Codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

Chris Johnson wrote:

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

harddrivecleaner@yahoo.com wrote:

I keep noticing that most people I've met who
are atheists just look and seem healthier than
the believers seem to. I've also noticed the
same of Mensas as opposed to other groups.

Could there be something to that?

"Let us eat and let us drink for tomorrow
we will die" and nothing awaits us.

Maybe not tomorrow. But sooner or later we will.

The Bible that I quoted says tomorrow.

And are you claiming that you don't eat or drink? I am quite
impressed that you've lived long enough to discover Usenet.

Ok, what this means is: Let us live in hedonism
for there is no hope for afterlife.
This is not the believer philosophical line
of thinking.
TEMPERANCE IS OUR WAY OF LIFE.

Your god does not exist. 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

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

Chris Johnson wrote:

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

harddrivecleaner@yahoo.com wrote:

I keep noticing that most people I've met who
are atheists just look and seem healthier than
the believers seem to. I've also noticed the
same of Mensas as opposed to other groups.

Could there be something to that?

"Let us eat and let us drink for tomorrow
we will die" and nothing awaits us.

Maybe not tomorrow. But sooner or later we will.

The Bible that I quoted says tomorrow.

Yes, it does. How nice. That it comes from a magic book doesn't change
the fact that it is indeed not necessarily tomorrow.

And are you claiming that you don't eat or drink? I am quite impressed
that you've lived long enough to discover Usenet.

Ok, what this means is: Let us live in hedonism
for there is no hope for afterlife.

It's a bit silly to automatically assume atheists are hedonists, since
it's quite wrong. I know atheists that practice far more restraint (or
simply don't feel so strong of urges, as they don't repress them) in
their pleasures than theists I've met. And the biggest difference is
that they aren't smug assholes about it either.

We don't need an afterlife to work towards in order to be moral or to
keep from gorging ourselves on food and drink, so it's not really an
accomplishment that we lord over others.

This is not the believer philosophical line
of thinking.

Nor is it the nonbeliever way of thinking. Except the denial of an
afterlife.

TEMPERANCE IS OUR WAY OF LIFE.

For some of you. (Did you know that the same message can be gotten
across without resorting to all caps? Please have some courtesy. You
can call me a child and intellectually immature, but don't resort to
shouting.)

I mean, do we exercise more, self-abuse less,
avoid stress better? Do we hold in less stress,
self-express more, beat around the bush less?

Yet your souls stink

What's a soul? How do you smell a soul?

Hahahahahahahahahahaahahhahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahaha
hhahahahahahahahahahahahaha LOL
You are a child....

Excellent. Then you can explain the following as you would to a child,
using small, unambiguous words, and not resorting to mysticism.

Define "soul".
Explain how one determines its state of cleanliness.
If you're feeling up to the task, explain how one might go about
cleaning a soul.

Note: Laughing is less indicative of my intellectual maturity than it
is of your inability to answer questions.

By the way, it's rather audacious of you to claim the ability to judge
the state of our souls (assuming the mystical Christian definition of
the self that is preserved into the afterlife) without knowing anything
about us. Really godly of you.

On 3 Oct 2005 17:44:16 -0700,

You are a child....

Isn't that how you select your rape victims?

Isn't that how you select your rape victims?

On 3 Oct 2005 17:44:16 -0700,

The Bible that I quoted says tomorrow.

So another failed prophesy