| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
26 Sep 2005 07:29:29 AM |
| Object: |
Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
http://imagoveritatis.myatts.net/comments.php?id=24_0_1_0_C
Don't Believe It
I ran into a blog that claims to be based on "reason" alone and it
turned out to be, predictably, run by an Objectivist (with a capital
"O" that means a disciple of Ayn Rand). Objectivism is a form of
atheism, though they tend to focus much more on the positive aspects of
their system rather than getting hung up on the God thing, unlike the
folks over at infidels.org. Anyway, that prompted to me to pull off the
shelf one of the many books that I have bought and put away for future
reading, (whenever that is - heh, heh) and before I knew it I was well
into it. The book is John Robbins' Without A Prayer: Ayn Rand and the
Close of Her System, available here.
Well, the book is a masterpiece, and though I don't follow every detail
of Gordon Clark's philosophy which figures heavily in Robbins'
argument, by the end of the chapter on epistemology he has reduced
Rand's system to a pile of rubble that is hopelessly beyond salvaging.
In fact, one cannot but conclude, after reading this analysis, that
Rand's system, rather than being founded upon reason, is profoundly
irrational. It surely requires a blind leap of faith to grasp. I won't
repeat the arguments here; the reader is encouraged to get the book and
see.
So, in that vein, I have been scrounging around the web to see what
else there is in the blogosphere (hey I'm getting into this new lingo!)
when I came across this piece from Tertius, who complains about
atheists who pretend that they do not have a world view, but rather
that they simply lack a belief in God. He calls this atheism lite -
well put I think - because it IS a cop out, as he shows. I have run
across this kind of thing, of course and after analyzing atheism I came
up with at least four positive philosophical assertions that
necessariliy follow from the denial of the existence of God, which are
discussed on page 10 of my conversations with atheists and which I will
quote here:
So when the atheist denies or says he does not believe in a God, he is
necessarily making a number of positive world view presuppositions
about the nature of the universe. What are some of these? At least the
following:
1) The universe is self-sufficient in its existence and operations. It
is autonomous and not dependent upon another external entity, but
functions based on the laws of nature which determine its character.
2) The principles of knowledge or interpretation of the universe are
contained within and derived from the universe itself. There is no need
for a revelation or interpretation of the universe from a vantage point
outside of the universe. Since there is no outside the universe,
according to the atheist, no such revelation could exist in any case.
Therefore, the ultimate reference point for predication and
interpretation is a principle such as logic, sense perception,
intuition, all of which must exist in the universe, and which were
derived ultimately from human reason. The human mind is autonomous and
is adequate to discover truth on its own, using its own methods. All
truth claims must pass the test of human reason. There is no higher
authority.
3) Right and wrong are relative terms that describe social norms
developed by humankind to enhance its survival and pleasure. There is
no absolute right and wrong and in the end, it is the autonomous human
mind that legislates morality.
4) There is no discernible purpose to history or in the operations and
existence of the universe. The universe is the ultimate reality and it
is impersonal and unconcerned about us or our fate. It is simply there
and appears to be what it is largely as a result of chance. The human
future is undetermined, since there is no divine plan governing it. The
meaning of life is what we make of it based on the decisions of our
autonomous wills, and there is no final meaning in the end.
Each of these four notions corresponds to an interpretation of the four
areas that define a world view: ontology (the nature of reality or
being), epistemology (the theory of how we have and justify knowledge),
ethics (the theory of the ultimate good and of moral action), and
teleology (the theory of the purpose of it all). Thus, we see that the
denial of belief in God necessarily implies a basic set of world view
assumptions (axioms or presuppositions) that form a positive
interpretation of the state of affairs.
So the atheist really has no excuse and nowhere to hide. The assertion
that atheism is just a denial is merely a smokescreen to avoid having
to mount a defense of his position. But that emperor is stark naked.
The atheist who wants any intellectual respect is both philosophically
and morally obligated to defend his beliefs as a system, and that means
defending the above assertions. And that puts his whole system up for
discussion. Once we open that door then it is only a matter of time
before the inherent irrationality of atheism reveals itself and the
atheist has to look squarely in the face that fact that his whole
system is built on a leap of faith, and a blind one at that.
.
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
11 Oct 2005 02:46:34 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:zZO2f.411512$5N3.365881@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Its more than that, if they claim that ID is a scientific
claim, its scientific fraud. As far as that goes,
scientific
fraud is the biggest sin in science.
Yes, pseudo-science trying to masquerade as science --
sort of like the kind
of racist science the Nazis developed.
Scott must be feeling terribly *pressed* this morning,
he's resorting to argumentum ad Hitlerum. I haven't
been following him in this thread, so I don't know
whether he shook his McCarthy or Goebbels voodoo
dolls first. Those are like teddy bears for him.
Ironincally, ID is based on a kind of nihilism that truth
is irrelevant,
Actually, Scott, ID is based on the idea that
the observation of apparent design is really
an observation of actual design.
you
simply rationalize what you want to believe by constructed
a "science"
around it,
Not that this is what ID is doing, but haven't you
argued that all science is a mere "construct," Boris?
So then is far right politics, not a good construct either.
I mean, accepting Bush's lies, tsk, tsk.
and then trying to act politically to get it accepted as
truth.
The core logic behind that approach is the same as the
logic behind the Nazi
approach to science.
Someone in this discussion must have really
rattled Scott's cage. Who was it? Fess up.
ID is as much pseudoscience as Nazi Aryan superority
claims and dangerous for the same reason. Too bad
far right extremists in Germany accepted the former
and far right extremists in America are buying into ID and
creationism and destroying science education is schools
where that is already poor quality as is.
Republican Lysenkoism.
One more reason to abhor modern day American
"conservatism". Its intellectual dishonesty and
stupidity.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
11 Oct 2005 03:25:34 PM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11ko4iv4m1ptbd0@corp.supernews.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:zZO2f.411512$5N3.365881@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Its more than that, if they claim that ID is a
scientific
claim, its scientific fraud. As far as that goes,
scientific
fraud is the biggest sin in science.
Yes, pseudo-science trying to masquerade as science --
sort of like the kind
of racist science the Nazis developed.
Scott must be feeling terribly *pressed* this morning,
he's resorting to argumentum ad Hitlerum. I haven't
been following him in this thread, so I don't know
whether he shook his McCarthy or Goebbels voodoo
dolls first. Those are like teddy bears for him.
Ironincally, ID is based on a kind of nihilism that
truth
is irrelevant,
Actually, Scott, ID is based on the idea that
the observation of apparent design is really
an observation of actual design.
you
simply rationalize what you want to believe by
constructed
a "science"
around it,
Not that this is what ID is doing, but haven't you
argued that all science is a mere "construct," Boris?
So then is far right politics, not a good construct
either.
I mean, accepting Bush's lies, tsk, tsk.
Quiet, imbecile.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
11 Oct 2005 06:27:55 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11ko4iv4m1ptbd0@corp.supernews.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:zZO2f.411512$5N3.365881@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Its more than that, if they claim that ID is a
scientific
claim, its scientific fraud. As far as that goes,
scientific
fraud is the biggest sin in science.
Yes, pseudo-science trying to masquerade as science --
sort of like the kind
of racist science the Nazis developed.
Scott must be feeling terribly *pressed* this morning,
he's resorting to argumentum ad Hitlerum. I haven't
been following him in this thread, so I don't know
whether he shook his McCarthy or Goebbels voodoo
dolls first. Those are like teddy bears for him.
Ironincally, ID is based on a kind of nihilism that
truth
is irrelevant,
Actually, Scott, ID is based on the idea that
the observation of apparent design is really
an observation of actual design.
you
simply rationalize what you want to believe by
constructed
a "science"
around it,
Not that this is what ID is doing, but haven't you
argued that all science is a mere "construct," Boris?
So then is far right politics, not a good construct
either.
I mean, accepting Bush's lies, tsk, tsk.
Quiet, imbecile.
Why? Is Bush about to trot up to the podium
to spew more lies?
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
11 Oct 2005 06:21:05 PM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11kohhvpss1gr33@corp.supernews.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11ko4iv4m1ptbd0@corp.supernews.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message
news:zZO2f.411512$5N3.365881@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Its more than that, if they claim that ID is a
scientific
claim, its scientific fraud. As far as that goes,
scientific
fraud is the biggest sin in science.
Yes, pseudo-science trying to masquerade as science --
sort of like the kind
of racist science the Nazis developed.
Scott must be feeling terribly *pressed* this morning,
he's resorting to argumentum ad Hitlerum. I haven't
been following him in this thread, so I don't know
whether he shook his McCarthy or Goebbels voodoo
dolls first. Those are like teddy bears for him.
Ironincally, ID is based on a kind of nihilism that
truth
is irrelevant,
Actually, Scott, ID is based on the idea that
the observation of apparent design is really
an observation of actual design.
you
simply rationalize what you want to believe by
constructed
a "science"
around it,
Not that this is what ID is doing, but haven't you
argued that all science is a mere "construct," Boris?
So then is far right politics, not a good construct
either.
I mean, accepting Bush's lies, tsk, tsk.
Quiet, imbecile.
Why?
Quiet, imbecile.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
11 Oct 2005 09:47:08 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11kohhvpss1gr33@corp.supernews.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11ko4iv4m1ptbd0@corp.supernews.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message
news:zZO2f.411512$5N3.365881@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Its more than that, if they claim that ID is a
scientific
claim, its scientific fraud. As far as that goes,
scientific
fraud is the biggest sin in science.
Yes, pseudo-science trying to masquerade as science --
sort of like the kind
of racist science the Nazis developed.
Scott must be feeling terribly *pressed* this morning,
he's resorting to argumentum ad Hitlerum. I haven't
been following him in this thread, so I don't know
whether he shook his McCarthy or Goebbels voodoo
dolls first. Those are like teddy bears for him.
Ironincally, ID is based on a kind of nihilism that
truth
is irrelevant,
Actually, Scott, ID is based on the idea that
the observation of apparent design is really
an observation of actual design.
you
simply rationalize what you want to believe by
constructed
a "science"
around it,
Not that this is what ID is doing, but haven't you
argued that all science is a mere "construct," Boris?
So then is far right politics, not a good construct
either.
I mean, accepting Bush's lies, tsk, tsk.
Quiet, imbecile.
Why?
Quiet, imbecile.
You god is dead. Sorry
Part 1
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed for
the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and
Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually logically
derivable from the claimed attribute of omnipotence and
so aren't not truely independent attributes, and may be
considered special aspects of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the only
such god, that he is is immortal and that god has always
existed that are not important for this discussion and for
now, can be ignored. They are secondary arguments and in
no way are foundational or truely necessary, except those
that can be logically derived from the attributes listed
above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a definition
not for a particular god, but an entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here. Christianity
claims one may attain salvation only through Jesus, Islam
claims the Christian dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous. Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a personal,
creator, omni-everything god. I have coined a term,
The Grand God of Grand Theologies for this sort of god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have adopted this
class of god as their basic attributes concerning the nature
of god. But it is important to remember here that what is
being discussed here is a class of gods, not particular gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand Theologies
holding to this basic class of god as their basic
definitions of what god is at god's most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it collapses
rather easily into internal self contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by Epicurus
in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes back
to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is still popular,
and is championed most notably today by Alvin Plantinga.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do evil.
Ability to do evil is less evil than lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature incapable
of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature, this good
nature is not allowed to cound againts god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count against
man's free will than it does for god's free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will and god
does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free will, thus
free will is not a true necessity at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and can give
man a god like free will and a god like good nature
incapable of moral evil, god must do so or god is not
moral, not omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can have
a god like free will and a god like good nature.
Either way, free will cannot explain away the existance
of evil. This free will defense then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all in
the Universe and he knows the future of the Universe
and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, God
will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present state will
have a John Smith, god may then contemplate the future state
of Smith and decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a specific
personal
and will choice made solely by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god. In fact all moral evil done by creations of god
will be evil and do evil only because of personal and willful
creations of god allowing evil acts to be done, by direct
decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient creator god, it
is
solely and only because god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal choices of god, god
then is not as defined, omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a Universe cannot
have
any free will, not even in principle. A Universe with a god
that creates all and knows all precludes free will for all
beings god creates in the strongest possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is incoherent
and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this Grand God,
has been defined here with as few terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defence, free will is fatally flawed.
God's good nature and free will doom claims free
will makes evil necessary for man to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further doom claims of
god's omnibenevolence and man's free will Free will cannot
exist for man. All evil is the direct and knowing creation
of god contradicting claims of omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible, free will
cannot be a good quality, much less neccesary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims and viability
of an entire class of possible gods, all secondary and tertiary
claims for such a god of this class also fail, as do dogmas or
secondary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined, specific gods
cannot, nor can claims such as this or that Grand God sent this
or that relevation to man or some prophet.
***********
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "1956 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
11 Oct 2005 11:27:33 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:47:08 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11kohhvpss1gr33@corp.supernews.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11ko4iv4m1ptbd0@corp.supernews.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message
news:zZO2f.411512$5N3.365881@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Its more than that, if they claim that ID is a
scientific
claim, its scientific fraud. As far as that goes,
scientific
fraud is the biggest sin in science.
Yes, pseudo-science trying to masquerade as science --
sort of like the kind
of racist science the Nazis developed.
Scott must be feeling terribly *pressed* this morning,
he's resorting to argumentum ad Hitlerum. I haven't
been following him in this thread, so I don't know
whether he shook his McCarthy or Goebbels voodoo
dolls first. Those are like teddy bears for him.
Ironincally, ID is based on a kind of nihilism that
truth
is irrelevant,
Actually, Scott, ID is based on the idea that
the observation of apparent design is really
an observation of actual design.
you
simply rationalize what you want to believe by
constructed
a "science"
around it,
Not that this is what ID is doing, but haven't you
argued that all science is a mere "construct," Boris?
So then is far right politics, not a good construct
either.
I mean, accepting Bush's lies, tsk, tsk.
Quiet, imbecile.
Why?
Quiet, imbecile.
You god is dead. Sorry
Part 1
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed for
the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and
Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually logically
derivable from the claimed attribute of omnipotence and
so aren't not truely independent attributes, and may be
considered special aspects of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the only
such god, that he is is immortal and that god has always
existed that are not important for this discussion and for
now, can be ignored. They are secondary arguments and in
no way are foundational or truely necessary, except those
that can be logically derived from the attributes listed
above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a definition
not for a particular god, but an entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here. Christianity
claims one may attain salvation only through Jesus, Islam
claims the Christian dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous. Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a personal,
creator, omni-everything god. I have coined a term,
The Grand God of Grand Theologies for this sort of god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have adopted this
class of god as their basic attributes concerning the nature
of god. But it is important to remember here that what is
being discussed here is a class of gods, not particular gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand Theologies
holding to this basic class of god as their basic
definitions of what god is at god's most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it collapses
rather easily into internal self contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by Epicurus
in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes back
to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is still popular,
and is championed most notably today by Alvin Plantinga.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do evil.
Ability to do evil is less evil than lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature incapable
of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature, this good
nature is not allowed to cound againts god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count against
man's free will than it does for god's free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will and god
does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free will, thus
free will is not a true necessity at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and can give
man a god like free will and a god like good nature
incapable of moral evil, god must do so or god is not
moral, not omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can have
a god like free will and a god like good nature.
Either way, free will cannot explain away the existance
of evil. This free will defense then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all in
the Universe and he knows the future of the Universe
and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, God
will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present state will
have a John Smith, god may then contemplate the future state
of Smith and decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a specific
personal
and will choice made solely by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god. In fact all moral evil done by creations of god
will be evil and do evil only because of personal and willful
creations of god allowing evil acts to be done, by direct
decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient creator god, it
is
solely and only because god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal choices of god, god
then is not as defined, omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a Universe cannot
have
any free will, not even in principle. A Universe with a god
that creates all and knows all precludes free will for all
beings god creates in the strongest possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is incoherent
and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this Grand God,
has been defined here with as few terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defence, free will is fatally flawed.
God's good nature and free will doom claims free
will makes evil necessary for man to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further doom claims of
god's omnibenevolence and man's free will Free will cannot
exist for man. All evil is the direct and knowing creation
of god contradicting claims of omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible, free will
cannot be a good quality, much less neccesary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims and viability
of an entire class of possible gods, all secondary and tertiary
claims for such a god of this class also fail, as do dogmas or
secondary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined, specific gods
cannot, nor can claims such as this or that Grand God sent this
or that relevation to man or some prophet.
I just re-read this, and I would like your permission to post this on
my website under the "Other Voices" section. S'OK?
***********
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
12 Oct 2005 05:44:02 PM |
|
|
1956 Dead wrote:
I just re-read this, and I would like your permission to post
this on
my website under the "Other Voices" section. S'OK?
Be my guest.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
25 Oct 2005 07:17:28 AM |
|
|
In article <11kr3bdlrvn8tdc@corp.supernews.com>, wbarwell says...
1956 Dead wrote:
I just re-read this, and I would like your permission to post
this on
my website under the "Other Voices" section. S'OK?
Be my guest.
Yeah, why should you care, huh? You stole it from the net anyway, right?
Billy, you're such a bag 'o wind.
--
Kurt Nicklas
Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
25 Oct 2005 08:24:24 AM |
|
|
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
In article <11kr3bdlrvn8tdc@corp.supernews.com>, wbarwell says...
1956 Dead wrote:
I just re-read this, and I would like your permission to post
this on
my website under the "Other Voices" section. S'OK?
Be my guest.
Yeah, why should you care, huh? You stole it from the net anyway,
right?
Billy, you're such a bag 'o wind.
Wrote every word myself.
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible
gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
26 Oct 2005 07:05:16 PM |
|
|
In article <11lsbf737hk6h17@corp.supernews.com>, wbarwell says...
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
In article <11kr3bdlrvn8tdc@corp.supernews.com>, wbarwell says...
1956 Dead wrote:
I just re-read this, and I would like your permission to post
this on
my website under the "Other Voices" section. S'OK?
Be my guest.
Yeah, why should you care, huh? You stole it from the net anyway,
right?
Billy, you're such a bag 'o wind.
Wrote every word myself.
Nah, you got everything off the Net and pretend you
originated it.
By the way, there is no way you can logically prove God does
NOT exist.
Firstly, you can't have examined all the evidence, secondly you
can't have looked everywhere and thirdly your obvious preconceived
biases would seem to make it very unlikely that you are capable of
objectively examining any evidence FOR the existance of God.
Like I said, Billy, you're a crank and a crackpot.
But do, please, try to answer my objections with something other than
the usual cut and paste, okay?
--
Kurt Nicklas
Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
26 Oct 2005 10:58:33 PM |
|
|
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
In article <11lsbf737hk6h17@corp.supernews.com>, wbarwell says...
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
In article <11kr3bdlrvn8tdc@corp.supernews.com>, wbarwell says...
1956 Dead wrote:
I just re-read this, and I would like your permission to post
this on
my website under the "Other Voices" section. S'OK?
Be my guest.
Yeah, why should you care, huh? You stole it from the net anyway,
right?
Billy, you're such a bag 'o wind.
Wrote every word myself.
Nah, you got everything off the Net and pretend you
originated it.
By the way, there is no way you can logically prove God does
NOT exist.
Firstly, you can't have examined all the evidence, secondly you
can't have looked everywhere and thirdly your obvious preconceived
biases would seem to make it very unlikely that you are capable of
objectively examining any evidence FOR the existance of God.
Like I said, Billy, you're a crank and a crackpot.
But do, please, try to answer my objections with something other
than the usual cut and paste, okay?
You chatter like a liottle ***** monkey but dare not deal
honestly and directly with my argument. Because you know you can't.
My essay kills your god. You are too cowardly to even read it.
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disprove and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
OMNIPOTENCE AND OMNISCIENCE
A. Omnipotence is a special sort of attribute, of
all god's alledged attributes the most
important, because from that attribute you
can derive others attributes, including
omniscience. If one says for purposes of
argument god is omnipotent, one is also
implying god is also omniscient.
B. If god is omnipotent, god must also
specifically have omniscience because if
he does not have omniscience, one
cannot claim omnipotence as an attribute.
C. Thus if god is omnipotent, and created all,
free will is impossible because creation
and omniscience rule out free will as was
shown. In this world god supposedly created,
evil exists. So god must not be
omnibenevolent as claimed as all evil is
created by god if man cannot have free will.
D. So omnipotence and omnibenevolence are thus
mutually exclusive in a world that does in
fact have evil in it. Because omniscience
must exist as part of omnipotence and
omniscience and creatorhood cannot coexist
with free will, omnipotence is also not
compatible with creatorhood and
omnibenevolence. One cannot finesse this
all by ignoringomniscience or abandoning
omniscience.
E. One can only dispose of omniscience by also
explicitly abandoning omnipotence. If god is
defined as being omnibenevolent then a god
that is also allegedly also creator of all
must be evil.
CREATORHOOD OF GOD
F. One may be tempted to abandon the idea god
created all. But that creates some very strong
logical problems also.
G. If god is omnipotent, he can create all. Or
modify any other creation he does not himself
create. No other being or process may create
something god could not modify, because of the
power of his omniscience.
H. So if for purposes of argument, we claim the
Universe was not created by god, he could,
being omnipotent, change that creation for
his own purposes, that of creating good due
to his attribute of omnibenevolence.
We are back to the problem of evil again, he
could change creation such that no evil John
Smiths can exist.
If not he then is sole and only cause for
existence of all evil.
If god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent he
still must modify any creations he did not
himself create to destroy evil, if he can
do so. So claiming god did not create all
does not save the concept of an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent god. It cannot avoid the
problem of evil.
I. Omniscience means we cannot dodge the problem
of evil by stating god did not create the
Universe even if one wished to, nor by limiting
his creatorhood, for example saying god did not
create the original material of the Universe,
but used it as a building material.
J. Thus to get rid of the creator problem, we must
explicitly abandon it all and totally. Only by
doing so could one get around the problem of
creatorhood and omniscience. But if we say god
cannot either create the Universe or modify it
as he finds it, we drop omniscience also,
explicitly. God then turns out not to be
creator of all nor omnipotent as a priori
defined, a contradiction disproving that
a priori defined god.
K. If evil exists because god could change the
Universe he did not create, and he fails to do
so, then all evil exists solely because
of knowing and personal choices god makes.
L. God being omnipotent cannot be controlled by
any other process or other entities. He may
modify any works or creations made by them.
M. If god cannot change creations of others, or
the pre-existing materials of the Universe,
omnipotence in not an attribute of god as
claimed a priori.
M. Omnipotence and creatorhood thus are entangled
in a manner that makes it hard to abandon the
doctrine god created all and if one does, one
must likewise abandon claims of omnipotence.
PRE-EXISTING MATTER AND A PRE-EXISTING UNIVERSE.
The Greek writer Hesiod in his Theogony, starts
with a Universe that is a chaotic void. This
void, through the mysterious property of
emanation, created the first generation of gods,
the Titans, who in their turn created the
Olympians gods who eventually displace the
Titans as rulers of the world.
Likewise, some theologians see Genesis as
representing god creating the world out of a
similar void, a primordial sea god did not
himself create, but used as raw material for
his creations.
God's existence is not explained.
This idea god did not create all still would not
absolve an omnipotent god from responsibility
for evil. The biblical god if he did not create
the Universe and its component materials used them
as he pleased. If that god is omnipotent, then he
bears all responsibility for the world he did
create out of pre-existing material. Whether
this god is said to be eternal or like Hesiod's
Titans was somehow emanated from the chaos of
the void does not materially change any arguments
involving omnipotence, omniscience or
omnibenevolence, if god is said to have these
attributes.
************************************************
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD PART THREE
Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of
the Universe or not? Is 2 + 2 = 4 something god
set as part of the nature of the Universe or is
that outside and beyond god?
Can god change 2 + 2 to 5?
A. If god did in fact make the rules and laws and
logic of the Universe, god could also change
them as needed.
B. A god that creates the rules.laws and logic
of the world he creates could simply make a
world where man has free will yet freely
chooses only to do moral good. Since god
creates the rules of the Universe, he could
change them in name of omnibenevolence, free
will is perserved and evil is banished. Evil
no longer needs to exist to allow for free
will.
C. If god could do this and fails to, evil
exists solely and only because of god's
failure to use his omnipotence to change
the rules and laws and logic of the Universe
to give man free will and a nature incapable
of doing evil.
D. If god can do this and fails to, god is not
omnibenevolent as claimed, a contradiction
in definitions of god as omnibenevolent and
omnipotent.
E. God in fact since he is essentially the
creator and sustaining cause of all evil
that was, is, and shall be is omni-malevolent.
F. If god does not make the rules, the laws, the
very logic of the Universe, then we have the
problem of what these things are and where
they come from.
G. If these laws and rules and logic limit god,
then god is obviously not omnipotent as
claimed.
H. And thus god is not as claimed, the greatest
thing that can be imagined. Obviously laws
and rules and logic that limit the most
powerful in the Universe are greater
still because they do in fact limit such
a being.
I. If such laws and rules and logic outside and
beyond god do exist, and are thus greater
than god, god is not the greatest thing
imaginable and all ontological 'proofs' that
are based on that basic claim fail.
J. Such rules and laws and logic must exist
outside of god's control and must have always
bee outside his control. If there were ever
in god's control, god cannot have reduced his
power to abandon omnipotence voluntarily.
Omnipotence is an inherent ability. It would
be like abandoning a sense of taste or touch.
This observation forstalls attempts at
apologisms claiming god abandoned any
abilities.
K. And if god could indeed abandon omnipotence,
he must avoid that. After all, he is also
omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolence dictates he
must at all times do the good thing, never an
evil thing. Abandoning omnipotence such that
he could no longer create a world where man
has free will, and a nature incapable of evil
is to allow evil to exist. To abandon
omnipotence is to embrace the proposition
evil is to be allowed to flourish. So any
claims god might have for some greater good
abandoned omnipotence freely are not possible.
L. If god is said to be omnipotent, if he at
anytime gave up any abilities he can no
longer said to be omnipotent, if he actually
gave up any abilities.
M. Since god must have had maximum power and
abilities and cannot have at any time
voluntarilyy relinquished any powers or
abilities, at least in the name of banishing
evil the fact that there are laws and rules
and logic of a universe outside and beyond
god, they aretrulyy beyond and outside god,
and always were.
N. Since such laws and rules and laws are outside
god, and always were so,and are properties of
the Universe, the Universe is likewise outside
and beyond god, with its laws and rules and
logic.
O. Since the Universe and its laws and rules and
logic are outside and beyond god, god is not
as, creator of all.
P. Since the Universe no longer relies on god for
its purportedexistencee, nor on god for the
existencee of its laws and rules and logic,
god is no longer a necessary being. If there
are things that have necessaryexistencee, it
would have to be the Universe as whole, or
possibly its laws, its rules or its logic,
or a subset of these rules or laws or the
underlying causes of these things, if any.
None were created by god or can be modified
by god.
Q. If these laws and rules and logic could be
modified by god, then the rules and laws
and logic of the Universe would have been
modified to enexistencece of evil, and must
be modified this if god is actually
omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
R. God then is not omnipotent, or not
omnibenevolent, or is neither, or
does not exist.
THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF THE
ABOVE EXAMINATION OF GOD
Thus the idea god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent,
and creator of all, clash again
and mutually self-destruct over the issue of
evil'existencece. This raises
serious questions on the nature of the Universe
that cannot be as Grand Theology
claims it is.
A. We have shown god cannot have created the
Universe.
B. We have shown god does not create the laws,
rules and laws of that Universe.
C. That god is thus not omnipotent as these laws
limit him.
D. That god is not the greatest imaginable thing.
E. That ontological proofs of god'existencece
based on claims god is the greatest thing
imaginable are failed arguments.
F. That god cannot be a necessary being, as
claimed.
G. That any possible claims god might for some
reason abandon or limit any abilities cannot
be true in any attempt to avoid this line of
inquiry. Nor can that approach derail logical
examination of consequences of Grand
Theology's overarching claims to god's
attributes or nature.
The fact that god iallegedlyly omnibenevolent and
evil exists, demonstrates god cannot make the
rules of the world. 2 + 2 = 4 because that is
the nature of the Universe, not something god
created.Because if god did create the rules and
laws and logic of the Universe, and was
omnibenevolent, we should have no signs of evil,
especially moral evil of man, Satan, demons and
devils.
But if one admits to that, Many other important
claims collapse, many other arguments about god
and his attributes and nature no longer are
viable. Some of these claims, god's creation
of the Universe are among the oldest and most
basic of theology.
Ontological proofs started with Anselm in the
10th century, all of these now must be abandoned.
The necessary being argument, long a rhetorical
argument is now finally dead.
Free will defenses against the problem of evil
opened up a line of attack here that is powerful
and very final.
**************************************************
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "xeno" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
27 Oct 2005 12:26:20 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, wbarwell wrote:
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will
This doesn't follow. God would be allowing free action from beings that
God has foreknowledge of. To know that someone will do such & such does
not necessarily show that this person doesn't have the freedom to act.
Foreknowledge isn't discernibly different from 100% accuracy in
prediction. All you need to show is that God allowing evil is evil &
therefore God couldn't be all good. If God is defined as such, allowing
for evil contradicts that. Therefore such a God couldn't exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
27 Oct 2005 01:51:10 AM |
|
|
xeno wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, wbarwell wrote:
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will
This doesn't follow. God would be allowing free action from beings
that God has foreknowledge of. To know that someone will do such &
such does not necessarily show that this person doesn't have the
freedom to act. Foreknowledge isn't discernibly different from 100%
accuracy in prediction. All you need to show is that God allowing
evil is evil & therefore God couldn't be all good. If God is defined
as such, allowing for evil contradicts that. Therefore such a God
couldn't exist.
ANOTHER one who cannot READ nor think!
If god creates all and is omniscient,
god does makes a decision as to each
act we shall do, if we shall do it or not.
HE choses. There is no free will, can be no
free will, not even in principle.
He does not KNOW what a person will do,
He actively decides if he will allow that
action to occur or not!
Long before that person can even exist.
God decides what you shall do in the finest
details.
If John Smith, October 29th, cheats on his taxes
in the morning, cheats a business customer at
3:00 in the afternoon, and commits adultery at
7:00, god knows this and must make a decision,
"Do I allow these things to occur as they will
unfold in this Universe as it is now or shall
I change the Universe so that these things will
not happen?".
13 billion years from now.
ONLY god decides. We have no free will because
what we do is CHOSEN, long before we exist.
It is NOT that WE decide and god knows.
It is, god considers how his universe shall unfold
because of cause and effect he sets into motion,
and has to make a decision at every point as to
what to allow and what
to not allow.
Really! What is it about religion that makes it
impossible for you to understand this?
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
29 Oct 2005 09:40:14 AM |
|
|
In article <11m0t5pjpecpp40@corp.supernews.com>, wbarwell says...
xeno wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, wbarwell wrote:
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will
This doesn't follow. God would be allowing free action from beings
that God has foreknowledge of. To know that someone will do such &
such does not necessarily show that this person doesn't have the
freedom to act. Foreknowledge isn't discernibly different from 100%
accuracy in prediction. All you need to show is that God allowing
evil is evil & therefore God couldn't be all good. If God is defined
as such, allowing for evil contradicts that. Therefore such a God
couldn't exist.
ANOTHER one who cannot READ nor think!
If god creates all and is omniscient,
god does makes a decision as to each
act we shall do, if we shall do it or not.
HE choses. There is no free will, can be no
free will, not even in principle.
What does God's omniscience have to do with the
issue of free will, Billy? I think you're mixing
up your proofs.
Are you confused?
--
Kurt Nicklas
Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
31 Oct 2005 09:07:55 AM |
|
|
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
In article <11m0t5pjpecpp40@corp.supernews.com>, wbarwell says...
xeno wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, wbarwell wrote:
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will
This doesn't follow. God would be allowing free action from beings
that God has foreknowledge of. To know that someone will do such &
such does not necessarily show that this person doesn't have the
freedom to act. Foreknowledge isn't discernibly different from
100% accuracy in prediction. All you need to show is that God
allowing evil is evil & therefore God couldn't be all good. If God
is defined as such, allowing for evil contradicts that. Therefore
such a God couldn't exist.
ANOTHER one who cannot READ nor think!
If god creates all and is omniscient,
god does makes a decision as to each
act we shall do, if we shall do it or not.
HE choses. There is no free will, can be no
free will, not even in principle.
What does God's omniscience have to do with the
issue of free will, Billy? I think you're mixing
up your proofs.
Are you confused?
You seem to be stupid.
No, make that STUPID.
Obviously, you are incapable of reading
anything with care, despite the fact I have
repeatedly posted about this.
If there is a god, and that god creates all and
that god is omnipotent, there can be no free will,
for man, even in principle.
Here again, taken from a file I have repeatedly posted
and which you never really bothered to read.
God is defined as creator of all, and as omniscient by
major religious traditions, Judism, Christianity, Islam,
Brahmaninic Hinduism.
*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all in
the Universe and he knows the future of the Universe
and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, God
will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present state will
have a John Smith, god may then contemplate the future state
of Smith and decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a specific
personal and will choice made solely by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god. In fact all moral evil done by creations of god
will be evil and do evil only because of personal and willful
creations of god allowing evil acts to be done, by direct
decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient creator god,
it is solely and only because god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal choices of god,
god then is not as defined, omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a Universe cannot
have any free will, not even in principle. A Universe with
a god that creates all and knows all precludes free will for
all beings god creates in the strongest possible manner.
***********************************************************
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
31 Oct 2005 07:01:33 PM |
|
|
In article <11mcbo4r27vk36@corp.supernews.com>, wbarwell says...
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
In article <11m0t5pjpecpp40@corp.supernews.com>, wbarwell says...
xeno wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, wbarwell wrote:
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will
This doesn't follow. God would be allowing free action from beings
that God has foreknowledge of. To know that someone will do such &
such does not necessarily show that this person doesn't have the
freedom to act. Foreknowledge isn't discernibly different from
100% accuracy in prediction. All you need to show is that God
allowing evil is evil & therefore God couldn't be all good. If God
is defined as such, allowing for evil contradicts that. Therefore
such a God couldn't exist.
ANOTHER one who cannot READ nor think!
If god creates all and is omniscient,
god does makes a decision as to each
act we shall do, if we shall do it or not.
HE choses. There is no free will, can be no
free will, not even in principle.
What does God's omniscience have to do with the
issue of free will, Billy? I think you're mixing
up your proofs.
Are you confused?
You seem to be stupid.
No, make that STUPID.
Obviously, you are incapable of reading
anything with care, despite the fact I have
repeatedly posted about this.
If there is a god, and that god creates all and
that god is omnipotent, there can be no free will,
for man, even in principle.
LOL.
First you connect omniscience with free will and now
it's omnipotence! You are so lame you can't even carry
a thought from one post to another. No wonder you rely
on cut-and-paste spamming.
Heck, you're barely able to put together a readable sentence.
I think this is probably because you are so boiling over with
rage at somebody who doesn't believe what you believe that you
can't even think clearly.
Now, what does God being *omnipotent* have to do with free
will, Billy?
I'll be waiting for an answer.
--
Kurt Nicklas
Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
31 Oct 2005 09:47:44 PM |
|
|
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
In article <11mcbo4r27vk36@corp.supernews.com>, wbarwell says...
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
In article <11m0t5pjpecpp40@corp.supernews.com>, wbarwell says...
xeno wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, wbarwell wrote:
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will
This doesn't follow. God would be allowing free action from
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
