Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith


 Religions > Atheism > Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 33

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

7
 

8
 

9
 

10
 

11
 

12
 

13
 

14
 

15
 

16
 

17
 

18
 

19
 

20
 

21
 

22
 

23
 

24
 

25
 

26
 

27
 

28
 

29
 

30
 

31
 

32
 

33
 
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: "Paul Duca"

Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith 26 Sep 2005 07:16:38 PM
Spoken as only someone can, for whom God hasn't even bother to
scrape something off His sphincter to present to the devout soul.
Paul
.
User: "Bahadur Singh"

Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith 26 Sep 2005 08:02:14 PM
Owww!
"Paul Duca" <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BF5E07A5.157C2%p.duca@comcast.net...

Spoken as only someone can, for whom God hasn't even bother to
scrape something off His sphincter to present to the devout soul.



Paul

.


User: "Soul food"

Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith 26 Sep 2005 02:09:14 PM
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> shamelessly dissembled:

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:

That whole statement is based on the theists presuppositions, not
ours.


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.

Absolute bollocks. Like I said, the presupposition belongs to you lot.
Christians and other theists never tire of telling damnable lies about
atheists, atheism and just about everything else. It's almost as if
they are challenging the god they say they believe in to send them
downstairs. Jeez!
For the record, my atheism is built on the fact that God is a patently
preposterous concept. That analysis has absolutely no regard to the
nature of the universe, although every scrap of scientific knowledge
strengthens that view as it offers plausible rather than fanciful
explanations for natural phenomena including how humans think and
behave.
------------------------------------------------
"The real dichotomy in today's world is between reason and religion.
The future of civilisation rests upon how many people realise that and do something about it."
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
User: "Scott Erb"

Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith 04 Oct 2005 08:03:42 AM
"Soul food" <cthulhu@soulstogo.com> wrote in message
news:k6hgj1dcb6ckv949m8rmquj8tntpr9brtp@4ax.com...

For the record, my atheism is built on the fact that God is a patently
preposterous concept. That analysis has absolutely no regard to the
nature of the universe, although every scrap of scientific knowledge
strengthens that view as it offers plausible rather than fanciful
explanations for natural phenomena including how humans think and
behave.

A God concept as put forth by organized religions does seem preposterous.
But, given that we don't know what caused the creation of space-time, and in
fact can't conceive of reality without space-time, the question about the
fundamental nature of existence remains pretty difficult.
.
User: "HMS Beagle"

Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith 07 Oct 2005 08:35:47 PM
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:03:42 GMT, "Scott Erb"
<scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

A God concept as put forth by organized religions does seem preposterous.
But, given that we don't know what caused the creation of space-time, and in
fact can't conceive of reality without space-time, the question about the
fundamental nature of existence remains pretty difficult.

Oh here we go again with the amorphous, undifferentiated, invisible,
vanilla creator deity.
Which God do you think created spacetime? Jehovah? What about
Brahman? Couldn't Brahman have created spacetime? Or how about
Osiris? (I kinda like Osiris...)
.
User: "Scott Erb"

Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith 08 Oct 2005 08:21:35 AM
"HMS Beagle" <bgates@microsoft.org> wrote in message
news:ve8ek157pdl9veada27d8dlbvfp2oe379f@4ax.com...

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:03:42 GMT, "Scott Erb"
<scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

A God concept as put forth by organized religions does seem preposterous.
But, given that we don't know what caused the creation of space-time, and

in

fact can't conceive of reality without space-time, the question about the
fundamental nature of existence remains pretty difficult.


Oh here we go again with the amorphous, undifferentiated, invisible,
vanilla creator deity.

Which God do you think created spacetime? Jehovah? What about
Brahman? Couldn't Brahman have created spacetime? Or how about
Osiris? (I kinda like Osiris...)

Why does a God have to have created it? If one wants to posit an untestable
god hypothesis, the most logical answer would be a kind of pantheistic
everything is God. But really, it's more a situation where we simply have
no capacity to know or test something outside space-time. That makes it
impossible to anything but speculate without solid grounding on the
existence of a higher deity. That means by definition "Intelligent Design"
is an impossible to test idea, making it completely outside science.
.
User: "wbarwell"

Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith 08 Oct 2005 07:52:25 PM
Scott Erb wrote:


"HMS Beagle" <bgates@microsoft.org> wrote in message
news:ve8ek157pdl9veada27d8dlbvfp2oe379f@4ax.com...

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:03:42 GMT, "Scott Erb"
<scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

A God concept as put forth by organized religions does seem
preposterous. But, given that we don't know what caused the
creation of space-time, and

in

fact can't conceive of reality without space-time, the
question about the fundamental nature of existence remains
pretty difficult.


Oh here we go again with the amorphous, undifferentiated,
invisible, vanilla creator deity.

Which God do you think created spacetime? Jehovah? What
about
Brahman? Couldn't Brahman have created spacetime? Or how
about
Osiris? (I kinda like Osiris...)


Why does a God have to have created it? If one wants to posit
an untestable god hypothesis, the most logical answer would be
a kind of pantheistic
everything is God. But really, it's more a situation where we
simply have
no capacity to know or test something outside space-time. That
makes it impossible to anything but speculate without solid
grounding on the
existence of a higher deity. That means by definition
"Intelligent Design" is an impossible to test idea, making it
completely outside science.

Consider this, 2 + 2 = 4. Now is this an intristic aspect
of the Universe or is it a law god creates, a mere whim.
Does god make the laws, rules and very logic of the Universe?
If so, if the laws and rules are whims of god, then god
could create man to have free will and yet freely choose to
do only moral good. If god could do this and does not evil only
exists because god allows it to exist.
If he could do otherwise, god is thus evil, the creator and
sustaining cause of all evil.
But god is defined a priori as all good, omnibenevolent.
Thus this contradiction disproves god and the idea god
makes the rules is false.
But if such things as 2 + 2 = 4 and man does not have both free
will and a good nature incapable of evil, are outside god's
power, such rules and laws and logic of teh Universe are
ouitside and beyond god.
They are an intristic aspect of the Universe, not god.
As such then, being intristic parts of a Universe outside god
its obvious god cannot have created that Universe.
But again according to a priori definitions, god created the
Universe.
Obviously that must be wrong.
So we know now that the Universe is outside and beyond god and
god cannot have created it unless he is account to be the
creator and sustaining cause of all moral evil. Again, still
contradicting the a priori claim god is omnibenevolent.
And what are teh rules and laws and logic of the Universe we
now know is outside god and are not created by him?
Since god is bound and limited by these things, he is also no
longer capable of being spoken of as omnipotent either.
Nor of being said to be teh most powerful thing that can be
imagined, the Universe is still more powerful with its laws and
rules that limit god.
So much for teh beginning step of Anselm's ontological proof that
collapses here too.
And also so much for claims god is a necessary being, the
Universe can be said to be, and maybe its laws and its rules and
its logic.
By now, god is rather less than necessary for anything.
Can a god even exist? We see no way a possible, thinking,
acting entiuty can exist apart from energy and matter and time
and dimensions, the laws and rules of the Universe outside of
god.
God is rather superflous.
And not that good an idea. Atheism, properly done, is
no leap of faith at all, its simple logic.
the claims of theism simply cannot withstand proper
examination. God as defined, omni-everything, creator
of all, is not a viable idea.
Any attempt to redefine god in light of such critiques, which I
have never seen anybody attempt seriously, must define god down.
Omni-everything has a lot of other severe problems.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
User: "Scott Erb"

Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith 08 Oct 2005 09:50:20 PM
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11kgpdls47au0a9@corp.supernews.com...

Scott Erb wrote:


"HMS Beagle" <bgates@microsoft.org> wrote in message
news:ve8ek157pdl9veada27d8dlbvfp2oe379f@4ax.com...

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:03:42 GMT, "Scott Erb"
<scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

A God concept as put forth by organized religions does seem
preposterous. But, given that we don't know what caused the
creation of space-time, and

in

fact can't conceive of reality without space-time, the
question about the fundamental nature of existence remains
pretty difficult.


Oh here we go again with the amorphous, undifferentiated,
invisible, vanilla creator deity.

Which God do you think created spacetime? Jehovah? What
about
Brahman? Couldn't Brahman have created spacetime? Or how
about
Osiris? (I kinda like Osiris...)


Why does a God have to have created it? If one wants to posit
an untestable god hypothesis, the most logical answer would be
a kind of pantheistic
everything is God. But really, it's more a situation where we
simply have
no capacity to know or test something outside space-time. That
makes it impossible to anything but speculate without solid
grounding on the
existence of a higher deity. That means by definition
"Intelligent Design" is an impossible to test idea, making it
completely outside science.



Consider this, 2 + 2 = 4. Now is this an intristic aspect
of the Universe or is it a law god creates, a mere whim.

It is a description, a human created symbolic represenation of a perceived
ratio.

Does god make the laws, rules and very logic of the Universe?

Perhaps the laws are god.

If so, if the laws and rules are whims of god, then god
could create man to have free will and yet freely choose to
do only moral good. If god could do this and does not evil only
exists because god allows it to exist.

Or god is neither god nor evil, but rather a curious entity that is
exploring the meaning of existence.

If he could do otherwise, god is thus evil, the creator and
sustaining cause of all evil.

Or god is neither good nor evil; those ideas could be human constructs, as
we try to make judgements about the nature of reality and interaction.

But god is defined a priori as all good, omnibenevolent.
Thus this contradiction disproves god and the idea god
makes the rules is false.

That's not my definition of any god, especially a pantheistic one.

But if such things as 2 + 2 = 4 and man does not have both free
will and a good nature incapable of evil, are outside god's
power, such rules and laws and logic of teh Universe are
ouitside and beyond god.

Or these are all part of god. That's why a pantheistic god is the most
logical IF one wants to entertain a god-theory. God is neither good nor
evil in such a theory; god is simply all that is.

They are an intristic aspect of the Universe, not god.
As such then, being intristic parts of a Universe outside god
its obvious god cannot have created that Universe.

Or god is this intrinsic aspect of the universe, which perhaps created
space-time, but outside space-time, where this "god" has its origins,
beginning and end have no meaning. In this case, we're simply unable to
know, analogous to an ant trying to comprehend nuclear physics. It's just
so far beyond the ant, it can't even comprehend the scope of the problem.

But again according to a priori definitions, god created the
Universe.

Obviously that must be wrong.

Well, a "god" can only have created space-time, which is the universe as we
know it. But since space-time was created via the big bang, what came
before that is inherently unknowable.

So we know now that the Universe is outside and beyond god and
god cannot have created it unless he is account to be the
creator and sustaining cause of all moral evil. Again, still
contradicting the a priori claim god is omnibenevolent.

Why would a god be omnibenevolent? What would that even mean?

And what are teh rules and laws and logic of the Universe we
now know is outside god and are not created by him?
Since god is bound and limited by these things, he is also no
longer capable of being spoken of as omnipotent either.

If a god is outside space-time, then it is outside the laws of physics, in a
reality we cannot comprehend.

Nor of being said to be teh most powerful thing that can be
imagined, the Universe is still more powerful with its laws and
rules that limit god.

But the "universe" is a chunk of space-time, which was created at the time
of the big bang, and whose creation we don't understand. We also cannot
even start to explore questions of what is outside space-time.

So much for teh beginning step of Anselm's ontological proof that
collapses here too.

And also so much for claims god is a necessary being, the
Universe can be said to be, and maybe its laws and its rules and
its logic.
By now, god is rather less than necessary for anything.
Can a god even exist? We see no way a possible, thinking,
acting entiuty can exist apart from energy and matter and time
and dimensions, the laws and rules of the Universe outside of
god.

God is rather superflous.

And not that good an idea. Atheism, properly done, is
no leap of faith at all, its simple logic.

But only if one has these unnecessary assumptions like "omnibenevolence."
That seems a rather silly attribute to apply to anything. And what does
"thinking, acting, entity" mean? Those are space-time notions, what is
outside space-time is incomprehensible to us.

the claims of theism simply cannot withstand proper
examination. God as defined, omni-everything, creator
of all, is not a viable idea.

Creator of all? Perhaps not. But maybe a creator of space-time?

Any attempt to redefine god in light of such critiques, which I
have never seen anybody attempt seriously, must define god down.

Or, god is not something that we can comprehend, and certainly not something
like what organized religions worship.

Omni-everything has a lot of other severe problems.

OK. Though to be sure, Dodge Omnis had even more problems.
.
User: "Kelo Disaster"

Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith 09 Oct 2005 10:13:13 PM
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Mz%1f.122974$qY1.83883@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...


"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11kgpdls47au0a9@corp.supernews.com...

Scott Erb wrote:


"HMS Beagle" <bgates@microsoft.org> wrote in message
news:ve8ek157pdl9veada27d8dlbvfp2oe379f@4ax.com...

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:03:42 GMT, "Scott Erb"
<scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

A God concept as put forth by organized religions does seem
preposterous. But, given that we don't know what caused the
creation of space-time, and

in

fact can't conceive of reality without space-time, the
question about the fundamental nature of existence remains
pretty difficult.


Oh here we go again with the amorphous, undifferentiated,
invisible, vanilla creator deity.

Which God do you think created spacetime? Jehovah? What
about
Brahman? Couldn't Brahman have created spacetime? Or how
about
Osiris? (I kinda like Osiris...)


Why does a God have to have created it? If one wants to posit
an untestable god hypothesis, the most logical answer would be
a kind of pantheistic
everything is God. But really, it's more a situation where we
simply have
no capacity to know or test something outside space-time. That
makes it impossible to anything but speculate without solid
grounding on the
existence of a higher deity. That means by definition
"Intelligent Design" is an impossible to test idea, making it
completely outside science.



Consider this, 2 + 2 = 4. Now is this an intristic aspect
of the Universe or is it a law god creates, a mere whim.


It is a description, a human created symbolic represenation of a perceived
ratio.

Does god make the laws, rules and very logic of the Universe?


Perhaps the laws are god.

If so, if the laws and rules are whims of god, then god
could create man to have free will and yet freely choose to
do only moral good. If god could do this and does not evil only
exists because god allows it to exist.


Or god is neither god nor evil, but rather a curious entity that is
exploring the meaning of existence.

If he could do otherwise, god is thus evil, the creator and
sustaining cause of all evil.


Or god is neither good nor evil; those ideas could be human constructs, as
we try to make judgements about the nature of reality and interaction.

But god is defined a priori as all good, omnibenevolent.
Thus this contradiction disproves god and the idea god
makes the rules is false.


That's not my definition of any god, especially a pantheistic one.

But if such things as 2 + 2 = 4 and man does not have both free
will and a good nature incapable of evil, are outside god's
power, such rules and laws and logic of teh Universe are
ouitside and beyond god.


Or these are all part of god. That's why a pantheistic god is the most
logical IF one wants to entertain a god-theory. God is neither good nor
evil in such a theory; god is simply all that is.

They are an intristic aspect of the Universe, not god.
As such then, being intristic parts of a Universe outside god
its obvious god cannot have created that Universe.


Or god is this intrinsic aspect of the universe, which perhaps created
space-time, but outside space-time, where this "god" has its origins,
beginning and end have no meaning. In this case, we're simply unable to
know, analogous to an ant trying to comprehend nuclear physics. It's just
so far beyond the ant, it can't even comprehend the scope of the problem.

But again according to a priori definitions, god created the
Universe.

Obviously that must be wrong.


Well, a "god" can only have created space-time, which is the universe as

we

know it. But since space-time was created via the big bang, what came
before that is inherently unknowable.

So we know now that the Universe is outside and beyond god and
god cannot have created it unless he is account to be the
creator and sustaining cause of all moral evil. Again, still
contradicting the a priori claim god is omnibenevolent.


Why would a god be omnibenevolent? What would that even mean?

And what are teh rules and laws and logic of the Universe we
now know is outside god and are not created by him?
Since god is bound and limited by these things, he is also no
longer capable of being spoken of as omnipotent either.


If a god is outside space-time, then it is outside the laws of physics, in

a

reality we cannot comprehend.

Nor of being said to be teh most powerful thing that can be
imagined, the Universe is still more powerful with its laws and
rules that limit god.


But the "universe" is a chunk of space-time, which was created at the time
of the big bang, and whose creation we don't understand. We also cannot
even start to explore questions of what is outside space-time.

So much for teh beginning step of Anselm's ontological proof that
collapses here too.

And also so much for claims god is a necessary being, the
Universe can be said to be, and maybe its laws and its rules and
its logic.


By now, god is rather less than necessary for anything.
Can a god even exist? We see no way a possible, thinking,
acting entiuty can exist apart from energy and matter and time
and dimensions, the laws and rules of the Universe outside of
god.

God is rather superflous.

And not that good an idea. Atheism, properly done, is
no leap of faith at all, its simple logic.


But only if one has these unnecessary assumptions like "omnibenevolence."
That seems a rather silly attribute to apply to anything. And what does
"thinking, acting, entity" mean? Those are space-time notions, what is
outside space-time is incomprehensible to us.

the claims of theism simply cannot withstand proper
examination. God as defined, omni-everything, creator
of all, is not a viable idea.


Creator of all? Perhaps not. But maybe a creator of space-time?

Any attempt to redefine god in light of such critiques, which I
have never seen anybody attempt seriously, must define god down.


Or, god is not something that we can comprehend, and certainly not

something

like what organized religions worship.

Omni-everything has a lot of other severe problems.


OK. Though to be sure, Dodge Omnis had even more problems.

Truly, these are two of the shallowest thinking people in the universe.
If I cared, I would be embarrassed for them but one must let children do,
what they do.
.
User: "wbarwell"

Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith 10 Oct 2005 02:16:56 AM
Kelo Disaster wrote:


Truly, these are two of the shallowest thinking people in the
universe.

Sorry, all we see from you is shallow name calling.
There is shallow.

If I cared, I would be embarrassed for them but one must let
children do, what they do.

Erb didn't deal with the argument at hand. Neither did you.
Again, name calling is shallow. Theology and religious
traditdions of four major faiths, Judaisn, Islam, christianity
and Hinduism, make claims about god having certain attributes.
These claims contradict each other showing us that god as
concieved by billions of true believers cannot possibly exist.
This is hardly shallow. Its deep enough almost
nobody can deal honestly with the argument. Not you
either.
************************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: "Kelo Disaster"

Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith 10 Oct 2005 06:55:40 AM
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11kk49t61ta4098@corp.supernews.com...

Kelo Disaster wrote:



Truly, these are two of the shallowest thinking people in the
universe.


Sorry, all we see from you is shallow name calling.
There is shallow.

If I cared, I would be embarrassed for them but one must let
children do, what they do.



Erb didn't deal with the argument at hand. Neither did you.
Again, name calling is shallow. Theology and religious
traditdions of four major faiths, Judaisn, Islam, christianity
and Hinduism, make claims about god having certain attributes.

These claims contradict each other showing us that god as
concieved by billions of true believers cannot possibly exist.

This is hardly shallow. Its deep enough almost
nobody can deal honestly with the argument. Not you
either.

************************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 was of the opinion that you were just conceptually limited, as are most
that make the journey through the governments educational camps. However,
the passion and tedium with which you espouse your ridiculous and self
aggrandized version of the truth has made it quite apparent that you're
either a child with illusions of discovery and grandeur or an adult that
never progressed past the reasoning skills of a pubertal 14 year old. In
either case, the yoke tightening around your neck is so heavy I can hear
your knees crack from here.
.
User: "Scott Erb"

Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith 10 Oct 2005 09:44:47 AM
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> wrote in message
news:hGs2f.3822$D8.3498@okepread03...

I was of the opinion that you were just conceptually limited, as are most
that make the journey through the governments educational camps. However,
the passion and tedium with which you espouse your ridiculous and self
aggrandized version of the truth has made it quite apparent that you're
either a child with illusions of discovery and grandeur or an adult that
never progressed past the reasoning skills of a pubertal 14 year old. In
either case, the yoke tightening around your neck is so heavy I can hear
your knees crack from here.

Yet you offer absolutely nothing but insults and bravado.
That suggests lack of reasoning skills, and an attempt to justify a position
which you cannot defend through obfuscation and distraction.
I believe you are in dire need of education, friend.
.
User: "Kelo Disaster"

Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith 10 Oct 2005 12:05:31 PM
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:z7v2f.127652$qY1.19270@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...


"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> wrote in message
news:hGs2f.3822$D8.3498@okepread03...

I was of the opinion that you were just conceptually limited, as are

most

that make the journey through the governments educational camps.

However,

the passion and tedium with which you espouse your ridiculous and self
aggrandized version of the truth has made it quite apparent that you're
either a child with illusions of discovery and grandeur or an adult that
never progressed past the reasoning skills of a pubertal 14 year old. In
either case, the yoke tightening around your neck is so heavy I can hear
your knees crack from here.


Yet you offer absolutely nothing but insults and bravado.

I did try, when I had time to address it but that time has passed. I require
nothing but context, which in the case of this discussion simply hasn't
happened and quite frankly won't. The scope of the subject is huge and the
notion that such grandiose conclusions based on such ignorantly gathered
random thoughts, as displayed here repeatedly, is anything even worthy of
discussion is comparable to playing pat-a-cake with a child. That you find
such a "conversation" stimulating is noted.
Shallow.

That suggests lack of reasoning skills, and an attempt to justify a

position

which you cannot defend through obfuscation and distraction.

To defend against a position that is childish, incomplete and unoriginal
does not require "reasoning skills", only babysitting skills. That's your
job description not mine.

I believe you are in dire need of education, friend.

You would, only because you have no free will to understand anything you
haven't been told and graded on. All drones think like you because
individuality, reasoning skills, and normalcy have been washed from your
mind.
It is very sad, really, and at the same time typical of why, when
governments are overthrown as they all inevitably are, their "educational
system" and its proponents are destroyed along with them.
.
User: "Scott Erb"

Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith 10 Oct 2005 12:45:17 PM
Again, no argument, no logic, just insults and attacks.
By their fruits ye shall know them. You are demonstrating what you are with
your style.
Insults are impotent. Logic and reason have power. Think about it.
I'll not repeat my argument, but here is a larger version (still being
developed):
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/spirit.htm
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> wrote in message
news:Zcx2f.3836$D8.1763@okepread03...


"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:z7v2f.127652$qY1.19270@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...


"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> wrote in message
news:hGs2f.3822$D8.3498@okepread03...

I was of the opinion that you were just conceptually limited, as are

most

that make the journey through the governments educational camps.

However,

the passion and tedium with which you espouse your ridiculous and self
aggrandized version of the truth has made it quite apparent that

you're

either a child with illusions of discovery and grandeur or an adult

that

never progressed past the reasoning skills of a pubertal 14 year old.

In

either case, the yoke tightening around your neck is so heavy I can

hear

your knees crack from here.


Yet you offer absolutely nothing but insults and bravado.


I did try, when I had time to address it but that time has passed. I

require

nothing but context, which in the case of this discussion simply hasn't
happened and quite frankly won't. The scope of the subject is huge and the
notion that such grandiose conclusions based on such ignorantly gathered
random thoughts, as displayed here repeatedly, is anything even worthy of
discussion is comparable to playing pat-a-cake with a child. That you

find

such a "conversation" stimulating is noted.

Shallow.

That suggests lack of reasoning skills, and an attempt to justify a

position

which you cannot defend through obfuscation and distraction.


To defend against a position that is childish, incomplete and unoriginal
does not require "reasoning skills", only babysitting skills. That's your
job description not mine.


I believe you are in dire need of education, friend.


You would, only because you have no free will to understand anything you
haven't been told and graded on. All drones think like you because
individuality, reasoning skills, and normalcy have been washed from your
mind.

It is very sad, really, and at the same time typical of why, when
governments are overthrown as they all inevitably are, their "educational
system" and its proponents are destroyed along with them.




.
User: "Martin McPhillips"

Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith 10 Oct 2005 01:27:52 PM
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:NMx2f.406616$5N3.149092@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Again, no argument, no logic, just insults and attacks.

By their fruits ye shall know them. You are demonstrating
what you are with
your style.

Insults are impotent. Logic and reason have power. Think
about it.

I'll not repeat my argument, but here is a larger version
(still being
developed):
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/spirit.htm

Erb, the more people who read your blog, the
more people who will understand how deep your
confusion is and how shallow your mind.


"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> wrote in message
news:Zcx2f.3836$D8.1763@okepread03...


"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:z7v2f.127652$qY1.19270@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...


"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> wrote in message
news:hGs2f.3822$D8.3498@okepread03...

I was of the opinion that you were just conceptually
limited, as are

most

that make the journey through the governments
educational camps.

However,

the passion and tedium with which you espouse your
ridiculous and self
aggrandized version of the truth has made it quite
apparent that

you're

either a child with illusions of discovery and
grandeur or an adult

that

never progressed past the reasoning skills of a
pubertal 14 year old.

In

either case, the yoke tightening around your neck is
so heavy I can

hear

your knees crack from here.


Yet you offer absolutely nothing but insults and
bravado.


I did try, when I had time to address it but that time
has passed. I

require

nothing but context, which in the case of this discussion
simply hasn't
happened and quite frankly won't. The scope of the
subject is huge and the
notion that such grandiose conclusions based on such
ignorantly gathered
random thoughts, as displayed here repeatedly, is
anything even worthy of
discussion is comparable to playing pat-a-cake with a
child. That you

find

such a "conversation" stimulating is noted.

Shallow.

That suggests lack of reasoning skills, and an attempt
to justify a

position

which you cannot defend through obfuscation and
distraction.


To defend against a position that is childish, incomplete
and unoriginal
does not require "reasoning skills", only babysitting
skills. That's your
job description not mine.


I believe you are in dire need of education, friend.


You would, only because you have no free will to
understand anything you
haven't been told and graded on. All drones think like
you because
individuality, reasoning skills, and normalcy have been
washed from your
mind.

It is very sad, really, and at the same time typical of
why, when
governments are overthrown as they all inevitably are,
their "educational
system" and its proponents are destroyed along with them.






.


User: "wbarwell"

Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith 10 Oct 2005 09:01:10 PM
Kelo Disaster wrote:


"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:z7v2f.127652$qY1.19270@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...


"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> wrote in message
news:hGs2f.3822$D8.3498@okepread03...

I was of the opinion that you were just conceptually
limited, as are

most

that make the journey through the governments educational
camps.

However,

the passion and tedium with which you espouse your
ridiculous and self aggrandized version of the truth has
made it quite apparent that you're either a child with
illusions of discovery and grandeur or an adult that never
progressed past the reasoning skills of a pubertal 14 year
old. In either case, the yoke tightening around your neck is
so heavy I can hear your knees crack from here.


Yet you offer absolutely nothing but insults and bravado.


I did try, when I had time to address it but that time has
passed. I require nothing but context, which in the case of
this discussion simply hasn't happened and quite frankly won't.

Context? The context is simple. There is no hard evidence that
god exists. We simply have a collection of assertions made a
priori about god. If we think carefully about it, we can see out
of the many assertions made about god, only a mere handful are
needed to describe a basic class of gods that all major
religions claim to exist are really basic and foundational.
Now all that is left is to carefully consider if
this class of gods can exist, if the claims are coherent or
contradictory.

The scope of the subject is huge and the notion that such
grandiose conclusions based on such ignorantly gathered random
thoughts,

There is nothing at all random in the least about these claims I
have used. I took a decade to sift all claims to realize these
few are all that are truely needed to decide the issue.
Like Euclid's geometry, there is nothing random nor ignorant
about my choice of basic claims that I collect and examine.

as displayed here repeatedly, is anything even worthy
of
discussion is comparable to playing pat-a-cake with a child.
That you find such a "conversation" stimulating is noted.

Shallow.

If it is so shallow, so easily disproven, show us.
It should be easy.

That suggests lack of reasoning skills, and an attempt to
justify a position
which you cannot defend through obfuscation and distraction.


To defend against a position that is childish, incomplete and
unoriginal does not require "reasoning skills", only
babysitting skills. That's your job description not mine.

Its pretty original, it is complete enough to disprove the
god of four major religous traditions, its based strictly on
logic and reason, and it is hardly childish, unlike
your angry ad hominem attacks.
Where I am original is that I openly declare I am disproving a
class of gods, not particular gods, and that we need only
consider for that purpose a small subset of possible claims that
can be made about god.
There is indeed more than I post here, but we never see anybody
much get to the point of this I post here, no need to go
further.
Where I am not totally original, Epicurus's problem of evil,
I am not too proud to admit that good criticisms no matter how
old are still good and useful.


I believe you are in dire need of education, friend.


You would, only because you have no free will to understand
anything you haven't been told and graded on. All drones think
like you because individuality, reasoning skills, and normalcy
have been washed from your mind.

It is very sad, really, and at the same time typical of why,
when governments are overthrown as they all inevitably are,
their "educational system" and its proponents are destroyed
along with them.

--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.



User: "wbarwell"

Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith 10 Oct 2005 08:32:22 PM
Kelo Disaster wrote:


"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11kk49t61ta4098@corp.supernews.com...

Kelo Disaster wrote:



Truly, these are two of the shallowest thinking people in
the universe.


Sorry, all we see from you is shallow name calling.
There is shallow.

If I cared, I would be embarrassed for them but one must let
children do, what they do.



Erb didn't deal with the argument at hand. Neither did you.
Again, name calling is shallow. Theology and religious
traditdions of four major faiths, Judaisn, Islam, christianity
and Hinduism, make claims about god having certain attributes.

These claims contradict each other showing us that god as
concieved by billions of true believers cannot possibly exist.

This is hardly shallow. Its deep enough almost
nobody can deal honestly with the argument. Not you
either.

************************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 was of the opinion that you were just conceptually limited,

I am. I am limited to claims theology makes.
And logically examining the claims made.
After all, that is all there is, claims.
What I do even more limiting is drop all unnecessary
claims that are not needed to show god as defined is
contradictory and thus impossible.
All you need is concepts that work, which you don't have.

as are most that make the journey through the governments
educational camps.

At least I can use logic and am smart enough to sift out the
imoportant claims I need to disporve your god. I note al you can
do is rant at me in a futile manner.
You cannot deal with my disproof of the Grand God of Grand
Theology, the Grand god of four major religous traditions.
But despite rants, my disproof stands, unmovable, undefeatable,
true and thorough.

However, the passion and tedium with which
you espouse your ridiculous and self aggrandized version of the
truth has made it quite apparent that you're either a child
with illusions of discovery and grandeur or an adult that never
progressed past the reasoning skills of a pubertal 14 year old.
In either case, the yoke tightening around your neck is so
heavy I can hear your knees crack from here.

More futile and pointless ranting.
I have abstracted out of thousands of possible claims a mere
handful, about 8, that are more than enough to show by careful
examination, that god as described by 2500 years of theology
cannot possibly exist.
These claims contradict each other fatally and simply.
Its almost trivial to show god, as defined by most religions
cannot possibly exist.
Ranting and raving at me will not change that.
Refusing to deal with the arguments I have created
will not make them go away.
Would you like to try dealing honestly with my post above?
If you can't, sorry. But my argument stands untouched
by your ad hominem attack and show of bad temper.
This is a matter of pure logic and facts and truth.
It will not be decided by empty name calling.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
User: "Kelo Disaster"

Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith 10 Oct 2005 08:36:14 PM
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11km4gbt189e59a@corp.supernews.com...

Kelo Disaster wrote:


"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11kk49t61ta4098@corp.supernews.com...

Kelo Disaster wrote:



Truly, these are two of the shallowest thinking people in
the universe.


Sorry, all we see from you is shallow name calling.
There is shallow.

If I cared, I would be embarrassed for them but one must let
children do, what they do.



Erb didn't deal with the argument at hand. Neither did you.
Again, name calling is shallow. Theology and religious
traditdions of four major faiths, Judaisn, Islam, christianity
and Hinduism, make claims about god having certain attributes.

These claims contradict each other showing us that god as
concieved by billions of true believers cannot possibly exist.

This is hardly shallow. Its deep enough almost
nobody can deal honestly with the argument. Not you
either.

************************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 bein