rugged individuals wrote:

"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

You, OTOH, have made comments which are bald-faced lies.

Would you rather I serve up hairy-faced lies? Wouldn't that make them
pricklier?

It would be nie iof you'd stop offering up lies, bull doo doo
and nonsense all together.

And as a student of Anthony Robbins, allow me to assert as a principle of
"Unlimited Power" that we all should "lie with integrity."

Integrity is being able to call a spade a spade and
to reason when your ideas are shown to be full of holes.
Many at this point abandon reason to prop up myths and failed religions.
That ios no integrity. Its superstition and irrationality.

Regardless of how Tony intended to mean that, I suggest that its
usefulness for us here is to accept that when something is advanced for
discussion it may or may not be true (that's the subject for discussion)
but we should believe what we are saying, and that what others are saying
in turn is believed by them. In other words, nobody is trying to deceive
anyone else with *****.

As we know, I can't prove God to you anymore than you can disprove Him to
me.

I can disprove god. But only if you will not abandon reason for myth.


******************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #1
William C. Barwell 3-8-05
******************************************************

1. Orthodox theology makes several very basic
dogmatic claims about god.

2. A. God is omnipotent
B. God is omniscient
C. God is omnibenevolent
D. God created the entire world
E. God is merciful

3. If god creates a world and everthing in it,
and he is omniscient, he knows everything that
is or will be in that Universe and any future
actions that will take place in that Universe.

4. He knows what a concious being will do in any possible
world he will create. If he creates a world that
at a future date has a man named John Smith, god
would know that there will indeed be a John Smith.

5. Being omniscient, he knows what Smith will do.
He will know in any possible world if Smith is good,
a believer and saved, or is evil and damned.

6. He would then have a choice. Create the contemplated
world with an evil Smith or not. He could easily
change his mind and create a world with a good Smith
instead. God may easily chose any world he wishes,
he has no constraints on his omnipotence.

7. Smith has no choice in the matter, he has no say in
being created, or being created as a good Smith or
an evil Smith. All choice is god's choice alone.

8. Thus Smith has no free will. If he is evil it is
solely because god made the concious and purposeful
decision to create an evil Smith who does moral evil.
Smith's actions, and all his intentions and mental states
are predetermined and created in actuality by god.
He can have no free will even in principle. God does
not create a Smith with free will and turn his loose
in an undetermined Universe. All real acts and all real
mental states of Smith have been considered by god, and
chosen from among many possiblibilities and purposefully
created by god to the smallest detail by god alone,
involving all time within Smith's life, second by second.

9. Nobody has free will. All decisions to create any
man or woman or other sentient beings, angels or devils,
that are good or evil are made by knowingly by god.
If any man or woman or being does moral evil it is
solely and only because god decided to create a world
where they exist and do evil and are damned.
All actions of these beings are specifically chosen
and created by god in the most finegrained manner
physically possible in any Universe God actually
creates, down to the smallest possible actually
existant quantum time and space scales in this world.

10 But god is alledegly omnibenevolent. That is all
good. If he creates men and women or beings who do
moral evil, moral evil exists solely and only because
god knowingly creates morally evil, sentient beings.

11. Since it is god who allows morally evil sentient beings
to exist, he is the creator and sustaining cause of
all moral evil in the Universe, and he could just as
easily created all men to do only moral good, but
specifically and purposefully chose not to do so.

12. Since free will is not possible for man, not even
in principle, there is no way to blame evil on man.
Smith if he is evil is evil because god created him
knowingly as a morally evil man. If he is good, he is
good only because god chose to create him good.
And thus no way to claim evil is necessary to allow for
free will which is a common theological claim.
Free will thus cannot be used to get god out of any
blame for existance of moral evil in the world.

13. An omnibenevolent god cannot, because he is indeed
omnibenevolent, create moral evil by definition.

14. Morally evil men and women exist.

15. Thus a god who is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent
4. Creator of the entire world
5. Merciful
Cannot exist in a world where moral evil exists.

16. If such a god existed, free will cannot exist.

17. A god that creates a man as evil, then tortures him
for all eternity for evil acts god created him doing,
who could have made him good, made all his acts good,
created him good a believer and saved, is the one who
is evil, not the man so created evil who had no choice
in this at all. Such a god cannot be said to be
omnibenevolent nor merciful, probably cannot even
be claimed to be sane.

(End)

****************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #2
William C. Barwell 3-14-05
****************************************************

1. God is said to be omnibenevolent, all good.

2. God is also said to have free will.

3. God is also said to be omnipotent.

4. By omnibenevolent, it is meant that god is said
to be incapable of doing evil.

5. But does not this mean god is not omnipotent?
Doesn't god's omnibenevolence limit his omnipotence?

6. No. God has a good nature. He does not do evil.
But he has the very real power to do evil if
he was not restrained by his good nature.
Thus his good nature does not affect his omnipotence.

7. Nor does this then affect his free will. Merely
having a good nature in no way can effect his
having free will. Men may be goodly or evil,
such qualities do not mean they lack free will.
Likewise god's good nature similarly does not
mean god has no free will.

6. So god has free will and a good nature incapable
of doing evil and retains his omnipotence also.

7. Why is there evil in this world? Alledgedly so
man can be said to have free will. Given free
will some men do evil by their own free will.

8. But if god can have free will, and a good nature
incapable of doing moral evil, why then cannot
god likewise give man free will and a good nature
incapable of evil such as god has, thus eliminating
moral evil from this world?

9. If god is as claimed, omnibenevolent and omnipotent
then he is obligated by his omnibenevolence to give
all men free will and a good nature so they will
not sin and be saved. And thus that no moral
evil is allowed to exist in the Universe.

10. Logically then, a god that is simultaneously
omnibenevolent, omnipotent and has free will
cannot exist. Man's free will is not an adequate
excuse to explain the existance of moral evil
and to save a god that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent
and allows moral evil to exist.

(End)
**************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of god #3
William C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************

God is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent

2. Omniscient

3. Omnibenevolent.

4. The most powerful thing that can be imagined.

5. The creator of all.

6. Intelligent and concious, having will.

7. What do we mean by omnipotent?
Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?

8. That really asks the question, does god create the
rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large?
And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason?

9. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.

10. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.

11. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.

12. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.

13. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.

14. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes
him overtly evil.

15. Free will is said to be why evil exists, man is given
free will and sometimes abuses it. But as we can see,
free will cannot save god from blame if he can make the
rules and laws and laws and logic of the Universe.

16. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.

17. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can
be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.

18. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of
ontological proofs are all thus falsified.

19. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.

20. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is falsified also.

21. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Universe that contained evil only because
he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.

22. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 300 BCE. The gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent or possible neither.

23. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.

24. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.

25. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?

26. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other
sciences.

27. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for disembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.

28. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand
God of theological tradition has actual and real
existance.

29. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing theology,
since as demonstrated above, that has proven to
be a total failure as a methodology.

(END)

But I think the discussion of where we're at, sans trash-talk, is
interesting, and valuable, even if it only amounts to (as a truism)
self-affirmation.

--

When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie