| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"wcb" |
| Date: |
17 Sep 2006 04:42:00 PM |
| Object: |
AA - The biology and physics of god - A few thoughts |
Somehow, god is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient
creator of all. Able to create a universe ex niliho
in six days.
The question, rarely asked as far as I can see is, how
is all of this done? we understand here in this world
the notion of physics, the 4 great forces, the laws of
phsyics, of quantum chromodynamics, of chemistry,
biochemisry and so on.
The world is regular and understandable.
Gods more resemmble fairy tales, fairy god mothers with
magic wands, pumpkins become coaches, mice, horses.
As a strong atheist, I believe theologists here have been
given a free ride too long
And it is time to start building a critical examination of
underlying claims made implicitly by religion and theology.
What is proof any god can do any of these things anyway?
What possible mechanism is there for doing something like
creating a universe? How does an omniscient god know all
in the universe, or the future?
What is the mechanism by which such things are done?
information is somethiong that is discrete. It must be
saved and handled.
Is god digital or analogue?
How do we know? How would we approach this as a research
project? If we have no competent and workable plan to
approach these questions as a research project we cannot
do research, no answers are possible.
What has been the research program of theology as to
such questions to date? Shaman on drugs?
Was there ever one? If not why not?
I will be staring a project to start thinking hard
about this aspect of gods I rarely see serously approached.
I suppose to give it a working nickname I will call it the
problem of the physics of god.
Am I the only one here that has been bugged by the assertions
made about god without evidence or reason to believe?
Am I the only one here that has been irritated by the ID
types that claim god is scientific when obviously there are more puzzles
than answers?
Am I the only one here that dislikes how the theists have been allowed a
free ride here?
I have a little saying I use, "The Easter Bunny waves her paw and magic
happens!", a sarcastic rejonder to "goddidit", but deeper. How does god do
it? Like a magic fairy godmother with a magic wand?
What is different between a magic god and a magic Easter Bunny anyway?
Or God and a fairy for that matter.
Any thoughts, any thing that people have thought about along these lines
over the years? Comments, ideas, snarky wisecracks?
From now on, my rejinder to such claims will be, what is the mechanism by
which this great miracle is achieved? Oh, God is a spirit? What is that
and can you prove it? Spirits just do that? How do you know that and where
is hard evidence it is indeed true?
No more free rides for god, but I like my Easter Bunny, she can
ride all she wants.
--
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god - Barwell's Ego Polishing Continues |
17 Sep 2006 05:54:52 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12grgask8rs0h03@corp.supernews.com...
Somehow, god is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient
creator of all. Able to create a universe ex niliho
in six days.
Only for orthodox believers and cherry picking fundamentalists.
Your problem is that YOUR god is a strawman. YOUR god has already been
demolished by better arguments than yours, which leaves the god and gods
that most people really believe in untouched by your bumpersticker
arguments.
The question, rarely asked as far as I can see is, how
is all of this done?
Actually it's been asked often.
I will be staring a project to start thinking hard
about this aspect of gods I rarely see serously approached.
It's been approached and addressed by many. But if you want to go off in a
corner and constipate yourself with the problem in order to pump up your
narcissistic self-image, go for it.
I suppose to give it a working nickname I will call it the
problem of the physics of god.
Maybe a better title would be.
The Physics of God: Barwell's Latest Attempt at Ego Polishing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god |
17 Sep 2006 06:49:58 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Your problem is that YOUR god is a strawman.
What a bitter and hateful little man.
And I mean, little. What made you such a scuttling
bag of hate and mean spiritedness?
Isn't there a pill you can take for this?
--
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god |
17 Sep 2006 07:02:54 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12grnqeofhki4f2@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Your problem is that YOUR god is a strawman.
What a bitter and hateful little man.
He's YOUR god, Barwell. You deal with him.
You are a fluke of the Universe
You are the liver fluke of the Universe
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god |
17 Sep 2006 10:29:39 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
He's YOUR god, Barwell. You deal with him.
I just did. God is kaput, like your credibility.
GODS WITHOUT OMNIBENEVOLENCE - CAN
THEY BE DISPROVED?
W.C. Barwell 9-16-06
Gods that are said to be all good, omnibenevolent,
soon have problems with the Epicurean problem of evil.
A god that is all good and all powerful should
be interested in eliminating all evil, but evil exists.
This can be used to utterly disprove such gods.
This is not a problem to the strong atheist because
most important religions today have allegedly all powerful,
all good gods, Islam, Hinduism. Judaism, Christianity and more.
Bahis, Sikhs and many others share this set of attributes,
attributes of the OEC class of gods.
But consider the idea of a class of omnipotent, omniscient,
creator gods that are not all good, or not even good at all.
There are few if any religions that have such a god,
but for purposes of strong atheism is a challenge.
A god so created to resisted debunking is a challenges as it dodges
the Epicurean problem of evil by dropping the claims of all
being all good.
Can we logically debunk such a god concept?
If we drop omnibenevolent to simply good, not all good, yes.
Epicurus's Problem of Evil
Epicurus's problem of evil is not found in Epicurus's works,
few have come down to us and then often in fragmentary form.
Epicurus's Problem of Evil is to be found criticized by Lactantius,
a second century Christian writer.
Lactantius A Treatise on the Anger of God
Chapter 13
"But if this account is true, which the Stoics were
in no manner able to see, that argument also of
Epicurus is done away. God, he says, either wishes
to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and
is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or
He is both willing and able. If He is willing and
is unable, He is feeble, which is not in
accordance with the character of God; if He is
able and unwilling, He is envious, which is
equally at variance with God; if He is neither
willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble,
and therefore not God; if He is both willing and
able, which alone is suitable to God, from what
source then are evils? or why does He not remove
them? I know that many of the philosophers, who
defend providence, are accustomed to be disturbed
by this argument, and are almost driven against
their will to admit that God takes no interest in
anything, which Epicurus especially aims at;.."
Here we can note that Epicurus does not say god is all
good, omnibenevolent, or all powerful, omnipotent.
Such strong versions are derived, more or less, from David
Hume's 18th century restatement of Epicurus's Problem of Evil.
in Hume's "Dialogues concerning Natural Religion".
Epicurus noted soon after going to Athens, a philosopher named
Theodorus had to flee Athens on charges of Atheism. Epicurus then
tempered his religious arguments. however, Aristotle had
claimed that god, the prime mover, had no interest in affairs of man.
And Plato had claimed all gods were good. Epicurus here then
is able to show indeed gods, if they exist are distant from man.
natural evils happen, drought,floods, epidemics, and gods do not
prevent them.
As Lactantius notes, many found it a persuasive argument.
And it is. If we take that argument to argue against good and
powerful gods on grounds of problems of evil, it is still persuasive.
A god need not be all powerful and all good to at least make some
effort to seem like more than exactly nothing.
Thus a god that is not all good, but is good, not all powerful,
but is powerful, is still easily shown to be impossible.
GODS THAT ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH GOOD OR EVIL
This sort of god is not a god that seems to be worshiped by
any real religion. one might have gods that are not good or
even evil, some animist religions have their good spirits and
evils spirits, but an OEC class type god without the component of
goodness at all, doesn't seem to be a real world god. Such a god
then is of more academic interest to a strong atheist.
can this type of god be disproven?
If such a god is not good, is indifferent to either moral or natural
evil, such a god also loses other usual OEC type attributes.
Love, mercy, justice, and so on.
Actually such a god is pretty alien. Why would such an indifferent
god create mankind? Not obvious for love of mankind, as per usual
gods that love good men and punish wickedness.
Logically if such a god existed, that god would not send us
revelations of laws and morals to be followed with threats
for failure to do so. Nor would such a god be concerned with
our acts or thoughts.
Since we have nothing else to offer, no sort of assistance,
or other advantage, its hard to see what such a god would want
anything to do with mankind. We should expect no revelations,
prophets, or any sort of concern from such a god.
Disproof of any sort of god like this would have to
go to disproving natural religion claims, cosmology et al.
Since gods like this would be indifferent, we can rule out
moral proofs.
The Prime Mover argument has been debunked since science has
shown turbulence from early eras of the Big Bang produced movement
of matter in the Universe, no godly Prime Mover is needed.
We can rule out proofs from revelation.
we can set aside disproofs via Problem of Evil.
Aquinas's (derived from Anslem - See The Prosologian)
proof from degrees of perfection are out since
a god that is not explicitly good lacks that perfection
at least.
leaving -
1. Cosmological
2. Design
3. Necessary being
If god that is not good but otherwise is an OEC class god
can be shown to be impossible because that god is unnecessary,
no more needed than fairies or leprechauns, we can debunk that
god as alledged creator of all.
1. Cosmological
The cosmological argument is:
Everything has a cause.
Nothing is its own cause.
A chain of cause and effect cannot be infinite.
Therefore there must be a first cause.
This is coupled with the idea of a necessary first cause or being
(god).
A chain of cause and effect can be infinite. There is no
real reason to conclude that except as argument by assertion,
or argument by definition. Since there is no logical reason
to think this is true, it may be denied.
There must be a first cause. We can easily imagine many causes,
and even many causes going back into infinity. This is argument
by definition again and argument from ignorance. We can deny this also.
This fails.
2. Design
The design argument claims things are too complex to
have come about by chance. But this is bluntly, argument
from ignorance. The fact is a god is too complex to explain,
how a god comes to exist, has abilities to create universe, et al.
No theist can hazard how a god does these things, what the
physics or biology of a god is. God does not explain anything
and god as a concept needs needs explaining. A god merely pushes
the complexity problem back a level. This fails utterly then.
God is not only necessary but is superfulous all together.
3. Necessary being
God is said to be a necessary being, that is, as first in a chain
of all existant things, god must be necessary. But this makes
the assumption that there must be a first cause. The theists claim
it is impossible there there be an infinite regress of cause and
effect,
but that is simply false. There may well be just that a chain
of cause and effects going back into infinite time. And not just one
cause but a bundle of cause and effects giving rise to matter, energy,
and space and time, and other physical effects that together create
what
we call the Universe. This can be denied as specious.
God is said to be necessary, not contingent. A house cannot be
necessary as it is made up of things, bricks, lumber, roofing
materials et al. These must be existant to create a house, which
is then contingent.
God is said to have essences, omnipotence, omniscience, intelligence,
ability, immutability and so on. These are essences and thus it
implies, like our house, god is contingent, not necessary. Theologians
cheat here with an obvious ad hocism. God is "simple", all his
essences
are one essence rolled into one. We can thus deny this claim because
of its obvious specious ad hocism and its failure to deal with issues,
how is it a god exists at all that has these essences? Where did they
come from, how does god work, what is the physics, the biology of a
god?
It is argument by definition and fails to make an intellectually honest
attempt to deal with these questions.
God is not obviously necessary at all, and there remain many questions
not answered about how a god is supposed to exist and work.
God here then is argument by definition and argument from ignorance.
So god as necessary being fails and we see that underlying this are serious
unanswered questions that call a gods existence into question.
Bluntly all the arguments collectively noted as "Cosmological, first cause,
design, necessary being", tree of Aquina's Five ways, are failed arguments.
God cannot exist as first cause, as necessary being, as designer. The most
glaring problem is necessary being, god as we see has a lot of unexplained
claims made for god implicitly that make it extremely unlikely. And strong
atheism here is obliged to call theism on these problematic complications.
This is rank argument from definition. How does god do this or that, "Why
he just does!". We are expected as Atheists to answer all questions as
to how the Universe does this or that, while basic claims about god are
given a free ride and not to be questioned. No strong atheist must do that.
A god that rests on unanswered questions is no god at all.
it is a magic fairy tale creature at best.
It rests of arguments from ignorance and argument by definition.
Further more, science gets along well without god and explains
a lot with great success. We can see entire galaxies formed and
shaped by natural forces with no use for a god.
Theology has a rather unenviable track record, over 4,000
years of trying to explain natural phenomenon and it has so
far been entirely wrong always and ever. Why pay it any attention now?
God is rather unexplained. What is the physics and biology of god?
How does god work, how does god do anything? What are the theories
and what supporting evidence do we have for any claims to be made for
gods?
Here we see theology is totally silent.
God then is not even a theory.
This we can see gods cannot exist as claimed, cosmologically,
as necessary being, as designers of all. Such a god than cannot
exist, all we are left with a is a pile of unanswerable questions,
specious arguments, and sophistries such as gods "simplicity",
ad hocisms.
All OEC gods then cannot exist and that includes OEC gods where
good is set aside as an attribute. That dodge slides by Epicurus's
Problem of Evil, but does not avoid the problems of being debunked
via the claims such a god is creator of all, and underlying
questions about what is meant by god and how a god can even work.
This idea that god needs explaining,that the physics and biology or
what we may wish to call this problem, is a good one strong atheism
should deal with.
If god is in the final analysis an incoeherent idea with more
problems than explanations, obviously it is a bad idea.
(End)
--
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god: Barwell DEBUNKED |
18 Sep 2006 12:06:41 AM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gs4mdct41eq54@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
He's YOUR god, Barwell. You deal with him.
I just did.
And as usual, you flopped.
GODS WITHOUT GOOD AND EVIL
W.C. Barwell 9-16-06
Gods that are said to be all good, omnibenevolent,
soon have problems with the Epicurean problem of evil.
A problem that has been stated over and over again by people, unlike
Barwell, who actually know what they're talking about. And in the modern
era for those not bound like Barwell to Hellenistic Philosophy, The
Evidential Argument from Evil is an excellent way of debunking the orthodox
god.
But consider the idea of a class of omnipotent, omniscient,
creator gods that are not all good, or not even good at all.
There are few if any religions that have such a god,
but for purposes of strong atheism is a challenge.
A god so created to resisted debunking is a challenges as it dodges
the Epicurean problem of evil by dropping the claims of all
being all good.
Can we logically debunk such a god concept?
If we drop omnibenevolent to simply good, not all good, yes.
Actually, unless you retain omnipotent, the answer is no.
Thus a god that is not all good, but is good, not all powerful,
but is powerful, is still easily shown to be impossible.
Actually, no it's not. A god that is not all powerful is not constrained by
logic or necessity to destroy all evil or make revelations or much of
anything else. A god that is not all good really doesn't change those facts
at all. Leaving you without an argument.
GODS THAT ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH GOOD OR EVIL
This sort of god is not a god that seems to be worshiped by
any real religion. one might have gods that are not good or
even evil, some animist religions have their good spirits and
evils spirits, but an OEC class type god without the component of
goodness at all, doesn't seem to be a real world god. Such a god
then is of more academic interest to a strong atheist.
can this type of god be disproven?
If such a god is not good, is indifferent to either moral or natural
evil, such a god also loses other usual OEC type attributes.
Love, mercy, justice, and so on.
Actually such a god is pretty alien. Why would such an indifferent
god create mankind?
On the other hand, why not?
Not obvious for love of mankind, as per usual
gods that love good men and punish wickedness.
non sequitur. A god that 'love's good men' is not logically bound to
'punish wickedness.' Your consuming hatred for orthodoxy has once again
scrambled your thinking. Conflating goodness with 'the desire to punish
evil' is a mindset, not a logical necessity.
Logically if such a god existed, that god would not send us
revelations of laws and morals to be followed with threats
for failure to do so. Nor would such a god be concerned with
our acts or thoughts.
Logically, if such a god existed, there's no logical need for revelation or
not revelation. Nor is there a logical need for threats. Nor is there a
logical need for a concern with acts and thought.
Since we have nothing else to offer, no sort of assistance,
or other advantage, its hard to see what such a god would want
anything to do with mankind. We should expect no revelations,
prophets, or any sort of concern from such a god.
Nor would we logically expect NOT to expect such things. You haven't
logically tied your premise to anything that comes after your original
premise....an ongoing problem with all your quasi 'arguments'.
Disproof of any sort of god like this would have to
go to disproving natural religion claims, cosmology et al.
Since gods like this would be indifferent, we can rule out
moral proofs.
The Prime Mover argument has been debunked since science has
shown turbulence from early eras of the Big Bang produced movement
of matter in the Universe, no godly Prime Mover is needed.
Which is not a proof that no Prime Mover exists. The notion of what is
'needed' in your pretend arguments is not equivalent to logical sufficiency.
We can rule out proofs from revelation.
we can set aside disproofs via Problem of Evil.
Aquinas's (derived from Anslem - See The Prosologian)
proof from degrees of perfection are out since
a god that is not explicitly good lacks that perfection
at least.
leaving -
1. Cosmological
2. Design
3. Necessary being
If god that is not good but otherwise is an OEC class god
can be shown to be impossible because that god is unnecessary,
And here your argument breaks down. "Unnecessary" is not equivalent to the
idea of logical sufficiency. Being able to prove that god is not necessary
for a particular process is not the same as proving that a god cannot be
involved in the same process.
God is not obviously necessary at all,
Nor obviously NOT necessary.
So god as necessary being fails
Actually, it's your argument that fails.
You are a fluke of the Universe
You are the liver fluke of the Universe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god |
18 Sep 2006 06:52:35 AM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
He's YOUR god, Barwell. You deal with him.
I just did.
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
Flop is your middle name.
GODS WITHOUT OMNIBENEVOLENCE - CAN
THEY BE DISPROVED?
W.C. Barwell 9-16-06
Gods that are said to be all good, omnibenevolent,
soon have problems with the Epicurean problem of evil.
A god that is all good and all powerful should
be interested in eliminating all evil, but evil exists.
This can be used to utterly disprove such gods.
This is not a problem to the strong atheist because
most important religions today have allegedly all powerful,
all good gods, Islam, Hinduism. Judaism, Christianity and more.
Bahis, Sikhs and many others share this set of attributes,
attributes of the OEC class of gods.
But consider the idea of a class of omnipotent, omniscient,
creator gods that are not all good, or not even good at all.
There are few if any religions that have such a god,
but for purposes of strong atheism is a challenge.
A god so created to resisted debunking is a challenges as it dodges
the Epicurean problem of evil by dropping the claims of all
being all good.
Can we logically debunk such a god concept?
If we drop omnibenevolent to simply good, not all good, yes.
Epicurus's Problem of Evil
Epicurus's problem of evil is not found in Epicurus's works,
few have come down to us and then often in fragmentary form.
Epicurus's Problem of Evil is to be found criticized by Lactantius,
a second century Christian writer.
Lactantius A Treatise on the Anger of God
Chapter 13
"But if this account is true, which the Stoics were
in no manner able to see, that argument also of
Epicurus is done away. God, he says, either wishes
to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and
is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or
He is both willing and able. If He is willing and
is unable, He is feeble, which is not in
accordance with the character of God; if He is
able and unwilling, He is envious, which is
equally at variance with God; if He is neither
willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble,
and therefore not God; if He is both willing and
able, which alone is suitable to God, from what
source then are evils? or why does He not remove
them? I know that many of the philosophers, who
defend providence, are accustomed to be disturbed
by this argument, and are almost driven against
their will to admit that God takes no interest in
anything, which Epicurus especially aims at;.."
Here we can note that Epicurus does not say god is all
good, omnibenevolent, or all powerful, omnipotent.
Such strong versions are derived, more or less, from David
Hume's 18th century restatement of Epicurus's Problem of Evil.
in Hume's "Dialogues concerning Natural Religion".
Epicurus noted soon after going to Athens, a philosopher named
Theodorus had to flee Athens on charges of Atheism. Epicurus then
tempered his religious arguments. however, Aristotle had
claimed that god, the prime mover, had no interest in affairs of man.
And Plato had claimed all gods were good. Epicurus here then
is able to show indeed gods, if they exist are distant from man.
natural evils happen, drought,floods, epidemics, and gods do not
prevent them.
As Lactantius notes, many found it a persuasive argument.
And it is. If we take that argument to argue against good and
powerful gods on grounds of problems of evil, it is still persuasive.
A god need not be all powerful and all good to at least make some
effort to seem like more than exactly nothing.
Thus a god that is not all good, but is good, not all powerful,
but is powerful, is still easily shown to be impossible.
GODS THAT ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH GOOD OR EVIL
This sort of god is not a god that seems to be worshiped by
any real religion. one might have gods that are not good or
even evil, some animist religions have their good spirits and
evils spirits, but an OEC class type god without the component of
goodness at all, doesn't seem to be a real world god. Such a god
then is of more academic interest to a strong atheist.
can this type of god be disproven?
If such a god is not good, is indifferent to either moral or natural
evil, such a god also loses other usual OEC type attributes.
Love, mercy, justice, and so on.
Actually such a god is pretty alien. Why would such an indifferent
god create mankind? Not obvious for love of mankind, as per usual
gods that love good men and punish wickedness.
Logically if such a god existed, that god would not send us
revelations of laws and morals to be followed with threats
for failure to do so. Nor would such a god be concerned with
our acts or thoughts.
Since we have nothing else to offer, no sort of assistance,
or other advantage, its hard to see what such a god would want
anything to do with mankind. We should expect no revelations,
prophets, or any sort of concern from such a god.
Disproof of any sort of god like this would have to
go to disproving natural religion claims, cosmology et al.
Since gods like this would be indifferent, we can rule out
moral proofs.
The Prime Mover argument has been debunked since science has
shown turbulence from early eras of the Big Bang produced movement
of matter in the Universe, no godly Prime Mover is needed.
We can rule out proofs from revelation.
we can set aside disproofs via Problem of Evil.
Aquinas's (derived from Anslem - See The Prosologian)
proof from degrees of perfection are out since
a god that is not explicitly good lacks that perfection
at least.
leaving -
1. Cosmological
2. Design
3. Necessary being
If god that is not good but otherwise is an OEC class god
can be shown to be impossible because that god is unnecessary,
no more needed than fairies or leprechauns, we can debunk that
god as alledged creator of all.
1. Cosmological
The cosmological argument is:
Everything has a cause.
Nothing is its own cause.
A chain of cause and effect cannot be infinite.
Therefore there must be a first cause.
This is coupled with the idea of a necessary first cause or being
(god).
A chain of cause and effect can be infinite. There is no
real reason to conclude that except as argument by assertion,
or argument by definition. Since there is no logical reason
to think this is true, it may be denied.
There must be a first cause. We can easily imagine many causes,
and even many causes going back into infinity. This is argument
by definition again and argument from ignorance. We can deny this also.
This fails.
2. Design
The design argument claims things are too complex to
have come about by chance. But this is bluntly, argument
from ignorance. The fact is a god is too complex to explain,
how a god comes to exist, has abilities to create universe, et al.
No theist can hazard how a god does these things, what the
physics or biology of a god is. God does not explain anything
and god as a concept needs needs explaining. A god merely pushes
the complexity problem back a level. This fails utterly then.
God is not only necessary but is superfulous all together.
3. Necessary being
God is said to be a necessary being, that is, as first in a chain
of all existant things, god must be necessary. But this makes
the assumption that there must be a first cause. The theists claim
it is impossible there there be an infinite regress of cause and
effect,
but that is simply false. There may well be just that a chain
of cause and effects going back into infinite time. And not just one
cause but a bundle of cause and effects giving rise to matter, energy,
and space and time, and other physical effects that together create
what
we call the Universe. This can be denied as specious.
God is said to be necessary, not contingent. A house cannot be
necessary as it is made up of things, bricks, lumber, roofing
materials et al. These must be existant to create a house, which
is then contingent.
God is said to have essences, omnipotence, omniscience, intelligence,
ability, immutability and so on. These are essences and thus it
implies, like our house, god is contingent, not necessary. Theologians
cheat here with an obvious ad hocism. God is "simple", all his
essences
are one essence rolled into one. We can thus deny this claim because
of its obvious specious ad hocism and its failure to deal with issues,
how is it a god exists at all that has these essences? Where did they
come from, how does god work, what is the physics, the biology of a
god?
It is argument by definition and fails to make an intellectually honest
attempt to deal with these questions.
God is not obviously necessary at all, and there remain many questions
not answered about how a god is supposed to exist and work.
God here then is argument by definition and argument from ignorance.
So god as necessary being fails and we see that underlying this are serious
unanswered questions that call a gods existence into question.
Bluntly all the arguments collectively noted as "Cosmological, first cause,
design, necessary being", tree of Aquina's Five ways, are failed arguments.
God cannot exist as first cause, as necessary being, as designer. The most
glaring problem is necessary being, god as we see has a lot of unexplained
claims made for god implicitly that make it extremely unlikely. And strong
atheism here is obliged to call theism on these problematic complications.
This is rank argument from definition. How does god do this or that, "Why
he just does!". We are expected as Atheists to answer all questions as
to how the Universe does this or that, while basic claims about god are
given a free ride and not to be questioned. No strong atheist must do that.
A god that rests on unanswered questions is no god at all.
it is a magic fairy tale creature at best.
It rests of arguments from ignorance and argument by definition.
Further more, science gets along well without god and explains
a lot with great success. We can see entire galaxies formed and
shaped by natural forces with no use for a god.
Theology has a rather unenviable track record, over 4,000
years of trying to explain natural phenomenon and it has so
far been entirely wrong always and ever. Why pay it any attention now?
God is rather unexplained. What is the physics and biology of god?
How does god work, how does god do anything? What are the theories
and what supporting evidence do we have for any claims to be made for
gods?
Here we see theology is totally silent.
God then is not even a theory.
This we can see gods cannot exist as claimed, cosmologically,
as necessary being, as designers of all. Such a god than cannot
exist, all we are left with a is a pile of unanswerable questions,
specious arguments, and sophistries such as gods "simplicity",
ad hocisms.
All OEC gods then cannot exist and that includes OEC gods where
good is set aside as an attribute. That dodge slides by Epicurus's
Problem of Evil, but does not avoid the problems of being debunked
via the claims such a god is creator of all, and underlying
questions about what is meant by god and how a god can even work.
This idea that god needs explaining,that the physics and biology or
what we may wish to call this problem, is a good one strong atheism
should deal with.
If god is in the final analysis an incoeherent idea with more
problems than explanations, obviously it is a bad idea.
(End)
--
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The Flops of Barwell |
18 Sep 2006 11:49:43 AM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gt25cmmhnb88c@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
He's YOUR god, Barwell. You deal with him.
I just did.
September 11
September 18 - Barney Posts another flop argument.
GODS WITHOUT GOOD AND EVIL
W.C. Barwell 9-16-06
Gods that are said to be all good, omnibenevolent,
soon have problems with the Epicurean problem of evil.
A problem that has been stated over and over again by people, unlike
Barwell, who actually know what they're talking about. And in the modern
era for those not bound like Barwell to Hellenistic Philosophy, The
Evidential Argument from Evil is an excellent way of debunking the orthodox
god.
But consider the idea of a class of omnipotent, omniscient,
creator gods that are not all good, or not even good at all.
There are few if any religions that have such a god,
but for purposes of strong atheism is a challenge.
A god so created to resisted debunking is a challenges as it dodges
the Epicurean problem of evil by dropping the claims of all
being all good.
Can we logically debunk such a god concept?
If we drop omnibenevolent to simply good, not all good, yes.
Actually, unless you retain omnipotent, the answer is no.
Thus a god that is not all good, but is good, not all powerful,
but is powerful, is still easily shown to be impossible.
Actually, no it's not. A god that is not all powerful is not constrained by
logic or necessity to destroy all evil or make revelations or much of
anything else. A god that is not all good really doesn't change those facts
at all. Leaving you without an argument.
GODS THAT ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH GOOD OR EVIL
This sort of god is not a god that seems to be worshiped by
any real religion. one might have gods that are not good or
even evil, some animist religions have their good spirits and
evils spirits, but an OEC class type god without the component of
goodness at all, doesn't seem to be a real world god. Such a god
then is of more academic interest to a strong atheist.
can this type of god be disproven?
If such a god is not good, is indifferent to either moral or natural
evil, such a god also loses other usual OEC type attributes.
Love, mercy, justice, and so on.
Actually such a god is pretty alien. Why would such an indifferent
god create mankind?
On the other hand, why not?
Not obvious for love of mankind, as per usual
gods that love good men and punish wickedness.
non sequitur. A god that 'love's good men' is not logically bound to
'punish wickedness.' Your consuming hatred for orthodoxy has once again
scrambled your thinking. Conflating goodness with 'the desire to punish
evil' is a mindset, not a logical necessity.
Logically if such a god existed, that god would not send us
revelations of laws and morals to be followed with threats
for failure to do so. Nor would such a god be concerned with
our acts or thoughts.
Logically, if such a god existed, there's no logical need for revelation or
not revelation. Nor is there a logical need for threats. Nor is there a
logical need for a concern with acts and thought.
Since we have nothing else to offer, no sort of assistance,
or other advantage, its hard to see what such a god would want
anything to do with mankind. We should expect no revelations,
prophets, or any sort of concern from such a god.
Nor would we logically expect NOT to expect such things. You haven't
logically tied your premise to anything that comes after your original
premise....an ongoing problem with all your quasi 'arguments'.
Disproof of any sort of god like this would have to
go to disproving natural religion claims, cosmology et al.
Since gods like this would be indifferent, we can rule out
moral proofs.
The Prime Mover argument has been debunked since science has
shown turbulence from early eras of the Big Bang produced movement
of matter in the Universe, no godly Prime Mover is needed.
Which is not a proof that no Prime Mover exists. The notion of what is
'needed' in your pretend arguments is not equivalent to logical sufficiency.
We can rule out proofs from revelation.
we can set aside disproofs via Problem of Evil.
Aquinas's (derived from Anslem - See The Prosologian)
proof from degrees of perfection are out since
a god that is not explicitly good lacks that perfection
at least.
leaving -
1. Cosmological
2. Design
3. Necessary being
If god that is not good but otherwise is an OEC class god
can be shown to be impossible because that god is unnecessary,
And here your argument breaks down. "Unnecessary" is not equivalent to the
idea of logical sufficiency. Being able to prove that god is not necessary
for a particular process is not the same as proving that a god cannot be
involved in the same process.
God is not obviously necessary at all,
Nor obviously NOT necessary.
So god as necessary being fails
Actually, it's your argument that fails.
You are a fluke of the Universe
You are the liver fluke of the Universe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Gods without omnipotence disprovable? |
18 Sep 2006 05:16:09 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
He's YOUR god, Barwell. You deal with him.
I just did.
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
Flop is your middle name.
GODS WITHOUT OMNIBENEVOLENCE - CAN
THEY BE DISPROVED?
W.C. Barwell 9-16-06
Gods that are said to be all good, omnibenevolent,
soon have problems with the Epicurean problem of evil.
A god that is all good and all powerful should
be interested in eliminating all evil, but evil exists.
This can be used to utterly disprove such gods.
This is not a problem to the strong atheist because
most important religions today have allegedly all powerful,
all good gods, Islam, Hinduism. Judaism, Christianity and more.
Bahis, Sikhs and many others share this set of attributes,
attributes of the OEC class of gods.
But consider the idea of a class of omnipotent, omniscient,
creator gods that are not all good, or not even good at all.
There are few if any religions that have such a god,
but for purposes of strong atheism is a challenge.
A god so created to resisted debunking is a challenges as it dodges
the Epicurean problem of evil by dropping the claims of all
being all good.
Can we logically debunk such a god concept?
If we drop omnibenevolent to simply good, not all good, yes.
Epicurus's Problem of Evil
Epicurus's problem of evil is not found in Epicurus's works,
few have come down to us and then often in fragmentary form.
Epicurus's Problem of Evil is to be found criticized by Lactantius,
a second century Christian writer.
Lactantius A Treatise on the Anger of God
Chapter 13
"But if this account is true, which the Stoics were
in no manner able to see, that argument also of
Epicurus is done away. God, he says, either wishes
to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and
is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or
He is both willing and able. If He is willing and
is unable, He is feeble, which is not in
accordance with the character of God; if He is
able and unwilling, He is envious, which is
equally at variance with God; if He is neither
willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble,
and therefore not God; if He is both willing and
able, which alone is suitable to God, from what
source then are evils? or why does He not remove
them? I know that many of the philosophers, who
defend providence, are accustomed to be disturbed
by this argument, and are almost driven against
their will to admit that God takes no interest in
anything, which Epicurus especially aims at;.."
Here we can note that Epicurus does not say god is all
good, omnibenevolent, or all powerful, omnipotent.
Such strong versions are derived, more or less, from David
Hume's 18th century restatement of Epicurus's Problem of Evil.
in Hume's "Dialogues concerning Natural Religion".
Epicurus noted soon after going to Athens, a philosopher named
Theodorus had to flee Athens on charges of Atheism. Epicurus then
tempered his religious arguments. however, Aristotle had
claimed that god, the prime mover, had no interest in affairs of man.
And Plato had claimed all gods were good. Epicurus here then
is able to show indeed gods, if they exist are distant from man.
natural evils happen, drought,floods, epidemics, and gods do not
prevent them.
As Lactantius notes, many found it a persuasive argument.
And it is. If we take that argument to argue against good and
powerful gods on grounds of problems of evil, it is still persuasive.
A god need not be all powerful and all good to at least make some
effort to seem like more than exactly nothing.
Thus a god that is not all good, but is good, not all powerful,
but is powerful, is still easily shown to be impossible.
GODS THAT ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH GOOD OR EVIL
This sort of god is not a god that seems to be worshiped by
any real religion. one might have gods that are not good or
even evil, some animist religions have their good spirits and
evils spirits, but an OEC class type god without the component of
goodness at all, doesn't seem to be a real world god. Such a god
then is of more academic interest to a strong atheist.
can this type of god be disproven?
If such a god is not good, is indifferent to either moral or natural
evil, such a god also loses other usual OEC type attributes.
Love, mercy, justice, and so on.
Actually such a god is pretty alien. Why would such an indifferent
god create mankind? Not obvious for love of mankind, as per usual
gods that love good men and punish wickedness.
Logically if such a god existed, that god would not send us
revelations of laws and morals to be followed with threats
for failure to do so. Nor would such a god be concerned with
our acts or thoughts.
Since we have nothing else to offer, no sort of assistance,
or other advantage, its hard to see what such a god would want
anything to do with mankind. We should expect no revelations,
prophets, or any sort of concern from such a god.
Disproof of any sort of god like this would have to
go to disproving natural religion claims, cosmology et al.
Since gods like this would be indifferent, we can rule out
moral proofs.
The Prime Mover argument has been debunked since science has
shown turbulence from early eras of the Big Bang produced movement
of matter in the Universe, no godly Prime Mover is needed.
We can rule out proofs from revelation.
we can set aside disproofs via Problem of Evil.
Aquinas's (derived from Anslem - See The Prosologian)
proof from degrees of perfection are out since
a god that is not explicitly good lacks that perfection
at least.
leaving -
1. Cosmological
2. Design
3. Necessary being
If god that is not good but otherwise is an OEC class god
can be shown to be impossible because that god is unnecessary,
no more needed than fairies or leprechauns, we can debunk that
god as alledged creator of all.
1. Cosmological
The cosmological argument is:
Everything has a cause.
Nothing is its own cause.
A chain of cause and effect cannot be infinite.
Therefore there must be a first cause.
This is coupled with the idea of a necessary first cause or being
(god).
A chain of cause and effect can be infinite. There is no
real reason to conclude that except as argument by assertion,
or argument by definition. Since there is no logical reason
to think this is true, it may be denied.
There must be a first cause. We can easily imagine many causes,
and even many causes going back into infinity. This is argument
by definition again and argument from ignorance. We can deny this also.
This fails.
2. Design
The design argument claims things are too complex to
have come about by chance. But this is bluntly, argument
from ignorance. The fact is a god is too complex to explain,
how a god comes to exist, has abilities to create universe, et al.
No theist can hazard how a god does these things, what the
physics or biology of a god is. God does not explain anything
and god as a concept needs needs explaining. A god merely pushes
the complexity problem back a level. This fails utterly then.
God is not only necessary but is superfulous all together.
3. Necessary being
God is said to be a necessary being, that is, as first in a chain
of all existant things, god must be necessary. But this makes
the assumption that there must be a first cause. The theists claim
it is impossible there there be an infinite regress of cause and
effect,
but that is simply false. There may well be just that a chain
of cause and effects going back into infinite time. And not just one
cause but a bundle of cause and effects giving rise to matter, energy,
and space and time, and other physical effects that together create
what
we call the Universe. This can be denied as specious.
God is said to be necessary, not contingent. A house cannot be
necessary as it is made up of things, bricks, lumber, roofing
materials et al. These must be existant to create a house, which
is then contingent.
God is said to have essences, omnipotence, omniscience, intelligence,
ability, immutability and so on. These are essences and thus it
implies, like our house, god is contingent, not necessary. Theologians
cheat here with an obvious ad hocism. God is "simple", all his
essences
are one essence rolled into one. We can thus deny this claim because
of its obvious specious ad hocism and its failure to deal with issues,
how is it a god exists at all that has these essences? Where did they
come from, how does god work, what is the physics, the biology of a
god?
It is argument by definition and fails to make an intellectually honest
attempt to deal with these questions.
God is not obviously necessary at all, and there remain many questions
not answered about how a god is supposed to exist and work.
God here then is argument by definition and argument from ignorance.
So god as necessary being fails and we see that underlying this are serious
unanswered questions that call a gods existence into question.
Bluntly all the arguments collectively noted as "Cosmological, first cause,
design, necessary being", tree of Aquina's Five ways, are failed arguments.
God cannot exist as first cause, as necessary being, as designer. The most
glaring problem is necessary being, god as we see has a lot of unexplained
claims made for god implicitly that make it extremely unlikely. And strong
atheism here is obliged to call theism on these problematic complications.
This is rank argument from definition. How does god do this or that, "Why
he just does!". We are expected as Atheists to answer all questions as
to how the Universe does this or that, while basic claims about god are
given a free ride and not to be questioned. No strong atheist must do that.
A god that rests on unanswered questions is no god at all.
it is a magic fairy tale creature at best.
It rests of arguments from ignorance and argument by definition.
Further more, science gets along well without god and explains
a lot with great success. We can see entire galaxies formed and
shaped by natural forces with no use for a god.
Theology has a rather unenviable track record, over 4,000
years of trying to explain natural phenomenon and it has so
far been entirely wrong always and ever. Why pay it any attention now?
God is rather unexplained. What is the physics and biology of god?
How does god work, how does god do anything? What are the theories
and what supporting evidence do we have for any claims to be made for
gods?
Here we see theology is totally silent.
God then is not even a theory.
This we can see gods cannot exist as claimed, cosmologically,
as necessary being, as designers of all. Such a god than cannot
exist, all we are left with a is a pile of unanswerable questions,
specious arguments, and sophistries such as gods "simplicity",
ad hocisms.
All OEC gods then cannot exist and that includes OEC gods where
good is set aside as an attribute. That dodge slides by Epicurus's
Problem of Evil, but does not avoid the problems of being debunked
via the claims such a god is creator of all, and underlying
questions about what is meant by god and how a god can even work.
This idea that god needs explaining,that the physics and biology or
what we may wish to call this problem, is a good one strong atheism
should deal with.
If god is in the final analysis an incoeherent idea with more
problems than explanations, obviously it is a bad idea.
(End)
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
--
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Gods without omnipotence : Barwell DEBUNKED |
18 Sep 2006 06:47:54 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gu6milgock2e6@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
He's YOUR god, Barwell. You deal with him.
I just did.
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
Flop is your middle name.
I rest content knowing that you're only able to spell that word on your good
days.
GODS WITHOUT GOOD AND EVIL
W.C. Barwell 9-16-06
Gods that are said to be all good, omnibenevolent,
soon have problems with the Epicurean problem of evil.
A problem that has been stated over and over again by people, unlike
Barwell, who actually know what they're talking about. And in the modern
era for those not bound like Barwell to Hellenistic Philosophy, The
Evidential Argument from Evil is an excellent way of debunking the orthodox
god.
But consider the idea of a class of omnipotent, omniscient,
creator gods that are not all good, or not even good at all.
There are few if any religions that have such a god,
but for purposes of strong atheism is a challenge.
A god so created to resisted debunking is a challenges as it dodges
the Epicurean problem of evil by dropping the claims of all
being all good.
Can we logically debunk such a god concept?
If we drop omnibenevolent to simply good, not all good, yes.
Actually, unless you retain omnipotent, the answer is no.
Thus a god that is not all good, but is good, not all powerful,
but is powerful, is still easily shown to be impossible.
Actually, no it's not. A god that is not all powerful is not constrained by
logic or necessity to destroy all evil or make revelations or much of
anything else. A god that is not all good really doesn't change those facts
at all. Leaving you without an argument.
GODS THAT ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH GOOD OR EVIL
This sort of god is not a god that seems to be worshiped by
any real religion. one might have gods that are not good or
even evil, some animist religions have their good spirits and
evils spirits, but an OEC class type god without the component of
goodness at all, doesn't seem to be a real world god. Such a god
then is of more academic interest to a strong atheist.
can this type of god be disproven?
If such a god is not good, is indifferent to either moral or natural
evil, such a god also loses other usual OEC type attributes.
Love, mercy, justice, and so on.
Actually such a god is pretty alien. Why would such an indifferent
god create mankind?
On the other hand, why not?
Not obvious for love of mankind, as per usual
gods that love good men and punish wickedness.
non sequitur. A god that 'love's good men' is not logically bound to
'punish wickedness.' Your consuming hatred for orthodoxy has once again
scrambled your thinking. Conflating goodness with 'the desire to punish
evil' is a mindset, not a logical necessity.
Logically if such a god existed, that god would not send us
revelations of laws and morals to be followed with threats
for failure to do so. Nor would such a god be concerned with
our acts or thoughts.
Logically, if such a god existed, there's no logical need for revelation or
not revelation. Nor is there a logical need for threats. Nor is there a
logical need for a concern with acts and thought.
Since we have nothing else to offer, no sort of assistance,
or other advantage, its hard to see what such a god would want
anything to do with mankind. We should expect no revelations,
prophets, or any sort of concern from such a god.
Nor would we logically expect NOT to expect such things. You haven't
logically tied your premise to anything that comes after your original
premise....an ongoing problem with all your quasi 'arguments'.
Disproof of any sort of god like this would have to
go to disproving natural religion claims, cosmology et al.
Since gods like this would be indifferent, we can rule out
moral proofs.
The Prime Mover argument has been debunked since science has
shown turbulence from early eras of the Big Bang produced movement
of matter in the Universe, no godly Prime Mover is needed.
Which is not a proof that no Prime Mover exists. The notion of what is
'needed' in your pretend arguments is not equivalent to logical sufficiency.
We can rule out proofs from revelation.
we can set aside disproofs via Problem of Evil.
Aquinas's (derived from Anslem - See The Prosologian)
proof from degrees of perfection are out since
a god that is not explicitly good lacks that perfection
at least.
leaving -
1. Cosmological
2. Design
3. Necessary being
If god that is not good but otherwise is an OEC class god
can be shown to be impossible because that god is unnecessary,
And here your argument breaks down. "Unnecessary" is not equivalent to the
idea of logical sufficiency. Being able to prove that god is not necessary
for a particular process is not the same as proving that a god cannot be
involved in the same process.
God is not obviously necessary at all,
Nor obviously NOT necessary.
So god as necessary being fails
Actually, it's your argument that fails.
You are a fluke of the Universe
You are the liver fluke of the Universe.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god |
18 Sep 2006 10:35:02 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:02:54 GMT, "Gandalf Grey"
<gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12grnqeofhki4f2@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Your problem is that YOUR god is a strawman.
What a bitter and hateful little man.
He's YOUR god, Barwell. You deal with him.
Hardly, moron. Any more than Zeus is your god. Start using your
allegedly god-given brain for a change.
You are a fluke of the Universe
You are the liver fluke of the Universe
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god |
18 Sep 2006 11:49:49 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Hardly, moron. Any more than Zeus is your god. Start using your
allegedly god-given brain for a change.
Stop blaming & hating God for your failure as a human being. And that
goes for most of you angry and bitter misfits of nature. (Assuming
of course that you are not mentally ill--could be big assumption.)
--------
THE ISRAEL LOBBY: Does it have too much influence on US foreign policy?
The London Review will be hosting a debate on 28 September in the Great
Hall, Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, Cooper
Square, New York. Go to the link in my sig to reserve tickets.
-----
Kill ratio of Palestinian children to Israeli children 5.7-to-1,
Israel's favor.
Kill ratio of all Palestinians to Israelis: over 3-to-1.
---------
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html
----------
"Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We,
the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
---Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 2001
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god |
18 Sep 2006 05:34:13 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Stop blaming & hating God for your failure as a human being. And that
goes for most of you angry and bitter misfits of nature. (Assuming
of course that you are not mentally ill--could be big assumption.)
God was not the cause of any failures of any Atheists lives
here and no one blames non-existant gods for such things.
The cause of our failures was too many cheap afternoon cartoons
as youths on TV, especially Hanna-Barberra cartoons.
--
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god |
20 Sep 2006 02:48:15 PM |
|
|
An Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:34:13 -0500, wcb hat geschreibt:
clifffreeling@yahoo.com wrote:
Stop blaming & hating God for your failure as a human being. And that
goes for most of you angry and bitter misfits of nature. (Assuming
of course that you are not mentally ill--could be big assumption.)
God was not the cause of any failures of any Atheists lives
here and no one blames non-existant gods for such things.
The cause of our failures was too many cheap afternoon cartoons
as youths on TV, especially Hanna-Barberra cartoons.
I'll bite. What do you have against the Flintstones and Yogi Bear?
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god |
20 Sep 2006 05:43:29 PM |
|
|
Emmanual Kann wrote:
An Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:34:13 -0500, wcb hat geschreibt:
clifffreeling@yahoo.com wrote:
Stop blaming & hating God for your failure as a human being. And that
goes for most of you angry and bitter misfits of nature. (Assuming
of course that you are not mentally ill--could be big assumption.)
God was not the cause of any failures of any Atheists lives
here and no one blames non-existant gods for such things.
The cause of our failures was too many cheap afternoon cartoons
as youths on TV, especially Hanna-Barberra cartoons.
I'll bite. What do you have against the Flintstones and Yogi Bear?
Flintstones sucky. Yogi boring.
Clutch Cargo bizarre.
--
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god |
18 Sep 2006 06:16:49 PM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
clifffreeling@yahoo.com wrote:
Stop blaming & hating God for your failure as a human being. And that
goes for most of you angry and bitter misfits of nature. (Assuming
of course that you are not mentally ill--could be big assumption.)
God was not the cause of any failures of any Atheists lives
My point exactly.
The cause of our failures was too many cheap afternoon cartoons
as youths on TV, especially Hanna-Barberra cartoons.
I still like Johnny Quest (original).
THE ISRAEL LOBBY: Does it have too much influence on US foreign policy?
The London Review will be hosting a debate on 28 September in the Great
Hall, Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, Cooper
Square, New York. Go to the link in my sig to reserve tickets.
-----
Kill ratio of Palestinian children to Israeli children 5.7-to-1,
Israel's favor.
Kill ratio of all Palestinians to Israelis: over 3-to-1.
---------
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html
----------
"Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We,
the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
---Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 2001
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god |
20 Sep 2006 08:51:07 AM |
|
|
An Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:49:58 -0500, wcb hat geschreibt:
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Your problem is that YOUR god is a strawman.
What a bitter and hateful little man.
And I mean, little. What made you such a scuttling
bag of hate and mean spiritedness?
Isn't there a pill you can take for this?
Try this omnistrawman assertion:
God is the answer to all unanswerable questions(the truth value of all
Goedel statements).
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god |
20 Sep 2006 01:23:36 PM |
|
|
Emmanual Kann wrote:
An Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:49:58 -0500, wcb hat geschreibt:
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Your problem is that YOUR god is a strawman.
What a bitter and hateful little man.
And I mean, little. What made you such a scuttling
bag of hate and mean spiritedness?
Isn't there a pill you can take for this?
Try this omnistrawman assertion:
God is the answer to all unanswerable questions(the truth value of all
Goedel statements).
No, god is the answer to unanswearable stupid questions.
Unanswerable smart question are answered by 'Easter Bunny".
--
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god |
18 Sep 2006 09:16:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:49:58 -0500, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12grnqeofhki4f2@corp.supernews.com>
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Your problem is that YOUR god is a strawman.
What a bitter and hateful little man.
And I mean, little. What made you such a scuttling
bag of hate and mean spiritedness?
Isn't there a pill you can take for this?
Yep: Cyanide.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god |
18 Sep 2006 11:44:12 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
Just thinking, is this 27 billon light year wide
universe all there is for god, as far as this physical
universe? Are there other universes? Bible cosmology
sees the world as a dry spot in the primal water covered
by a dome, holding back the primal water.
Apparently out ancient cosmologists had little idea
of what water pressue is like in deep columns of water.
How deep was the water outside the dome?
--
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god |
20 Sep 2006 04:27:41 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:44:12 -0500, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12guteeperduf27@corp.supernews.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
Just thinking, is this 27 billon light year wide
universe all there is for god, as far as this physical
universe? Are there other universes? Bible cosmology
sees the world as a dry spot in the primal water covered
by a dome, holding back the primal water.
Apparently out ancient cosmologists had little idea
of what water pressue is like in deep columns of water.
How deep was the water outside the dome?
Makes you feel so, sort of, insignificant, doesn't it?
"Yeah. Yeah. [sniff] Can we have your liver, then?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god |
20 Sep 2006 01:21:23 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:44:12 -0500, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12guteeperduf27@corp.supernews.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
Just thinking, is this 27 billon light year wide
universe all there is for god, as far as this physical
universe? Are there other universes? Bible cosmology
sees the world as a dry spot in the primal water covered
by a dome, holding back the primal water.
Apparently out ancient cosmologists had little idea
of what water pressue is like in deep columns of water.
How deep was the water outside the dome?
Makes you feel so, sort of, insignificant, doesn't it?
"Yeah. Yeah. [sniff] Can we have your liver, then?"
Does the waters outside the dome have fishies?
--
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god |
20 Sep 2006 06:29:09 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:21:23 -0500, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12h31m9csvgdr43@corp.supernews.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:44:12 -0500, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12guteeperduf27@corp.supernews.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
Just thinking, is this 27 billon light year wide
universe all there is for god, as far as this physical
universe? Are there other universes? Bible cosmology
sees the world as a dry spot in the primal water covered
by a dome, holding back the primal water.
Apparently out ancient cosmologists had little idea
of what water pressue is like in deep columns of water.
How deep was the water outside the dome?
Makes you feel so, sort of, insignificant, doesn't it?
"Yeah. Yeah. [sniff] Can we have your liver, then?"
Does the waters outside the dome have fishies?
Of course.
But they are invisible and uncatchable.
A lot like the fish that I try to catch!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god - Barwell's Ego Polishing Continues |
18 Sep 2006 10:36:29 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:54:52 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
<gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12grgask8rs0h03@corp.supernews.com...
Somehow, god is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient
creator of all. Able to create a universe ex niliho
in six days.
Only for orthodox believers and cherry picking fundamentalists.
Your problem is that YOUR god is a strawman. YOUR god has already been
demolished by better arguments than yours, which leaves the god and gods
that most people really believe in untouched by your bumpersticker
arguments.
Why do you lie? You know perfectly well he hasn't got a god and merely
goes on what hard-of-thinking believers insist to him, and treats that
as an exercise in abstract logic.
The question, rarely asked as far as I can see is, how
is all of this done?
Actually it's been asked often.
I will be staring a project to start thinking hard
about this aspect of gods I rarely see serously approached.
It's been approached and addressed by many. But if you want to go off in a
corner and constipate yourself with the problem in order to pump up your
narcissistic self-image, go for it.
I suppose to give it a working nickname I will call it the
problem of the physics of god.
Maybe a better title would be.
The Physics of God: Barwell's Latest Attempt at Ego Polishing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god - Barwell's Ego Polishing Continues |
18 Sep 2006 11:49:40 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:i5ftg2db9gg778lg6opvsnh3jant2vcrqu@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:54:52 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
<gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12grgask8rs0h03@corp.supernews.com...
Somehow, god is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient
creator of all. Able to create a universe ex niliho
in six days.
Only for orthodox believers and cherry picking fundamentalists.
Your problem is that YOUR god is a strawman. YOUR god has already been
demolished by better arguments than yours, which leaves the god and gods
that most people really believe in untouched by your bumpersticker
arguments.
Why do you lie? You know perfectly well he hasn't got a god and merely
goes on what hard-of-thinking believers insist to him, and treats that
as an exercise in abstract logic.
Barwell is no more able to engage in an 'exercise in abstract logic' than
you are able to correctly read an English idiom.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god - Barwell's Ego Polishing Continues |
20 Sep 2006 02:56:35 PM |
|
|
An Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:36:29 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
Why do you lie? You know perfectly well he hasn't got a god and merely
goes on what hard-of-thinking believers insist to him, and treats that
as an exercise in abstract logic.
You mean like the Easter Bunny. Are you Barwell's sock puppet?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god - Barwell's Ego Polishing Continues |
20 Sep 2006 03:25:37 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:56:35 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:36:29 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
Why do you lie? You know perfectly well he hasn't got a god and merely
goes on what hard-of-thinking believers insist to him, and treats that
as an exercise in abstract logic.
You mean like the Easter Bunny. Are you Barwell's sock puppet?
Do I, liar? I am sure that if I had meant that I would have said it.
But here's a clue: I neither meant it nor said it. Stop lying by
putting words into people's mouths.
Like the rest of us he treats it as an abstract logic exercise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god - Barwell's Ego Polishing Continues |
20 Sep 2006 03:52:21 PM |
|
|
An Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:25:37 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:56:35 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:36:29 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
Why do you lie? You know perfectly well he hasn't got a god and merely
goes on what hard-of-thinking believers insist to him, and treats that
as an exercise in abstract logic.
You mean like the Easter Bunny. Are you Barwell's sock puppet?
Do I, liar? I am sure that if I had meant that I would have said it.
But here's a clue: I neither meant it nor said it. Stop lying by
putting words into people's mouths.
Like the rest of us he treats it as an abstract logic exercise.
I asserted my brother's God to Barwell to disprove. He used the Easter
Bunny as his argument.
***** off sock puppet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - The biology and physics of god - Barwell's Ego Polishing Continues |
20 Sep 2006 04:18:32 PM |
|
|
"Emmanual Kann" <kann@keinspam.de> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.09.20.20.53.31.610170@keinspam.de...
An Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:25:37 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:56:35 GMT, Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de>
wrote:
An Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:36:29 -0400, Christopher A. Lee hat geschreibt:
Why do you lie? You know perfectly well he hasn't got a god and merely
goes on what hard-of-thinking believers insist to him, and treats that
as an exercise in abstract logic.
You mean like the Easter Bunny. Are you Barwell's sock puppet?
Do I, liar? I am sure that if I had meant that I would have said it.
But here's a clue: I neither meant it nor said it. Stop lying by
putting words into people's mouths.
Like the rest of us he treats it as an abstract logic exercise.
I asserted my brother's God to Barwell to disprove. He used the Easter
Bunny as his argument.
***** off sock puppet.
Well, that's our Barwell. His ultimate argument to prove no god can exist
is that any god he can't disprove isn't "important."
Barwell's a real monument to logic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
