around it,
*****.
You just cant read and think, there has been no dancing
around, its a done deal.
You are just to stupid to deal with any of it.
Incipient senility it seems.
I dislike you, too.
To be fair and honest, I don't think he was responding to YOU in that
remark. If you read his remarks beginning with "As for 'Gandys' [sic]
crack," you'll see that he's responding to remarks you never made. I think
he just momentarily forgot who he was addressing.
-- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - New essay |
14 Sep 2006 08:13:15 PM |
|
|
Jim07D6 wrote:
I dislike you, too.
OK, I dislike you arrogant snottism too.
And, I don't see intellectually you have anything
new or of interest.
I shant waste time on you.
You type infests every atheist forum.
Much big talk, little interesting particulars.
I will not expect much from you in the future.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - New essay: Barwell DEBUNKED |
14 Sep 2006 08:25:02 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gjvim9luuuuab@corp.supernews.com...
Jim07D6 wrote:
I dislike you, too.
OK, I dislike you arrogant snottism too.
Oh, who don't you dislike, you arrogant little boor?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - New essay |
14 Sep 2006 10:53:02 PM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
Jim07D6 wrote:
I dislike you, too.
OK, I dislike you arrogant snottism too.
English isn't your 1st language, is it Bill?
And, I don't see intellectually you have anything
new or of interest.
I shant waste time on you.
You type infests every atheist forum.
Much big talk, little interesting particulars.
I will not expect much from you in the future.
Is _that_ what was written in your yearbook?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: re: AA - New essay |
13 Sep 2006 07:19:32 PM |
|
|
Jim07D6 wrote:
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> said:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12ggqh6t7em6l65@corp.supernews.com...
CAN GOD BE DISPROVEN?
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - YES
STRONG ATHEISM'S PROGRAM
Key to disproving god is the concept of classes of gods.
And since you cannot disprove a god in the non-omnipotent class, you
cannot disprove the existence of god.
Q.E.D.
I would like to posit that we can think of a non-omnipotent creator
(NOEC) god as one that created our world, but did not create, and does
not entirely control, its own existential niche or "world". I will
explain.
Consider a hypothetical entity that is not in the class of OC gods
because it lacks omnipotence. Given that the potency of even OEC gods
is agreed to be constrained to the logically possible, non-omnipotence
means there is some constraint *in addition* to the constraint of
logical possibility.
The most general statement of such constraints is that they are
nomological, having to do with aspects of the natural world in which
the entity operates. For example in our world, gravity appears to be a
universal constraint on the actions of existent entities. Physical
particles and electromagnetic radiation is affected by it in
nomological ways.
Tere are problems with this species of god.
1. It does not fit religions reliant on revelation,
Christianity, Islam et al.
These religions cannot jettison claims easily.
2. No religions have a god like this that works
and is popular. Closest would be thinks like
Manichaeism et al, and these have well known problems
that Christaisn have critiqued them over.
3. We have lessor religions, animism, that posits
many limited gods but these soon run into serious problems
with science. Sicence leaves little room for nature gods.
4. Limited gods, porcess theology, metaphysical gods of Aristotle
et al, have a proble offallling apart easily, they tend to be god
of the gaps that close.
5. I know of no major religions now that have a limited god.
Process theology, open theology, New Thought and related
theologies have tried this and failed.
While it is not necessarily the case that the world in which a god
operates is the same natural world in which we operate, the concept of
non-omnipotence does imply the concept of a "nature" in which the god
operates, and which presents constraints on her actions. ("Actions"
can be a very general term, including what the god can do, think, be,
etc.). In fact, the "natural world" in which the god operates can be
completely defined and specified, as the set of constraints upon that
god.
We have had Homeric gods and others in teh past that are so limited.
These tend to become nature gods with all those failings. Nature gods never
get narure right.
The romans had 18 gods involved in wheat from sowing to harvesting,
But no gods of chemistry of quarks and the 4 forces et al.
And this is the problems of these sorts of limited gods.
They dont work and as time goes on their failings become more
obvious and glaring.
Fitting god with physics, current known "nature" is not easy.
Trying to create such a god that was limited to avoid problems of
theodicy, or free wil et al is not new. Deism, pantheism, and
others have been tried. Sooner or later the problems start
surface.
We can conclude about this world (the set of constraints), that they
are not subject to the control of the god. We can also conclude that
this world exists contemporaneously with the god, and was not created
by her, because if it were created by her, then there was a time when
the god existed without those constraints.
This is the problem I have demonstrated with super gods.
A god without restraints soon collapses. A god that is not limited by logic
and hates evil has no reason to allow evil.
Evil exists that god cannot.
You can try avoiding problems by denying this god does not
care about evil. But now it cannot fit with the major revealed
religions, and Atheists or skeptics see it as an execise
bunked but that nobody can believe in.
It becomes a sterile ad hocism, the theological eqivalent of
solipicism, or the Omphalos argument.
It solves no problems and has no way of being provable.
Again it opens other problems, how does god that is limited
interact with the word?
Process theology has exactly this problem.
(A side bar needs to consider whether it makes sense to say that a
non-omnipotent god can come about by an omnipotent god irreversibly
terminating her omnipotence.
No, god cannot do that and I have repeatedly dealt with that.
A god that gives up her omnipotence goves up hopes of eliminating
evil and cannot do that because that allows evil to flourish.
Thus to do that is evil.
There is no reason god cannot by fiat fli his omnipotent
beard and eliminate original sin because he is omnipoetnt.
This makes original sin a problem for Christians.
To give up omnipotence means no way to eliminate sin this way.
So its evil to do so.
I think not, because this god's inability
to terminate her chosen non-omnipotence would have been an existing
limitation even before she terminated her omnipotence, hence, such a
god is not omnipotent in the first place.)
So, with this background, how do we proceed to prove that such a god
is *logically* impossible?
-- Jim07D6
As I have pointed out in earlier essays there are some stunt
gods that can be created to be impossible to debunk logically,
but they are useless gods.
They are not new either, Aristotle and Epicurus both said gods
may exist but they are far away and do not obviously, deal in
mans affairs. Epicurus went this way because atheism was illegal.
It ends up the same, why worship a useless god that might was well
not exist? When a god is exactly like nothing, why should we not
say it is nothing effectively?
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - New essay |
13 Sep 2006 07:39:31 PM |
|
|
wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> said:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12ggqh6t7em6l65@corp.supernews.com...
CAN GOD BE DISPROVEN?
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - YES
STRONG ATHEISM'S PROGRAM
Key to disproving god is the concept of classes of gods.
And since you cannot disprove a god in the non-omnipotent class, you
cannot disprove the existence of god.
Q.E.D.
I would like to posit that we can think of a non-omnipotent creator
(NOEC) god as one that created our world, but did not create, and does
not entirely control, its own existential niche or "world". I will
explain.
Consider a hypothetical entity that is not in the class of OC gods
because it lacks omnipotence. Given that the potency of even OEC gods
is agreed to be constrained to the logically possible, non-omnipotence
means there is some constraint *in addition* to the constraint of
logical possibility.
The most general statement of such constraints is that they are
nomological, having to do with aspects of the natural world in which
the entity operates. For example in our world, gravity appears to be a
universal constraint on the actions of existent entities. Physical
particles and electromagnetic radiation is affected by it in
nomological ways.
Tere are problems with this species of god.
1. It does not fit religions reliant on revelation,
Christianity, Islam et al.
These religions cannot jettison claims easily.
2. No religions have a god like this that works
and is popular. Closest would be thinks like
Manichaeism et al, and these have well known problems
that Christaisn have critiqued them over.
3. We have lessor religions, animism, that posits
many limited gods but these soon run into serious problems
with science. Sicence leaves little room for nature gods.
4. Limited gods, porcess theology, metaphysical gods of Aristotle
et al, have a proble offallling apart easily, they tend to be god
of the gaps that close.
5. I know of no major religions now that have a limited god.
Process theology, open theology, New Thought and related
theologies have tried this and failed.
Well, it was worth a try. Or maybe not.
While it is not necessarily the case that the world in which a god
operates is the same natural world in which we operate, the concept of
non-omnipotence does imply the concept of a "nature" in which the god
operates, and which presents constraints on her actions. ("Actions"
can be a very general term, including what the god can do, think, be,
etc.). In fact, the "natural world" in which the god operates can be
completely defined and specified, as the set of constraints upon that
god.
We have had Homeric gods and others in teh past that are so limited.
These tend to become nature gods with all those failings. Nature gods never
get narure right.
The romans had 18 gods involved in wheat from sowing to harvesting,
But no gods of chemistry of quarks and the 4 forces et al.
And this is the problems of these sorts of limited gods.
They dont work and as time goes on their failings become more
obvious and glaring.
Fitting god with physics, current known "nature" is not easy.
Trying to create such a god that was limited to avoid problems of
theodicy, or free wil et al is not new. Deism, pantheism, and
others have been tried. Sooner or later the problems start
surface.
We can conclude about this world (the set of constraints), that they
are not subject to the control of the god. We can also conclude that
this world exists contemporaneously with the god, and was not created
by her, because if it were created by her, then there was a time when
the god existed without those constraints.
This is the problem I have demonstrated with super gods.
A god without restraints soon collapses. A god that is not limited by logic
and hates evil has no reason to allow evil.
Evil exists that god cannot.
You can try avoiding problems by denying this god does not
care about evil. But now it cannot fit with the major revealed
religions, and Atheists or skeptics see it as an execise
bunked but that nobody can believe in.
It becomes a sterile ad hocism, the theological eqivalent of
solipicism, or the Omphalos argument.
It solves no problems and has no way of being provable.
Again it opens other problems, how does god that is limited
interact with the word?
Process theology has exactly this problem.
(A side bar needs to consider whether it makes sense to say that a
non-omnipotent god can come about by an omnipotent god irreversibly
terminating her omnipotence.
No, god cannot do that and I have repeatedly dealt with that.
A god that gives up her omnipotence goves up hopes of eliminating
evil and cannot do that because that allows evil to flourish.
Thus to do that is evil.
There is no reason god cannot by fiat fli his omnipotent
beard and eliminate original sin because he is omnipoetnt.
This makes original sin a problem for Christians.
To give up omnipotence means no way to eliminate sin this way.
So its evil to do so.
I think not, because this god's inability
to terminate her chosen non-omnipotence would have been an existing
limitation even before she terminated her omnipotence, hence, such a
god is not omnipotent in the first place.)
So, with this background, how do we proceed to prove that such a god
is *logically* impossible?
-- Jim07D6
As I have pointed out in earlier essays there are some stunt
gods that can be created to be impossible to debunk logically,
but they are useless gods.
They are not new either, Aristotle and Epicurus both said gods
may exist but they are far away and do not obviously, deal in
mans affairs. Epicurus went this way because atheism was illegal.
It ends up the same, why worship a useless god that might was well
not exist? When a god is exactly like nothing, why should we not
say it is nothing effectively?
Hey, I'm not saying a NOEC god can't be disproven. I'm just trying to
make it more interesting than pissing on rocks.
Cheers,
-- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - New essay |
14 Sep 2006 01:04:15 AM |
|
|
Jim07D6 wrote:
5. I know of no major religions now that have a limited god.
Process theology, open theology, New Thought and related
theologies have tried this and failed.
Well, it was worth a try. Or maybe not.
It has been people have been trying to recast god to
get around the problems of the OEC gods for centuries.
Spinozas pantheism, and so on.
Deism tries to expalin god as a clockmakes god who winds
up the Universe and sits back, avoiding theodicy problems,
hopefully. Tillch and others have tried forms of Pantheism,
god as the ground of our being.
Open theology is trying to recast god as limited to
avoid these problems.
Pierre de Cardins Noosphere, and other attempts to
rethink these things.
One could probably write a big, thick book on alternative
theologys. And then you get people like Joseph Smith and
his god as an advanced alien.
we can too become gods.
Elron Hubbard's thetans. Some of this stuf can be fun if
you are in the right mood for a little nonsense.
If you want turgid try Hegel.
None of this is totally new.
While it is not necessarily the case that the world in which a god
operates is the same natural world in which we operate, the concept of
non-omnipotence does imply the concept of a "nature" in which the god
operates, and which presents constraints on her actions. ("Actions"
can be a very general term, including what the god can do, think, be,
etc.). In fact, the "natural world" in which the god operates can be
completely defined and specified, as the set of constraints upon that
god.
We have had Homeric gods and others in the past that are so limited.
These tend to become nature gods with all those failings. Nature gods
never get nature right.
The romans had 18 gods involved in wheat from sowing to harvesting,
But no gods of chemistry or quarks and the 4 forces et al.
And this is the problems of these sorts of limited gods.
They dont work and as time goes on their failings become more
obvious and glaring.
Fitting god with physics, current known "nature" is not easy.
Trying to create such a god that was limited to avoid problems of
theodicy, or free will et al is not new. Deism, pantheism, and
others have been tried. Sooner or later the problems start
surface.
We can conclude about this world (the set of constraints), that they
are not subject to the control of the god. We can also conclude that
this world exists contemporaneously with the god, and was not created
by her, because if it were created by her, then there | | | | | |
