| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"wcb" |
| Date: |
26 Jul 2006 10:04:30 PM |
| Object: |
AA Classes of gods Part 1 |
Gandy nonsense ignored, real comments read
with attention.
CLASSES OF GODS - Part 1
An outline.
(To be greatly expanded later)
I have written of the concepts of classes of gods.
If one can prove a given class of gods cannot exist,
one can eliminate all gods of that sort even if you
don't even know about a given god in particular.
Which is why this is a good idea. I don't have to know
every supposed god anybody ever invented.
The class of omni-everything, creator gods is
not a good idea. This class self destructs
easily and rather completely. Now, where do we go?
This is mainly a short outline, I am rearranging
some of these concepts a bit in my mind and trying
to group these things in a more natural manner.
I am generlly trying to arrange things from the
naturally powerful and more important classes
of gods down the more feeble, tossed in only
for a sense of Strong Atheist theoretical
completionism.
There are some who have complained that I have
claimed I can disprove all gods, and twas not so,
but they misread my initial essays, disproving
OECs gods was not meant to disprove all.
I did say I could as a Strong Atheist make
strong case all gods can be disproven.
By which I mean, all god classes can be disproven,
and that takes care of all particular possible
gods of these classes.
The idea is to keep all classes of gods as
general as possible to catch as many in
the net as possible with as least effort
as possible. Efficiency ensures completeness.
And to generally, start at the top and work my
way down to leperchauns and fairies until we are
dealing with ridiculous concepts that nobody can
believe them or take the seriously.
And crush everything in between, systematically
in a cheerful scorched earth fashion, leaving
nothing viable.
Having been thinking about this for two years now,
it is time to start laying this out and getting
its written up. I will add a lot more later,
more specfic examples, full sources, footnotes,
more in depth exposition and pointed criticisms,
the full nine yards. This outline, part 1, simply
is looking at laying out the big dogs among the
god classes. More thorough destruction will be
added when the main outlines are laid out. And
this is only an outline, please remember.
Expanded eventually it will probably make up
a small book on its own. Or maybe not so small.
If your favorite class of little god ideas are
not debunked here, they will be about part two
or three.
I have the rope, you get the branding iron, its
the great god roundup and rodeo.
*********************************************
1. OEC gods
Related classes of gods
2. Transcendent gods.
God that are outside this physical universe,
the general Christian, Islamic god.
Transcendence is not a necessary property
of OEC gods. It can cause further problems
making an OEC god easier to debunk, but is
not a key property of OEC gods.
3. Maya gods.
There is no universe, all is maya illusion.
All exists only in the mind of god, we are thoughts
of god, nothing more. But a maya god is simply and
OEC god, its a god that is personal,supposedly all
good, omnipowerful, indeed if all is in the mind of god
this god has no problems with logic or limits, or
the usual problems of theodicy. We being but dreams
of god can have no free will, we are not even truly
existant. This OEC god collapses like all other members
of the OEC class of gods, its peculiarities make it
vulnerable to additional debunking
4. Immanent gods.
A god that permeates the Universe and is the ground of
existence of all, god thus is sustaining actual cause
of the Universe. The universe thus is directly dependent
on god, the Universe is not a self contained transcendent
Universe. But this god is STOL a member of the OEC class
of gods and is still debunked.
5. Idealism. Idealism is a maya god-like concept invented
by English philosopher George Berkeley. Taking David Hume's
skepticism to its logical conclusion, there is no external world
at all, all is an illusion, mind is not physical or based
on physical things, the world is not physical,
6. Idealism is taken to mean god is also mind-like, no
physical existence, and laws of the world exist because
god creates them that way. But this creates problems
that have some bizarre solutions.
A. Occasionalism. Since matter does not exist,
there is no cause and effect, except for god's
involvement with the world. God IS cause and effect, and
everything else besides. Thus if in my mind, I wish
to pick up a book, god knows my mind and creates the effect
of picking up a book that does not really exist. Of course
then, this god is involved directly in things like murder,
torture and writing bad books like Mein Kampf. If I pick up
gun and kill somebody in a robbery, god is my accomplice.
A nightmare for theodicists.
B. There is also parallelism. The idea god creates parallel
worlds, one of mind's intentions and actions and one of cause and
effect that just happen to always coincide, two illusionary
worlds in exact harmony. Again we have problems with
theodicy, with god creating such worlds where Hitler's wishes
to do evil and an actualized world where evil is created working
in parallel. God here is personally part of evil acts.
C. These ideas cure no problems of the OEC class of gods
and create more problems than they solve. Berkeley, Descartes,
Liebnez, Malabranche and others explored these bizarre
self-defeating theologies. This further dooms maya gods or
Idealistic gods, which overlap with OEC gods and are have
fallen with that class of gods anyway. Maya gods have
many of these same problems.
D. Many of these ideas were presaged by Pre-Socratic things,
the Universe was created from Logos - logic, Nous - mind stuff,
disembodied intelligence of some sort, of pantheistic orientation
or later with Xenophanes, god.
E. God as a spirit also has the same built in problems.
Spirit in what sense, transcendent, immanent, idealist?
F. The bible sometimes mixes concepts, sometimes overtly
transcendent, sometimes immanent. Most christians never notice,
and sometimes theologians have struggled with melding the two
contradictory claims. But he bible god is still only a failed
OEC class god, this simply gives further ammunition for
debunking the Christian flavors of OEC class gods.
G. Islam also has contradictory aspects of immanent and
transcendent gods built into it.
H. Those Hindu schools of theology that teach a maya view of
the world, as illusionary also have the same problems and
are also uniformly OEC gods anyway. Most Hindus belong
to one of the big 4 divsions of Hinduism that see the world
as coming from the most sublime ideal of god, Ishvara,
which as Brahma creates the Universe. There are a number
of schools of thought about gods here, some transcendent,
some maya. And different Devas, and avatars et al.
7. PANTHEISM
A. Pantheism has to types of Pantheism, basically.
B. Pantheism as allegory, nature is 'god'.
This is a mere word game at best.
The Universe is the Universe, calling
it the Universe, or nature, or physics
is being realistic. calling it god is not,
its an emotionally loaded word.
C. Pantheism as a sort of intelligence above
and beyond the sum of the Universe's parts.
Which might be called god.
There is no sign of any such thing. But we also have
lots of good scientific knowledge of self organizing
physical systems, and emergent qualities. They are not
by any stretch of the imagination intelligence as per
se, meaningful will, conciousness. Its blind physics
which is well understood and does impressive things,
including creating entire galaxies from simple forces.
calling all of this "intelligence", and thus god is again,
using loaded language.
8. PROCESS METAPHYSICS - PROCESS THEOLOGY
A. Initially invented by philosopher Alfred North Whitehead,
his process metaphysics soon became a full blown theology.
Process and Reality (1929) soon gave us process theology,
mainly to to Charles Hartschorn and a few others.
B. Whitehead started with the thoughts of Heraclitus "All
is change" and started there.
C. Process theology takes that as its starting point,
process = change." God is part of the universe, he is
himself thus is changed by real changes in the Universe.
D. Panentheism. Panentheism states that the universe
is part of god, As Hartschorn states, one can think
of the Universe a "God's body". Thus god is not totally
a spirit but part spirit, part all matter of the Universe.
E. God does not unilaterally act on the matter of the Universe,
and is himself acted on.
F. God is expressedly then, not omnipotent, nor does the
process god know the future. This to specifically avoid
the problems of omni-everything gods and free will
problems.
G. This process theology god is personal, and has
will and intelligence, and is all good.
H. The problem with this god is that as its proponents
admit it does not work with physics. Transcendent gods
don't have that problem but a god that is expressedly
part and parcel of the physical world does have to.
This god concept has run into problems with time for
example, which in modern physics is local, there is no
Universe wide clock, and information from one part
of the universe can only propagate at best at speed
of light. These problems cause all sorts of peculiar
problems and contradictions and paradoxes making this
concept of god non-working. This has been a problem for some
50 years and process theology's creators know of this
and have openly admitted it. Hopes that these problems
were solvable have turned out to be illusionary.
G. The process theology god is explicitly said to
be good. Yet is also said to be affected by the universe's
physical happenings. If so, then since man does many
evil things, this evil must effect god. This creates all
sorts of peculiar problems with a process god and theodicy.
An overtly good god that makes no attempts to change
things here despite the fact evil we do impinges on
god makes no sense.
H. Attempts to use the free will defense here fail for
the same reason free will defenses of problems of evil fail
for OEC classes of gods. The process theology God could
make man with a god like good nature and a god like free
will. Since man's evil acts change the physical Universe
that impinges on god, this god has strong reason to eliminate
or ameliorate evil if only out of self preservation, or at
least, pride.
I. Thus theodicy and physics dooms the process theology
effort and process theology god. There is no sign that
any of these problems will be solved any time soon.
J. Process theology type gods as a class have thus
proven to be a failure as a class.
9. NATURE GODS.
A. Gods supposedly particularly involved with some aspect
of the natural world, sun gods, rain gods, god's that
have to do with various aspects of agriculture, or herds
et al.
B. These gods are pre-scientific and have been banished
by a true understanding of science. Gods have nothing
to do with rain, which is a complex series of related
phenomenon having to do with physics, chemistry,
thermodynamics,weather systems, steering currents, the
fact the earth axis is tilted and on and on. There are
no gods involved. If there was, it would be a large
number of gods as a simple rainstorm involves thousands
of physical phenomenon eventually resulting in rain
that would need oerhaps millions of nature gods working
in concert.
C. Science removes all room for nature gods.
Nobody is ever going to meet a rain god, or get one
to send rain because of prayer or sacrifices to the
rain gods.
D. The real underlying causes of reality, the 4 forces
Weak nuclear string nuclear, gravity and electro-magnetic
never had gods that came down and introduced themselves and
explained themselves. Humanity got it all wrong for millenia.
E. Thus this is a class of gods that cannot stand on
its own two feet. It is still a very important class of
gods as it is class that is palpably impossible but other
classes of gods map on to it and thus are also debunked.
10. MYTH CYCLE GODS.
A. Man has long created large numbers of gods.
Myth cycle gods are complex myth cycles usually
involving numerous gods, usually hierarchical.
El and his wife Asherah and their 70 sons.
Zeus or Jupiter and the Olympians, Osiris, Isis,
Seth and Horus et al, are examples.
B. As a class of gods this class can be subdivided
into two god classes.
C.The class where the supreme god is an all powerful
creator god. Jupiter in his later myth cycles during Roman
times was elevated from a mere Olympian to the Grand God
who created all, a copy of more sublime gods like Yahweh,
and other OEC gods. Once elevated to OEC god status,
these gods fail for the same reason the OEC class of
gods fail.
D. Most of these myth cycle gods at best attain nature
god status. Gods to pray for and explain rain, banish
illness, who are responsible for fertility of crops,
herds and wives. Who give us sunlight, and make the
rivers run. The greater gods beget lessor gods who are
the gods who create the world and nature. These fail
for the reason they map onto the failed class of nature
gods.
E. Because myth cycle gods either map onto the failed
OEC class of gods or the failed nature class of gods,
or allegded gods that do nothing at all and are irrelevant
among the other failed god classes represented, we can
thus disregard all such classes of myth cycle gods.
11. MAGNIPOTENT GODS.
Gods that are explicitly not omnipotent or all powerful,
but may have great powers.
A. Process theology was an attempt to limit god's
alledged powers to avoid the paradoxes of OEC class gods.
The process theology class of gods failure means that here,
the magnipotent class of gods fails as regards attempts
to redesign god to avoid OEC class god problems.
B. Many gods of the past, myth cycles and polytheistic
heirachies are limited. But only those who allegdely
affected mankind matter and these are nature gods.
Gods who do not create the Universe and are not all
powerful but can make it rain, or send lightning
or storms or similar things, are gods of the nature
god class and thus impossible and disproven.
Nature gods usually are not all powerful, many do not
even make it up to magnipotent class gods. Mankind
has invented vast swarms of petty nature gods with
minor powers, most forgotten today.
Thus this class of magnipotent gods is disproven.
C. The most impotant class of these gods was the
now failed process theology god class.
---------------
(End of Part one)
--
During the reign of Tiberius (A.D. 14-37), the news of
Pan's death came to one Thamus, a sailor on his way to
Italy by way of the island of Paxi. A divine voice hailed
him across the salt water, "Thamus, are you there?
When you reach Palodes, take care to proclaim that
the great god Pan is dead."
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA Classes of gods Part 1 DEBUNKED |
28 Jul 2006 02:10:54 AM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12civniod5hh279@corp.supernews.com...
Gandy nonsense ignored, real comments read
with attention.
CLASSES OF GODS - Part 1
An outline.
(To be greatly expanded later)
I have written of the concepts of classes of gods.
And you've failed largely due to Russell's Paradox and due to the fallacy of
division which I'll describe in detail below.
If one can prove a given class of gods cannot exist,
one can eliminate all gods of that sort even if you
don't even know about a given god in particular.
Which is why this is a good idea.
Since nearly all of Mr. Barwell's criteria for including a god in his
neologistic 'class of omni-everything gods' pretains only to traditional
Christian orthodoxy, and since nearly the only people who hold to the finer
points of traditional christian orthodoxy are theologians, the usefulness of
the system begins to disappear. The OEC class of gods, ends up being one
god and that one god has already been debunked by older better arguments.
Most people have a view of god that they state as conforming to some
church's dogma, but most people are not that clear on what the dogma is.
Furthermore, there are very few modern theologians who hold with orthodox
dogma.
The class of omni-everything, creator gods is
not a good idea.
Not by any argument you've demonstrated. Although I'll agree that it was a
bad idea for you to try to defeat the existence of any possible god based on
a 'class' argument.
There are some who have complained that I have
claimed I can disprove all gods, and twas not so,
Well, so far, you haven't disproved any gods.
but they misread my initial essays, disproving
OECs gods was not meant to disprove all.
I did say I could as a Strong Atheist make
strong case all gods can be disproven.
By which I mean, all god classes can be disproven,
Again, you've failed to show this.
Where is the argument that demonstrates this?
and that takes care of all particular possible
gods of these classes.
The idea is to keep all classes of gods as
general as possible to catch as many in
the net as possible with as least effort
as possible. Efficiency ensures completeness.
And to generally, start at the top and work my
way down to leperchauns and fairies until we are
dealing with ridiculous concepts that nobody can
believe them or take the seriously.
How about the simple assertion that it is possible for a god to exist?
You seem to have failed rather spectacularly to deal with just that simple
assertion, which I would think would be the order of the day for your
particular brand of anti-theism.
*********************************************
1. OEC gods
Related classes of gods
2. Transcendent gods.
God that are outside this physical universe,
the general Christian, Islamic god.
Transcendence is not a necessary property
of OEC gods. It can cause further problems
making an OEC god easier to debunk, but is
not a key property of OEC gods.
When exactly are you going to debunk "OEC" gods?
3. Maya gods.
There is no universe, all is maya illusion.
All exists only in the mind of god, we are thoughts
of god, nothing more.
Sorry, but that leaves out the Buddhists who believe utterly in maya but do
not [in philosophical Buddhism] believe in a god.
Maya presents problems with or without god.
4. Immanent gods.
A god that permeates the Universe and is the ground of
existence of all, god thus is sustaining actual cause
of the Universe. The universe thus is directly dependent
on god, the Universe is not a self contained transcendent
Universe. But this god is STOL a member of the OEC class
of gods and is still debunked.
How? Since you haven't debunked this supposed class, how can you say you've
debunked any member of the class, by your own definition?
C. These ideas cure no problems of the OEC class of gods
and create more problems than they solve. Berkeley, Descartes,
Liebnez, Malabranche and others explored these bizarre
self-defeating theologies. This further dooms maya gods or
Idealistic gods, which overlap with OEC gods and are have
fallen with that class of gods anyway. Maya gods have
many of these same problems.
So far, you seem to be indulging in an argument by assertion.
You assert that you've debunked this self-created, so-called class of gods,
and now you've attempted to foist other faiths upon that assertion due to
certain commonalities.
There are two problems with this.
1. You haven't actually disproved this supposed class of gods.
a.) There are certain arguments that effectively disprove the existence of a
god with certain abilities or properties, such as omnipotence and
omnibenevolence [e.g., the Argument from Evil]. You've muddied those
arguments, and you've failed to show that most human beings actually believe
in such a god.
b.) The so-called class of gods that you say represents the major religions
in fact does nothing of the kind. There are vast differences between
Jewish, Christian and Islamic belief concerning the particulars of their
theology, even more difference between believers in these religions.
Christianity itself represents many divergent beliefs concerning God.
c.) This turns your larger argument into The Argument by Assertion. In this
article alone, you state many times that the so-called OEC class of gods has
been debunked and therefore, other related classes must fall. But you're
assuming what was to be proved. An assertion alone does not make an
argument.
2. Your entire argument is also prey to the Fallacy of Divison. This is the
fallacy of assuming that what might be true of the whole is equally true of
the parts. If we were to grant that your original argument might be true of
some god that possessed some combination of your original 8 points, it would
NOT follow that any being that possessed any one or two of those points that
was not the exact same combination could not exist.
For example, it is true that a god possessing Hellenistic omnipotence and
omnibenevolence cannot logically exist. But that does not logically imply
that a god that possesses more power than any other being does not exist.
The logical argument that precludes the simultaneous possession of ALL power
and ALL goodness does not preclude the existence of a 'most powerful being.'
Most of what you say falls prey to these two main problems.
D. Many of these ideas were presaged by Pre-Socratic things,
the Universe was created from Logos - logic, Nous - mind stuff,
disembodied intelligence of some sort, of pantheistic orientation
or later with Xenophanes, god.
E. God as a spirit also has the same built in problems.
What built in problems? Are you saying that because you don't understand
how spirit and material could interact, that there is no way they could
interact? Isn't that just the argument from ignorance?
Spirit in what sense, transcendent, immanent, idealist?
F. The bible sometimes mixes concepts, sometimes overtly
transcendent, sometimes immanent. Most christians never notice,
and sometimes theologians have struggled with melding the two
contradictory claims. But he bible god is still only a failed
OEC class god, this simply gives further ammunition for
debunking the Christian flavors of OEC class gods.
G. Islam also has contradictory aspects of immanent and
transcendent gods built into it.
Since you have admitted that the bible is contradictory, the bible cannot be
used as proof of any logical argument on the existence of god. Since most
logical arguments concerning the existence of god are NOT based on
scripture, it seems particularly unfair to try to use the bible to defend
either side of the argument.
H. Those Hindu schools of theology that teach a maya view of
the world, as illusionary also have the same problems and
are also uniformly OEC gods anyway.
The Hindu gods have NOTHING in common with the Hebrew or the Christian
concept of God.
7. PANTHEISM
A. Pantheism has to types of Pantheism
Actually, no. You're mistakenly attempting to conflate pantheism with
panentheism.
, basically.
B. Pantheism as allegory, nature is 'god'.
This is a mere word game at best.
Certainly it is not a 'word game' to pantheists. The worship of nature as
god is probably the oldest of all religions. Neither you nor I may believe
in it, but you don't seem to be making a logical argument against it.
The Universe is the Universe, calling
it the Universe, or nature, or physics
is being realistic. calling it god is not,
its an emotionally loaded word.
To you perhaps. To others, it's the most natural thing in the world.
C. Pantheism as a sort of intelligence above
and beyond the sum of the Universe's parts.
Which might be called god.
Here your mixing pantheism with Pan-entheism. You should really try to
understand these terms before you hold forth on them.
There is no sign of any such thing.
And there is no sign that there isn't any such thing.
Again, you seem to be either attempting the argument from assertion or a
variation on the Argument from Ignorance.
But we also have
lots of good scientific knowledge of self organizing
physical systems, and emergent qualities. They are not
by any stretch of the imagination intelligence as per
se, meaningful will, conciousness. Its blind physics
which is well understood and does impressive things,
including creating entire galaxies from simple forces.
calling all of this "intelligence", and thus god is again,
using loaded language.
Hardly an explanation for the strong anthropic principle and the fact that
physics is actually not so well understood that we can explain the universe.
8. PROCESS METAPHYSICS - PROCESS THEOLOGY
A. Initially invented by philosopher Alfred North Whitehead,
Well, I'm grateful that you realized your error and are not continuing to
attribute the creation of Process Philosophy to Charles Hartshorne any
longer. That at least is a mercy.
his process metaphysics soon became a full blown theology.
It never "became a full blown theology." It is still what it always was, a
process philosophy, based on the thought of Heraclitus, Pierce, James,
Bergsen and Whitehead. It continues to be the operating philosophy behind
quantum physics and theoretical astrophysics.
Process and Reality (1929) soon gave us process theology,
mainly to to Charles Hartschorn and a few others.
Quite a few others.
B. Whitehead started with the thoughts of Heraclitus "All
is change" and started there.
Actually, Whitehead did not start with Heraclitus at all. The 'line of
thought' can be traced back to Heraclitus. Whitehead's "Philosophy of
Evolution" developed through his books, "Adventures in Ideas," "Science and
Society" and "Process and Reality."
C. Process theology takes that as its starting point,
process = change." God is part of the universe, he is
himself thus is changed by real changes in the Universe.
D. Panentheism. Panentheism states that the universe
is part of god, As Hartschorn states, one can think
of the Universe a "God's body". Thus god is not totally
a spirit but part spirit, part all matter of the Universe.
E. God does not unilaterally act on the matter of the Universe,
and is himself acted on.
F. God is expressedly then, not omnipotent, nor does the
process god know the future. This to specifically avoid
the problems of omni-everything gods and free will
problems.
Quite wrong. None of process theology was developed to 'avoid' some
particular problem. It developed with the process thought of people like
Charles Pierce, William James, Henri Bergsen and Alfred North Whitehead.
With evolution as a starting point in the modern era, PT, like most
philosophies and metaphysical systems was an attempt to describe the world
as we understand it.
G. This process theology god is personal, and has
will and intelligence, and is all good.
There's nothing "personal" about the 'god' of process theology.
H. The problem with this god is that as its proponents
admit it does not work with physics.
One critical article does not create a problem, Mr. Barwell. I know that
you would love to leap on that as the death blow, but it just won't work.
Proponents of modern process theology and modern process philosophy such as
Margaret Suchoki, James Cobb and David Ray Griffin have NO problem with
physics.
Transcendent gods
don't have that problem but a god that is expressedly
part and parcel of the physical world does have to.
Prove it.
This god concept has run into problems with time for
example, which in modern physics is local, there is no
Universe wide clock, and information from one part
of the universe can only propagate at best at speed
of light.
Actually, we no longer know that to be the case.
These problems cause all sorts of peculiar
problems and contradictions and paradoxes making this
concept of god non-working.
Hardly.
This has been a problem for some
50 years and process theology's creators know of this
and have openly admitted it.
Name more than one person who has 'admitted it' and supply a citation for
their work.
Hopes that these problems
were solvable have turned out to be illusionary.
G. The process theology god is explicitly said to
be good. Yet is also said to be affected by the universe's
physical happenings. If so, then since man does many
evil things, this evil must effect god. This creates all
sorts of peculiar problems with a process god and theodicy.
How so? Aren't we all 'effected' by evil. How does this cause a problem
for god? How is a god who is supposedly saddened by evil made logically
impossible?
An overtly good god that makes no attempts to change
things here despite the fact evil we do impinges on
god makes no sense.
Makes no sense in what way? If a very powerful being existed that, for all
its power, could not cause evil not to happen, how would that inability make
that being impossible?
Here again, you're attempting to take qualities from your original concept
and use them to disprove other possible beings. Since the process god is
NOT omnipotent in the Hellenistic use of that term, the process god cannot
stop evil from occurring.
H. Attempts to use the free will defense here fail for
the same reason free will defenses of problems of evil fail
for OEC classes of gods.
You have failed repeatedly to make that case in your original handful of
arguments.
Your argument that any god could make man with BOTH free will AND an
inability to do evil is logically contradictory on its face.
The process theology God could
make man with a god like good nature and a god like free
will.
Here is where you prove that you do not understand process philosophy or
process theology. Nowhere in process theology does it state that god could
have made man with either a god like good nature or a god like free will.
1. Your initial assertion is nonsensical. If god [of any variety] could
make man with "god-like" free will and good nature, man would BE god.
2. In process theology, process is pre-eminent over any force or material.
Process has free will built into it, hence the ability to vary in action is
there from the start.
3. God does not "make" man do anything in process theology. In process
theology, God is defined as the persuasive force that moves material and
processes toward more complex states. PT sees "god" as something like 'the
Tao' or the 'dharma' of the Buddhists. God is not a 'HE' or a 'SHE' who
deliberately creates man in some particular fashion with certain particular
characteristics.
Since man's evil acts change the physical Universe
that impinges on god, this god has strong reason to eliminate
or ameliorate evil if only out of self preservation, or at
least, pride.
Anthropomorphism at its worst. The presumption that any god 'needs' to act
in order to do something is to assume what you need to prove. Your use of
the word 'pride' is particularly telling since it assumes that the process
god is some 'powerful old man or woman' with human senses, demonstrating
that your ability to theorize about theology hasn't gotten past the daily
vacation bible school level. Process theology makes no such claim and has
never made such a claim. God is as different from human as it's possible to
get. There's none of this 'in his image' stuff for PT or, for most other
theologies that lay claim the to the title of modern theology. Your use of
such terms really weakens your arguments.
I. Thus theodicy and physics dooms the process theology
effort and process theology god. There is no sign that
any of these problems will be solved any time soon.
Since they aren't problems for process theology, I'd have to say that
there's no need for them to be solved anytime soon.
J. Process theology type gods as a class have thus
proven to be a failure as a class.
Again, you employ the fallacy of division. What is true of a whole is not
necessarily true of every member of the whole.
9. NATURE GODS.
A. Gods supposedly particularly involved with some aspect
of the natural world, sun gods, rain gods, god's that
have to do with various aspects of agriculture, or herds
et al.
B. These gods are pre-scientific and have been banished
by a true understanding of science.
[snip to]
11. MAGNIPOTENT GODS.
Gods that are explicitly not omnipotent or all powerful,
but may have great powers.
A. Process theology was an attempt to limit god's
alledged powers to avoid the paradoxes of OEC class gods.
The process theology class of gods failure means that here,
the magnipotent class of gods fails as regards attempts
to redesign god to avoid OEC class god problems.
1. Since you've failed to prove that the process theology god cannot exist,
it cannot be said to be a failure.
2. Again, we run into your curious inability to get along without the
fallacy of division.
Let's assume that there really is a class of gods that we will call
"Magnipotent Gods" and define that as not "all-powerful" but sufficiently
powerful that they are, say "more powerful than anything else in the
universe."
Now you say that Process Theology was an attempt to "avoid the paradoxes of
OEC class gods."
For the moment we'll ignore the fact that this is simply not true and take
it as a given.
Because here is where it gets interesting:
You state, in summation, that
The process theology class of gods failure means that here,
the magnipotent class of gods fails as regards attempts
to redesign god to avoid OEC class god problems.
And that's where you commit the best example of the fallacy of division.
1. Even if it were true that the process theology god COULD NOT LOGICALLY
EXIST.
2. It would only be true because the specific principles upon which a belief
in such a specific god rested were logically contradictory or the properties
of such a god were logically contradictory.
3. Therefore it would NOT follow that NO god belonging to such a
"Magnipotent" class of gods could exist because YOU HAVE GIVEN NO REASON WHY
ANOTHER GOD BELONGING TO THE SAME CLASS AS THE ONE GOD YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT
CANNOT BE LOGICALLY CONSISTENT.
Unless you can show that NO god that is less than omnipotent yet still more
powerful than anything else can logically exist, you cannot show that there
can be no possible member of such a class that can logically exist.
Until you've done that, Mr. Barwell, ALL your arguments are for nothing.
You keep talking about classes, but the only windmills you're tilting at are
specifics that do not eliminate the classes themselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: AA Classes of gods Part 1 DEBUNKED |
27 Jul 2006 03:44:08 AM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
And you've failed largely due to Russell's Paradox and due to the fallacy
of division which I'll describe in detail below.
Plonk unread....
--
During the reign of Tiberius (A.D. 14-37), the news of
Pan's death came to one Thamus, a sailor on his way to
Italy by way of the island of Paxi. A divine voice hailed
him across the salt water, "Thamus, are you there?
When you reach Palodes, take care to proclaim that
the great god Pan is dead."
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: AA Classes of gods Part 1 DEBUNKED |
29 Jul 2006 12:55:31 AM |
|
|
"Kurt Nicklas" <nicklask@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1154123195.971944.214840@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Sniper wrote:
Greywolf wrote:
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:44ca4443$0$24212$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12cjjjtf9hgkgae@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
[snip]
Why don't you guys get back to basics? A theist somewhere in the
distant
past claimed that a 'God' exists. He (or she) made that claim without
ever
'proving' it. Not one single theist since then has managed to produce
irrefutable proof of this 'God's' existence either. Not one. And It has
been
*thousands* of years. Why not let a bona-fide theist come into
alt.atheism
and *try* to maintain that a 'God' exists, look over his or her
'evidence'
and address *that* instead of getting bogged down in trying to prove
that a
non-existent deity doesn't exist. That's a sheer waste of time and
energy.
(And it makes us atheists look silly and ridiculous in the process.)
Exactly.
Tommy rot. You all look like silly and ridiculous in any case.
You can't say that 'not one single theist since then' has done ANYTHING
Yes I can. Name *one* theist who has irrefutably proven the existence of
'God'? If you know of one, name him or her. Point me to their 'proof'. You
can't can you? And since you can't, I was perfectly right in saying that one
*hasn't*. What? Is there a theist living in a cave somewhere in the Grand
Canyon who has? If so, present him to the world.
or not done anything because neither you, nor Billy Barwell nor Ricky
Hanson has SPOKEN with or LISTENED to or SEEN every single theist.
Well serve or him or her up. Until you can, not a single theist has *ever*
provided irrefutable proof for the existence of 'God'. (And note the word
'provided'.)
None of you is omnipotent or omniscient. You've not been everywhere and
seen everything and you can't say "there's no evidence for God" until
you've looked everywhere.
Until that century *someone* steps forward and *provides* said evidence,
there isn't any. Is there?
Got it?
No. I don't. You're trying to imply that *someone* somewhere (and you
certainly don't know who) has proof that 'God' exists. What could that
possibly be based on given that you have no proof of that? Wishful thinking?
'Faith'? Hah! 'Faith' proves nothing.
Comprende?
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: AA Classes of gods Part 1 DEBUNKED |
29 Jul 2006 01:11:11 AM |
|
|
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:12clu2u74is5l2c@corp.supernews.com...
"Kurt Nicklas" <nicklask@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1154123195.971944.214840@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Sniper wrote:
Greywolf wrote:
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:44ca4443$0$24212$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12cjjjtf9hgkgae@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
[snip]
Why don't you guys get back to basics? A theist somewhere in the
distant
past claimed that a 'God' exists. He (or she) made that claim without
ever
'proving' it. Not one single theist since then has managed to produce
irrefutable proof of this 'God's' existence either. Not one. And It
has been
*thousands* of years. Why not let a bona-fide theist come into
alt.atheism
and *try* to maintain that a 'God' exists, look over his or her
'evidence'
and address *that* instead of getting bogged down in trying to prove
that a
non-existent deity doesn't exist. That's a sheer waste of time and
energy.
(And it makes us atheists look silly and ridiculous in the process.)
Exactly.
Tommy rot. You all look like silly and ridiculous in any case.
You can't say that 'not one single theist since then' has done ANYTHING
Yes I can. Name *one* theist who has irrefutably proven the existence of
'God'? If you know of one, name him or her. Point me to their 'proof'. You
can't can you? And since you can't, I was perfectly right in saying that
one *hasn't*. What? Is there a theist living in a cave somewhere in the
Grand Canyon who has? If so, present him to the world.
or not done anything because neither you, nor Billy Barwell nor Ricky
Hanson has SPOKEN with or LISTENED to or SEEN every single theist.
Well serve or him or her up. Until you can, not a single theist has *ever*
provided irrefutable proof for the existence of 'God'. (And note the word
'provided'.)
None of you is omnipotent or omniscient. You've not been everywhere and
seen everything and you can't say "there's no evidence for God" until
you've looked everywhere.
Until that century *someone* steps forward and *provides* said evidence,
there isn't any. Is there?
Got it?
No. I don't. You're trying to imply that *someone* somewhere (and you
certainly don't know who) has proof that 'God' exists. What could that
possibly be based on given that you have no proof of that? Wishful
thinking? 'Faith'? Hah! 'Faith' proves nothing.
Comprende?
Greywolf
I will just add this: If there *was* a 'God' there would be a trace of him
that everyone would recognize as deity. If he didn't exist, you would find a
trace of him if you spent a thousand years looking for him. Guess what?
Ohhhhhhh. You *know* what I was about to point out to you. Don't you?
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: AA Classes of gods Part 1 DEBUNKED |
29 Jul 2006 01:18:50 AM |
|
|
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:12clv0cnq9b9ufc@corp.supernews.com...
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:12clu2u74is5l2c@corp.supernews.com...
"Kurt Nicklas" <nicklask@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1154123195.971944.214840@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Sniper wrote:
Greywolf wrote:
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:44ca4443$0$24212$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12cjjjtf9hgkgae@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
[snip]
Why don't you guys get back to basics? A theist somewhere in the
distant
past claimed that a 'God' exists. He (or she) made that claim without
ever
'proving' it. Not one single theist since then has managed to produce
irrefutable proof of this 'God's' existence either. Not one. And It
has been
*thousands* of years. Why not let a bona-fide theist come into
alt.atheism
and *try* to maintain that a 'God' exists, look over his or her
'evidence'
and address *that* instead of getting bogged down in trying to prove
that a
non-existent deity doesn't exist. That's a sheer waste of time and
energy.
(And it makes us atheists look silly and ridiculous in the process.)
Exactly.
Tommy rot. You all look like silly and ridiculous in any case.
You can't say that 'not one single theist since then' has done ANYTHING
Yes I can. Name *one* theist who has irrefutably proven the existence of
'God'? If you know of one, name him or her. Point me to their 'proof'.
You can't can you? And since you can't, I was perfectly right in saying
that one *hasn't*. What? Is there a theist living in a cave somewhere in
the Grand Canyon who has? If so, present him to the world.
or not done anything because neither you, nor Billy Barwell nor Ricky
Hanson has SPOKEN with or LISTENED to or SEEN every single theist.
Well serve or him or her up. Until you can, not a single theist has
*ever* provided irrefutable proof for the existence of 'God'. (And note
the word 'provided'.)
None of you is omnipotent or omniscient. You've not been everywhere and
seen everything and you can't say "there's no evidence for God" until
you've looked everywhere.
Until that century *someone* steps forward and *provides* said evidence,
there isn't any. Is there?
Got it?
No. I don't. You're trying to imply that *someone* somewhere (and you
certainly don't know who) has proof that 'God' exists. What could that
possibly be based on given that you have no proof of that? Wishful
thinking? 'Faith'? Hah! 'Faith' proves nothing.
Comprende?
Greywolf
I will just add this: If there *was* a 'God' there would be a trace of him
that everyone would recognize as deity. If he didn't exist, you would find
a trace of him if you spent a thousand years looking for him. Guess what?
Ohhhhhhh. You *know* what I was about to point out to you. Don't you?
Greywolf
'Wouldn't' find ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "NC" |
|
| Title: Re: AA Classes of gods Part 1 DEBUNKED |
29 Jul 2006 12:00:12 PM |
|
|
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote:
You're trying to imply that *someone* somewhere (and you
certainly don't know who) has proof that 'God' exists. What could that
possibly be based on given that you have no proof of that? Wishful
thinking? 'Faith'? Hah! 'Faith' proves nothing.
Comprende?
I wonder if they realize this can also be used against them (and go back
and forth forever) .
C: I hereby claim that there might exist evidence of my God's existence.
Nobody can prove me wrong because they haven't looked everywhere.
CC: I hereby claim that there might exist irrefutable proof that such
evidence absolutely doesn't exist. Nobody can prove that this proof
doesn't exist because they haven't looked everywhere.
CCC: I hereby claim that there might exist proof that your hypothetical
proof cannot exist. Nobody can prove this wrong because they haven't
looked everywhere.
CCCC: I hereby claim that there might exist proof that your hypothetical
proof that my hypothetical proof cannot exist cannot exist. Nobody can
prove this wrong because they haven't looked everywhere.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: AA Classes of gods Part 1 DEBUNKED |
06 Aug 2006 06:04:16 PM |
|
|
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Greywolf wrote:
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:44ca4443$0$24212$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12cjjjtf9hgkgae@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
[snip]
Why don't you guys get back to basics? A theist somewhere in the distant
past claimed that a 'God' exists. He (or she) made that claim without ever
'proving' it. Not one single theist since then has managed to produce
irrefutable proof of this 'God's' existence either. Not one. And It has been
*thousands* of years. Why not let a bona-fide theist come into alt.atheism
and *try* to maintain that a 'God' exists, look over his or her 'evidence'
and address *that* instead of getting bogged down in trying to prove that a
non-existent deity doesn't exist. That's a sheer waste of time and energy.
(And it makes us atheists look silly and ridiculous in the process.)
Exactly.
Tommy rot. You all look like silly and ridiculous in any case.
You can't say that 'not one single theist since then' has done ANYTHING
or not done anything because neither you, nor Billy Barwell nor Ricky
Hanson has SPOKEN with or LISTENED to or SEEN every single theist.
OTC, that's a logical conclusion from the premises:
1. If a theist has irrefutably proved God's existence, then there would
be an irrefutable proof of God's existence.
2. There is no irrefutable proof of God's existence.
------------------
3. It is not the case that a theist has irrefutably proved God's
existence.
None of you is omnipotent or omniscient. You've not been everywhere and
seen everything and you can't say "there's no evidence for God" until
you've looked everywhere.
Got it?
Sure; you're interpreting 'no evidence for God' as 'no possible
evidence for God'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: AA Classes of gods Part 1 |
05 Aug 2006 10:40:35 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
OTC, that's a logical conclusion from the premises:
1. If a theist has irrefutably proved God's existence, then there would
be an irrefutable proof of God's existence.
2. There is no irrefutable proof of God's existence.
------------------
3. It is not the case that a theist has irrefutably proved God's
existence.
Bingo, all those text books in the West's
best Universities, in the best divinity schools,
best seminaries, best philosophy departments.
All this and not a tiny shred of evidence after
4000 years of human writing about religions.
From Egyptian Book of the dead and Sumerian
Treatises on their mythology to the latest
theological journals in the Harvard divinity
school library. Zip.
If it was in these books, and it is not, we
should be seeing the true believers post that
evidence from these sources.
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA Classes of gods Part 1 |
06 Aug 2006 11:14:27 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12dddjbo9s38tcd@corp.supernews.com...
George Dance wrote:
OTC, that's a logical conclusion from the premises:
1. If a theist has irrefutably proved God's existence, then there would
be an irrefutable proof of God's existence.
2. There is no irrefutable proof of God's existence.
------------------
3. It is not the case that a theist has irrefutably proved God's
existence.
Bingo, all those text books in the West's
best Universities, in the best divinity schools,
best seminaries, best philosophy departments.
All this and not a tiny shred of evidence
From either side.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: AA Classes of gods Part 1 |
06 Aug 2006 02:18:28 AM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12dddjbo9s38tcd@corp.supernews.com...
George Dance wrote:
OTC, that's a logical conclusion from the premises:
1. If a theist has irrefutably proved God's existence, then there would
be an irrefutable proof of God's existence.
2. There is no irrefutable proof of God's existence.
------------------
3. It is not the case that a theist has irrefutably proved God's
existence.
Bingo, all those text books in the West's
best Universities, in the best divinity schools,
best seminaries, best philosophy departments.
All this and not a tiny shred of evidence
From either side.
I can prove god does not exist.
GOD IS DISPROVEN
(Short version)
CLASSES OF GODS 8-1-06
Preliminary
God as a concept is not really a single concept
To deal with the idea of god it is necessary to
consider god by classes of gods. Broad classes
of god are fairy easy to disprove, and when a
class of gods is disproven all members of that
class with class characteristics are disproven.
This is economical and powerful.
Some gods map onto other classes of gods.
If a class is impossible, a class that maps
onto to that is also impossible. This makes
the concept of classes of gods a very powerful
tool for examining god ideas for viability.
Basically, there are not that many classes of gods,
about 25 or so depending how you count classes of
gods and god like ideas. Some of this is problematic,
is the concept of souls a god class idea or not?
At the bottom of the list of broadest classes of god
ideas, are classes of things hard to decide if they
are truly worth much in this regard.
Some classes of gods, myth cycles of gods can be
mapped to OEC gods or nature gods, or allegorical gods.
One can brek myth cycle gods down to smaller categories,
Celtic, Greek, Roman gods, henotheistic gods, soter gods,
etc, but that adds little to our task at hand and is
really not necessary
OEC or nature god mappings are all that really matter.
Once a class is disproven, all secondary and tertiary
claims and assertions about that class of gods are
disproven. All particular gods of that class and related
doctrines, theologies, and dogmas are eliminated.
THE MAJOR CLASSES OF GODS.
1. The greatest god imaginable
A. Supergods - Ashvara
The greatest god imaginable must be free of all limits
of logic. But then that god, perfect, all good, all
powerful has no limits to eliminating evil. Evil exists,
so this god cannot exist. Its self contradictory
2. Omni-Everything class class gods
Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, creation
of all combine to create multiple overlapping
incompatibilities and contradictions that show
the class of OEC gods cannot exist.
3. Transcendent
4. Immanent
5. Maya
6. Idealism
These classes of gods map onto OEC class gods
and are thus shown to be impossible. An OEC god is
impossible whether its transcendent or immanent.
Each attribute simply adds further problems
to an OEC class god.
7. Deism
A. Maps to OEC
B. Maps to Pantheistism
Deism class gods thus fail.
8. Pantheism
A. Allegorical
B. Metaphysical
Allegorical is useless. There is no mechanism
for the Universe as a whole to be somehow
intelligent, and science can show all that
the Universe does is in fact a matter of physics.
9. Process theology/metaphysics god
This class of gods has failed. Designed as a
metaphysical rather than revealed god, process
theology from the beginning invented its own
physics and hung its god on that. This physics is
wrong and this god does not work with modern physics,
ruling it out as a viable class of gods.
10. Nature gods
A. Nature gods, numina etc
B. Tutelary gods, guardians of
places, sites, people.
Science has removed room for nature gods. Only science can
explain rain, crop fertility and natural phenomenon. The huge
swarms of nature gods of the past, cannot explain anything.
Nature gods are either reflections of real nature, in which
case the lack of real nature such as jet streams, techtonic
plate movements, atoms, chemistry principles, true biology
principles show the ancients were just guessing and not at
the important underlying forces of nature.
And of course the other aspect, revelation is absent here.
No god's came down to man and introduced themselves,
the gods of quarks, the goddess of the strong nuclear force,
or the goddess of gravity.
Obviously, then, nature gods are impossible and useless.
Related are tutelary gods, gods that offer protection to state,
cities, homes, tribes, families, children, women, personal
protection, et al, these are simply nonsense.
They never protected much, life was always cheap, whole states,
towns, cities, peoples were destroyed despite supposed protector
gods in the past. All the gods of Gaul did not protect them from
the Romans, the Roman gods did not protect them from barbarians.
Without modern medicine, vast numbers of people died alone
and in vast epidemics.
Tutelary gods and nature gods did not help even a little bit here.
For the vast numbers of people in the past, this was religion.
Science leaves no room for them.
11. Myth cycle gods.
A. Maps to OEC class
B. Maps to Nature god
C. Maps to allegorical god class
D. Maps to tutelary gods.
12. Allegorical gods, gods and goddesses that are
simple personifications of human nature or nature itself.
Hope, fear, love, and similar. Ate, goddess of violence,
Fama, goddess of rumor, Eris, goddess of discord, etc.
The stuff of poets, not really meant to be taken seriously.
Useless to explain the creation of this world, or anything
about it.
LESSOR THINGS.
Stuff so low down the food chain its not worth discussing,
spirits, fairies and nonsense.
Nothing that can take the place of god.
Thus we can start with the most powerful imaginable classes
of gods and work down to fairies and there simply is no
viable class of gods.
All viable particular gods are thus disproven.
God cannot exist.
(End)
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA Classes of gods Part 1 |
07 Aug 2006 12:16:51 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12ddqbhhutu8q92@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12dddjbo9s38tcd@corp.supernews.com...
George Dance wrote:
OTC, that's a logical conclusion from the premises:
1. If a theist has irrefutably proved God's existence, then there would
be an irrefutable proof of God's existence.
2. There is no irrefutable proof of God's existence.
------------------
3. It is not the case that a theist has irrefutably proved God's
existence.
Bingo, all those text books in the West's
best Universities, in the best divinity schools,
best seminaries, best philosophy departments.
All this and not a tiny shred of evidence
From either side.
I can prove god does not exist.
GOD IS DISPROVEN
(Short version)
CLASSES OF GODS 8-1-06
Preliminary
God as a concept is not really a single concept
To deal with the idea of god it is necessary to
consider god by classes of gods.
And you've failed to disprove god by using classes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: AA Classes of gods Part 1 |
07 Aug 2006 02:38:59 AM |
|
|
And you've failed to disprove god by using classes.
GOD IS DISPROVEN
(Short version)
CLASSES OF GODS 8-1-06
Preliminary
God as a concept is not really a single concept
To deal with the idea of god it is necessary to
consider god by classes of gods. Broad classes
of god are fairy easy to disprove, and when a
class of gods is disproven all members of that
class with class characteristics are disproven.
This is economical and powerful.
Some gods map onto other classes of gods.
If a class is impossible, a class that maps
onto to that is also impossible. This makes
the concept of classes of gods a very powerful
tool for examining god ideas for viability.
Basically, there are not that many classes of gods,
about 25 or so depending how you count classes of
gods and god like ideas. Some of this is problematic,
is the concept of souls a god class idea or not?
At the bottom of the list of broadest classes of god
ideas, are classes of things hard to decide if they
are truly worth much in this regard.
Some classes of gods, myth cycles of gods can be
mapped to OEC gods or nature gods, or allegorical gods.
One can brek myth cycle gods down to smaller categories,
Celtic, Greek, Roman gods, henotheistic gods, soter gods,
etc, but that adds little to our task at hand and is
really not necessary
OEC or nature god mappings are all that really matter.
Once a class is disproven, all secondary and tertiary
claims and assertions about that class of gods are
disproven. All particular gods of that class and related
doctrines, theologies, and dogmas are eliminated.
THE MAJOR CLASSES OF GODS.
1. The greatest god imaginable
A. Supergods - Ashvara
The greatest god imaginable must be free of all limits
of logic. But then that god, perfect, all good, all
powerful has no limits to eliminating evil. Evil exists,
so this god cannot exist. Its self contradictory
2. Omni-Everything class class gods
Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, creation
of all combine to create multiple overlapping
incompatibilities and contradictions that show
the class of OEC gods cannot exist.
3. Transcendent
4. Immanent
5. Maya
6. Idealism
These classes of gods map onto OEC class gods
and are thus shown to be impossible. An OEC god is
impossible whether its transcendent or immanent.
Each attribute simply adds further problems
to an OEC class god.
7. Deism
A. Maps to OEC
B. Maps to Pantheistism
Deism class gods thus fail.
8. Pantheism
A. Allegorical
B. Metaphysical
Allegorical is useless. There is no mechanism
for the Universe as a whole to be somehow
intelligent, and science can show all that
the Universe does is in fact a matter of physics.
9. Process theology/metaphysics god
This class of gods has failed. Designed as a
metaphysical rather than revealed god, process
theology from the beginning invented its own
physics and hung its god on that. This physics is
wrong and this god does not work with modern physics,
ruling it out as a viable class of gods.
10. Nature gods
A. Nature gods, numina etc
B. Tutelary gods, guardians of
places, sites, people.
Science has removed room for nature gods. Only science can
explain rain, crop fertility and natural phenomenon. The huge
swarms of nature gods of the past, cannot explain anything.
Nature gods are either reflections of real nature, in which
case the lack of real nature such as jet streams, techtonic
plate movements, atoms, chemistry principles, true biology
principles show the ancients were just guessing and not at
the important underlying forces of nature.
And of course the other aspect, revelation is absent here.
No god's came down to man and introduced themselves,
the gods of quarks, the goddess of the strong nuclear force,
or the goddess of gravity.
Obviously, then, nature gods are impossible and useless.
Related are tutelary gods, gods that offer protection to state,
cities, homes, tribes, families, children, women, personal
protection, et al, these are simply nonsense.
They never protected much, life was always cheap, whole states,
towns, cities, peoples were destroyed despite supposed protector
gods in the past. All the gods of Gaul did not protect them from
the Romans, the Roman gods did not protect them from barbarians.
Without modern medicine, vast numbers of people died alone
and in vast epidemics.
Tutelary gods and nature gods did not help even a little bit here.
For the vast numbers of people in the past, this was religion.
Science leaves no room for them.
11. Myth cycle gods.
A. Maps to OEC class
B. Maps to Nature god
C. Maps to allegorical god class
D. Maps to tutelary gods.
12. Allegorical gods, gods and goddesses that are
simple personifications of human nature or nature itself.
Hope, fear, love, and similar. Ate, goddess of violence,
Fama, goddess of rumor, Eris, goddess of discord, etc.
The stuff of poets, not really meant to be taken seriously.
Useless to explain the creation of this world, or anything
about it.
LESSOR THINGS.
Stuff so low down the food chain its not worth discussing,
spirits, fairies and nonsense.
Nothing that can take the place of god.
Thus we can start with the most powerful imaginable classes
of gods and work down to fairies and there simply is no
viable class of gods.
All viable particular gods are thus disproven.
God cannot exist.
(End)
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA Classes of gods Part 1 Barwell DEBUNKED |
08 Aug 2006 12:19:54 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12dgftvfjodb035@corp.supernews.com...
And you've failed to disprove god by using classes.
GOD IS DISPROVEN
(Short version)
CLASSES OF GODS 8-1-06
Preliminary
God as a concept is not really a single concept
To deal with the idea of god it is necessary to
consider god by classes of gods.
No it's not. It may be necessary for you to throw up a smokescreen via
classes but people have been dealing with beliefs in god on a case by case
basis for a long time.
Broad classes
of god are fairy easy to disprove
Since you've never done that, the above is an unsupported assertion. We'll
see many more of your unsupported assertions below.
, and when a
class of gods is disproven all members of that
class with class characteristics are disproven.
This is economical and powerful.
That would only be true if
1. All the members of a class actually belonged there.
2. Each member of the class truly represented the beliefs of those the class
pretained to.
Since your OEC class does not represent the beliefs of all the religions you
say it represents, anything you said that was true about it would not be
representative and so would not advance your argument.
Some gods map onto other classes of gods.
Here we see one of Gardner's characteristics of the crank. "map onto" is
one of your typical neologisms. Used more to obscure than to elucidate.
Map Why? Map How?
If a class is impossible, a class that maps
onto to that is also impossible.
Map Why? Map How?
This makes
the concept of classes of gods a very powerful
tool for examining god ideas for viability.
No. It just makes the subject of supposedly being able to disprove the
existence of every possible god unnecessarily cloudy and makes one wonder
what you're really up to. It was your 'class' gimmick that first alerted me
to the smell of a weak argument.
Basically, there are not that many classes of gods,
about 25 or so depending how you count classes of
gods and god like ideas.
What is the criteria you used to establish your classes? I would think that
an honest argument would want to stipulate that up front.
Some of this is problematic,
is the concept of souls a god class idea or not?
At the bottom of the list of broadest classes of god
ideas, are classes of things hard to decide if they
are truly worth much in this regard.
Worth much in what regard? Why? Who decides what kind of god is "worth
consideration?" Since you purport to prove that all possible gods are in
fact impossible, how can you state that any god is 'not truly worth much.'?
Shall we translate "not truly worth much" as impossible for Barwell to even
form an argument on or impossible for Barwell to disprove?
Some classes of gods, myth cycles of gods can be
mapped to OEC gods or nature gods, or allegorical gods.
Mapped How? Mapped Why?
One can brek myth cycle gods down to smaller categories,
Celtic, Greek, Roman gods, henotheistic gods, soter gods,
etc, but that adds little to our task at hand and is
really not necessary
Why not? You're being extremely evasive for someone who is proposing an
argument that disproves the possible existence of any god. It's interesting
that for a guy who is more than willing to keep on rehashing pages worth of
wordy garbage, you seem so intent on simply brushing by the basics.
OEC or nature god mappings are all that really matter.
Who are you to decide that? On what basis do you make the decision?
Further, if you're attempting to disprove ALL gods it follows logically that
all possible gods would 'really matter.' After all, for someone concluding
that 'no god can exist' the possible existence of even one tiny god would in
fact disprove your entire argument.
Once a class is disproven, all secondary and tertiary
claims and assertions about that class of gods are
disproven.
Why? How does a class get disproven. For example, you've failed
spectacularly to disprove or even define the class of gods containing every
god who is 'less than omnipotent.' Your failure was so spectacular and so
complete that you now have retracted the class and chosen to call it the
more shadowy "metaphysical" class. Notably below, you still fail to define
that class, much less disprove it. Your so-called class of 'magnipotent
gods, AKA Process Theology AKA Metaphysics gods.' Since this is the case,
how can we know that secondary, tertiary and other claims about THAT class
of gods are disproven?
All particular gods of that class and related
doctrines, theologies, and dogmas are eliminated.
Again, how? Since you haven't accomplished this for ANY class of gods, how
can we know that it logically follows that all particular gods of that class
are eliminated. Are you simply stating that IN THEORY IF YOU COULD disprove
a particular class all those gods would be disproven?
THE MAJOR CLASSES OF GODS.
1. The greatest god imaginable
A. Supergods - Ashvara
The greatest god imaginable must be free of all limits
of logic.
Non sequitur.
You haven't shown why a greatest god imaginable MUST LOGICALLY be free of
logic.
2. Omni-Everything class class gods
Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, creation
of all combine to create multiple overlapping
incompatibilities and contradictions that show
the class of OEC gods cannot exist.
The one god that fits the description was demolished by the Argument from
evil. So there's nothing novel here at all.
3. Transcendent
4. Immanent
5. Maya
6. Idealism
These classes of gods map onto OEC class gods
and are thus shown to be impossible.
1. You haven't shown how they 'map' [to use your neologism] onto OEC gods
[another neologism].
2. Hence, they are not shown to be impossible.
An OEC god is
impossible whether its transcendent or immanent.
You haven't explained why this is logically true.
7. Deism
A. Maps to OEC
Maps How?
B. Maps to Pantheistism
1. No such word.
2. You fail to explain or define or offer any argument for Panentheism, a
major modern theological movement.
So again, your argument fails.
Deism class gods thus fail.
1. You haven't shown why.
2. Hence they do not fail.
8. Pantheism
A. Allegorical
B. Metaphysical
Allegorical is useless. There is no mechanism
for the Universe as a whole to be somehow
intelligent, and science can show all that
the Universe does is in fact a matter of physics.
1. How do YOU know there is no such mechanism and can you prove it?
2. The findings of physics do not disprove the possible existence of a god.
Hence you've failed again.
9. Process theology/metaphysics god
This class of gods has failed.
1. This is the class of gods you've repackaged when it was pointed out that
you had in fact NO argument against a class of 'less than omnipotent gods'
2. You've failed to define this class.
3. You've failed to show how process theology completely exhausts the
possibilities of a 'matephysical god.'
4. Hence, you've not shown how this class is impossible.
As I page through all of your arbitrary pronouncements and evasions and sly
language, I note that all you're really indulging in is argument by
assertion. A well known logical fallacy, the argument from assertion simply
states an unsupported assertion in some form that looks in passing like a
logical argument, but is really nothing more than a disguised opinion.
Designed as a
metaphysical rather than revealed god, process
theology from the beginning invented its own
physics and hung its god on that.
1. That's a lie. Process Philosophy was designed in order to accord with
what is known about physics.
2. You still haven't shown how such a god is impossible logically
3. You have not even begun to address other 'metaphysical' gods or even
define what the class consists of or why a metaphysical class of gods is in
itself impossible.
4. At this point, your argument breaks down completely.
You've managed to fail yet again, Mr. Barwell. It looks as though you
actually have no argument at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: AA Classes of gods Part 1 Barwell DEBUNKED |
07 Aug 2006 03:44:33 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
No it's not. It may be necessary for you to throw up a smokescreen via
classes but people have been dealing with beliefs in god on a case by case
basis for a long time.
You are a moron
GOD IS DISPROVEN
(Short version)
CLASSES OF GODS 8-1-06
Preliminary
God as a concept is not really a single concept
To deal with the idea of god it is necessary to
consider god by classes of gods. Broad classes
of god are fairy easy to disprove, and when a
class of gods is disproven all members of that
class with class characteristics are disproven.
This is economical and powerful.
Some gods map onto other classes of gods.
If a class is impossible, a class that maps
onto to that is also impossible. This makes
the concept of classes of gods a very powerful
tool for examining god ideas for viability.
Basically, there are not that many classes of gods,
about 25 or so depending how you count classes of
gods and god like ideas. Some of this is problematic,
is the concept of souls a god class idea or not?
At the bottom of the list of broadest classes of god
ideas, are classes of things hard to decide if they
are truly worth much in this regard.
Some classes of gods, myth cycles of gods can be
mapped to OEC gods or nature gods, or allegorical gods.
One can brek myth cycle gods down to smaller categories,
Celtic, Greek, Roman gods, henotheistic gods, soter gods,
etc, but that adds little to our task at hand and is
really not necessary
OEC or nature god mappings are all that really matter.
Once a class is disproven, all secondary and tertiary
claims and assertions about that class of gods are
disproven. All particular gods of that class and related
doctrines, theologies, and dogmas are eliminated.
THE MAJOR CLASSES OF GODS.
1. The greatest god imaginable
A. Supergods - Ashvara
The greatest god imaginable must be free of all limits
of logic. But then that god, perfect, all good, all
powerful has no limits to eliminating evil. Evil exists,
so this god cannot exist. Its self contradictory
2. Omni-Everything class class gods
Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, creation
of all combine to create multiple overlapping
incompatibilities and contradictions that show
the class of OEC gods cannot exist.
3. Transcendent
4. Immanent
5. Maya
6. Idealism
These classes of gods map onto OEC class gods
and are thus shown to be impossible. An OEC god is
impossible whether its transcendent or immanent.
Each attribute simply adds further problems
to an OEC class god.
7. Deism
A. Maps to OEC
B. Maps to Pantheistism
Deism class gods thus fail.
8. Pantheism
A. Allegorical
B. Metaphysical
Allegorical is useless. There is no mechanism
for the Universe as a whole to be somehow
intelligent, and science can show all that
the Universe does is in fact a matter of physics.
9. Process theology/metaphysics god
This class of gods has failed. Designed as a
metaphysical rather than revealed god, process
theology from the beginning invented its own
physics and hung its god on that. This physics is
wrong and this god does not work with modern physics,
ruling it out as a viable class of gods.
10. Nature gods
A. Nature gods, numina etc
B. Tutelary gods, guardians of
places, sites, people.
Science has removed room for nature gods. Only science can
explain rain, crop fertility and natural phenomenon. The huge
swarms of nature gods of the past, cannot explain anything.
Nature gods are either reflections of real nature, in which
case the lack of real nature such as jet streams, techtonic
plate movements, atoms, chemistry principles, true biology
principles show the ancients were just guessing and not at
the important underlying forces of nature.
And of course the other aspect, revelation is absent here.
No god's came down to man and introduced themselves,
the gods of quarks, the goddess of the strong nuclear force,
or the goddess of gravity.
Obviously, then, nature gods are impossible and useless.
Related are tutelary gods, gods that offer protection to state,
cities, homes, tribes, families, children, women, personal
protection, et al, these are simply nonsense.
They never protected much, life was always cheap, whole states,
towns, cities, peoples were destroyed despite supposed protector
gods in the past. All the gods of Gaul did not protect them from
the Romans, the Roman gods did not protect them from barbarians.
Without modern medicine, vast numbers of people died alone
and in vast epidemics.
Tutelary gods and nature gods did not help even a little bit here.
For the vast numbers of people in the past, this was religion.
Science leaves no room for them.
11. Myth cycle gods.
A. Maps to OEC class
B. Maps to Nature god
C. Maps to allegorical god class
D. Maps to tutelary gods.
12. Allegorical gods, gods and goddesses that are
simple personifications of human nature or nature itself.
Hope, fear, love, and similar. Ate, goddess of violence,
Fama, goddess of rumor, Eris, goddess of discord, etc.
The stuff of poets, not really meant to be taken seriously.
Useless to explain the creation of this world, or anything
about it.
LESSOR THINGS.
Stuff so low down the food chain its not worth discussing,
spirits, fairies and nonsense.
Nothing that can take the place of god.
Thus we can start with the most powerful imaginable classes
of gods and work down to fairies and there simply is no
viable class of gods.
All viable particular gods are thus disproven.
God cannot exist.
(End)
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA Classes of gods Part 1 Barwell DEBUNKED |
08 Aug 2006 03:55:50 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12dhtusdhiaaqa0@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
No it's not. It may be necessary for you to throw up a smokescreen via
classes but people have been dealing with beliefs in god on a case by
case
basis for a long time.
You are a moron
Argument by Ad hominem noted.
GOD IS DISPROVEN
(Short version)
CLASSES OF GODS 8-1-06
Preliminary
God as a concept is not really a single concept
To deal with the idea of god it is necessary to
consider god by classes of gods.
No it's not. It may be necessary for you to throw up a smokescreen via
classes but people have been dealing with beliefs in god on a case by case
basis for a long time.
Broad classes
of god are fairy easy to disprove
Since you've never done that, the above is an unsupported assertion. We'll
see many more of your unsupported assertions below.
, and when a
class of gods is disproven all members of that
class with class characteristics are disproven.
This is economical and powerful.
That would only be true if
1. All the members of a class actually belonged there.
2. Each member of the class truly represented the beliefs of those the class
pretained to.
Since your OEC class does not represent the beliefs of all the religions you
say it represents, anything you said that was true about it would not be
representative and so would not advance your argument.
Some gods map onto other classes of gods.
Here we see one of Gardner's characteristics of the crank. "map onto" is
one of your typical neologisms. Used more to obscure than to elucidate.
Map Why? Map How?
If a class is impossible, a class that maps
onto to that is also impossible.
Map Why? Map How?
This makes
the concept of classes of gods a very powerful
tool for examining god ideas for viability.
No. It just makes the subject of supposedly being able to disprove the
existence of every possible god unnecessarily cloudy and makes one wonder
what you're really up to. It was your 'class' gimmick that first alerted me
to the smell of a weak argument.
Basically, there are not that many classes of gods,
about 25 or so depending how you count classes of
gods and god like ideas.
What is the criteria you used to establish your classes? I would think that
an honest argument would want to stipulate that up front.
Some of this is problematic,
is the concept of souls a god class idea or not?
At the bottom of the list of broadest classes of god
ideas, are classes of things hard to decide if they
are truly worth much in this regard.
Worth much in what regard? Why? Who decides what kind of god is "worth
consideration?" Since you purport to prove that all possible gods are in
fact impossible, how can you state that any god is 'not truly worth much.'?
Shall we translate "not truly worth much" as impossible for Barwell to even
form an argument on or impossible for Barwell to disprove?
Some classes of gods, myth cycles of gods can be
mapped to OEC gods or nature gods, or allegorical gods.
Mapped How? Mapped Why?
One can brek myth cycle gods down to smaller categories,
Celtic, Greek, Roman gods, henotheistic gods, soter gods,
etc, but that adds little to our task at hand and is
really not necessary
Why not? You're being extremely evasive for someone who is proposing an
argument that disproves the possible existence of any god. It's interesting
that for a guy who is more than willing to keep on rehashing pages worth of
wordy garbage, you seem so intent on simply brushing by the basics.
OEC or nature god mappings are all that really matter.
Who are you to decide that? On what basis do you make the decision?
Further, if you're attempting to disprove ALL gods it follows logically that
all possible gods would 'really matter.' After all, for someone concluding
that 'no god can exist' the possible existence of even one tiny god would in
fact disprove your entire argument.
Once a class is disproven, all secondary and tertiary
claims and assertions about that class of gods are
disproven.
Why? How does a class get disproven. For example, you've failed
spectacularly to disprove or even define the class of gods containing every
god who is 'less than omnipotent.' Your failure was so spectacular and so
complete that you now have retracted the class and chosen to call it the
more shadowy "metaphysical" class. Notably below, you still fail to define
that class, much less disprove it. Your so-called class of 'magnipotent
gods, AKA Process Theology AKA Metaphysics gods.' Since this is the case,
how can we know that secondary, tertiary and other claims about THAT class
of gods are disproven?
All particular gods of that class and related
doctrines, theologies, and dogmas are eliminated.
Again, how? Since you haven't accomplished this for ANY class of gods, how
can we know that it logically follows that all particular gods of that class
are eliminated. Are you simply stating that IN THEORY IF YOU COULD disprove
a particular class all those gods would be disproven?
THE MAJOR CLASSES OF GODS.
1. The greatest god imaginable
A. Supergods - Ashvara
The greatest god imaginable must be free of all limits
of logic.
Non sequitur.
You haven't shown why a greatest god imaginable MUST LOGICALLY be free of
logic.
2. Omni-Everything class class gods
Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, creation
of all combine to create multiple overlapping
incompatibilities and contradictions that show
the class of OEC gods cannot exist.
The one god that fits the description was demolished by the Argument from
evil. So there's nothing novel here at all.
3. Transcendent
4. Immanent
5. Maya
6. Idealism
These classes of gods map onto OEC class gods
and are thus shown to be impossible.
1. You haven't shown how they 'map' [to use your neologism] onto OEC gods
[another neologism].
2. Hence, they are not shown to be impossible.
An OEC god is
impossible whether its transcendent or immanent.
You haven't explained why this is logically true.
7. Deism
A. Maps to OEC
Maps How?
B. Maps to Pantheistism
1. No such word.
2. You fail to explain or define or offer any argument for Panentheism, a
major modern theological movement.
So again, your argument fails.
Deism class gods thus fail.
1. You haven't shown why.
2. Hence they do not fail.
8. Pantheism
A. Allegorical
B. Metaphysical
Allegorical is useless. There is no mechanism
for the Universe as a whole to be somehow
intelligent, and science can show all that
the Universe does is in fact a matter of physics.
1. How do YOU know there is no such mechanism and can you prove it?
2. The findings of physics do not disprove the possible existence of a god.
Hence you've failed again.
9. Process theology/metaphysics god
This class of gods has failed.
1. This is the class of gods you've repackaged when it was pointed out that
you had in fact NO argument against a class of 'less than omnipotent gods'
2. You've failed to define this class.
3. You've failed to show how process theology completely exhausts the
possibilities of a 'matephysical god.'
4. Hence, you've not shown how this class is impossible.
As I page through all of your arbitrary pronouncements and evasions and sly
language, I note that all you're really indulging in is argument by
assertion. A well known logical fallacy, the argument from assertion simply
states an unsupported assertion in some form that looks in passing like a
logical argument, but is really nothing more than a disguised opinion.
Designed as a
metaphysical rather than revealed god, process
theology from the beginning invented its own
physics and hung its god on that.
1. That's a lie. Process Philosophy was designed in order to accord with
what is known about physics.
2. You still haven't shown how such a god is impossible logically
3. You have not even begun to address other 'metaphysical' gods or even
define what the class consists of or why a metaphysical class of gods is in
itself impossible.
4. At this point, your argument breaks down completely.
You've managed to fail yet again, Mr. Barwell. It looks as though you
actually have no argument at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: AA Classes of gods Part 1 Barwell wins debate, gandy squawks |
07 Aug 2006 05:05:55 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
You are a moron
Argument by Ad hominem noted.
Not an argument, just an observation of your low mental abilities.
My argument stands on its own.
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA Classes of gods Part 1 Barwell DEBUNKED |
08 Aug 2006 05:19:09 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12di2ned3jsu013@corp.supernews.com...
My argument stands on its own.
LOL. Your argument stands on its own head.
And your little trick of clipping headers isn't going to work, Barwell.
.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
