Athiesm is Impossible

Religions > Atheism > Athiesm is Impossible

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 19

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Greg Flynn"
Date:	12 Nov 2005 10:23:16 PM
Object:	Athiesm is Impossible

Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it assumes one
of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.
Since the first case is strictly contradictory then only the second case is
worthy of consideration. I say that the second case is impossible and I
believe I can show this in five steps. Rather then revealing all five steps
I will reveal them one at a time. If the first step is conceded then I will
move on to the second. I assume that the first will never be conceded,
therefore, there is no reason to reveal any of the other steps. I don't
want to reveal the other parts because I think it would allow for focus on
the current part to be lost.
Step One.
Can any material object be divided an infinite number of times? What is
your opinion? Please state reasons. Of course I will reveal my opinion but
I want to see how folks answer this question, hoping that I can jump start
this argument and by-pass what isn't truely necessary.
Greg
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	14 Nov 2005 08:55:46 PM

No, infinite is unreachable, even infinity -1 takes forever
.

User: "Greg Flynn"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	14 Nov 2005 11:45:02 PM

<bjhawes@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1132023346.057840.31480@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

No, infinite is unreachable, even infinity -1 takes forever

Thanks,
I agree. I have my own two arguments that are the same as yours to start.
1. You can't do anything an infinite number of times. Its absurd on its
face but if you were to propose that you could divide any real thing an
infinite number of times what would be the result? As the limit approached
infinity the thing would be come infinitesimal. Once the limit reached
infinity (which is impossible to begin with) then the smallest particle
would be equal to nothing. Since we are not made of nothing this is a
contradiction.
2. Things in the real world have definite characteristics. They have
weight and shape and many other qualities. If you were to divide me in half
I would no longer weigh the same or be shaped the same. Every time one of
my halves was re-divided my qualities would change. If I could be divided
an infinite number of times it would be the same as saying that I was
composed of building block of indefinite qualities. You can't create
something of definite qualities from building blocks that are indeterminate.
Would you agree with this?
Greg
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	15 Nov 2005 06:34:19 AM

1. You can't do anything an infinite number of times.

Agreed

Its absurd on its face but if you were to propose that you could divide
any real thing an infinite number of times what would be the result?

data overflow, abort retry, ignore.

As the limit approached infinity the thing would be come infinitesimal.
Once the limit reached infinity (which is impossible to begin with) then
the smallest particle would be equal to nothing.

oh, you chose ignore... OK lets take our wonderful universe...
lets just wind the clock back to emulate this..
go back 7 some billion years and it's half the size... go back
half again that time and we're down to a quarter size.. and half
and half.. and we're getting smaller & smaller, I think Max Planck
did some calculations on this and he's way smarter than me
but somewhere half again still leaves us chasing the infinite...
Maybe the universe HAS always existed? eh?

Since we are not made of nothing this is a contradiction.

Poor logic, but you've realized the infinite isn't possible. B-
is 2 below your step 2 in proving atheism can't exist or more
bad logic serving as your reason 1 is false? I think I misread
it as your step 2.
.

User: "Colin Day"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	15 Nov 2005 11:25:29 AM

Greg Flynn wrote:

<bjhawes@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1132023346.057840.31480@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

No, infinite is unreachable, even infinity -1 takes forever

It's not clear that there would be a smallest particle in such a case, nor
is it clear that the limit would *reach* infinity.

2. Things in the real world have definite characteristics. They have
weight and shape and many other qualities. If you were to divide me in half
I would no longer weigh the same or be shaped the same. Every time one of
my halves was re-divided my qualities would change. If I could be divided
an infinite number of times it would be the same as saying that I was
composed of building block of indefinite qualities.

No. If there were pieces left, they would still have definite qualities.
Can you
prove that indivisble particles have no definite quailities?
You can't create

something of definite qualities from building blocks that are indeterminate.

How can a building block be indeterminate?

Would you agree with this?

No.
Colin Day aa #1500
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	15 Nov 2005 06:15:24 AM

Greg Flynn wrote:

2. Things in the real world have definite characteristics. They have
weight and shape and many other qualities.

ok, If we stopped here I'd agree

If you were to divide me in half I would no longer weigh the same or

be shaped the same. Every time one of my halves was re-divided my
qualities would change.
Odd way to think about it. But sure. Though I'd pretty much quit using
the concept of "you" once you've been ripped in half a couple times.
Starting to get muddled.

If I could be divided an infinite number of times it would be the same as saying that I
was composed of building block of indefinite qualities.

Bzzzzt, take that one back to the drawing boad, we've already agreed
infinite divisions isn't possible.You can't turn around and use it in
another supposition. You are definately not composed of indefinate
qualities.
.

User: "Liz"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	15 Nov 2005 07:19:29 AM

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 05:45:02 GMT, "Greg Flynn"
<bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> in news message
<yBeef.19402$5R4.16023@trnddc06> wrote:

You are made up of cells, which are not "you". The cells are made up
of molecules, which are not cells. The molecules are made up of
atoms, which are not molecules. The atoms are made up of protons,
neutrons, and electrons, which are not atoms. The protons are made up
of quarks, which are not protons.
Do you assume that "you" have the same inherent qualities as the quark
or have qualities been "added" as quarks, protons and electrons,
atoms, molecules, and cells were combined to make you?
Liz #658 BAAWA
Many...freely confess that they believe what it makes them
feel good to believe. Evidence doesn't play much of a role.
They are alleviating their fear of randomness by identifying
regularities that are not there. - Murray Gell-Mann
.

User: "Cobra Cuddlers for Jesus"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	13 Nov 2005 07:27:49 AM

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> suddenly spluttered:

Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it assumes one
of two other possiblities.

1. The universe was created...

Duh! You just flatly contradicted yourself. Go away and come back when
you can think straight.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.

User: "Enkidu the Atheist"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	12 Nov 2005 10:31:04 PM

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06:

Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it assumes
one of two other possiblities.

1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.

Atheism posits nothing of the kind. If it posits anything at all, it's
that there has been no complelling evidence that any god or gods exist.
There rest of your test is worthless, because it is not relevent to your
thesis.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
"There is joy in rationality, happiness in clarity of mind. Free thought is
thrilling and fulfilling--absolutely essential to mental health and
happiness."
-Dan Barker
.

User: "Greg Flynn"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	12 Nov 2005 10:43:02 PM

"Enkidu the Atheist" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns970CD0BC66AC6255229@130.133.1.4...

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06:

Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it assumes
one of two other possiblities.

1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.

Atheism posits nothing of the kind. If it posits anything at all, it's
that there has been no complelling evidence that any god or gods exist.

So it posits that God dosn't exist? Is this true?

There rest of your test is worthless, because it is not relevent to your
thesis.

--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0

"There is joy in rationality, happiness in clarity of mind. Free thought

thrilling and fulfilling--absolutely essential to mental health and
happiness."
-Dan Barker

User: "Cobra Cuddlers for Jesus"
Title: Re: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	13 Nov 2005 07:29:29 AM

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> suddenly spluttered:

So it posits that God dosn't exist? Is this true?

Yes. Get over it and stop blaming us for being honest.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.

User: "Enkidu the Atheist"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	12 Nov 2005 10:53:05 PM

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:qvzdf.6032$5R4.5289@trnddc06:

"Enkidu the Atheist" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns970CD0BC66AC6255229@130.133.1.4...

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06:

Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it
assumes one of two other possiblities.

1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.

Atheism posits nothing of the kind. If it posits anything at all,
it's that there has been no complelling evidence that any god or gods
exist.

So it posits that God doesn't exist? Is this true?

No. Atheism in nothing more than the lack of theism, the belief that
there is one or more gods. Many atheists in do believe that there is no
god, but many of them also drink Budweiser. You can't assume all
atheists drink Budweiser *or* that they all believe there is no god just
because some do.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
The Bible was written by the same people who said the Earth was flat.
-- bumper sticker
.

User: "Greg Flynn"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	12 Nov 2005 11:01:52 PM

"Enkidu the Atheist" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns970CD477CE35255229@130.133.1.4...

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:qvzdf.6032$5R4.5289@trnddc06:

"Enkidu the Atheist" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns970CD0BC66AC6255229@130.133.1.4...

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06:

Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it
assumes one of two other possiblities.

1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.

Atheism posits nothing of the kind. If it posits anything at all,
it's that there has been no complelling evidence that any god or gods
exist.

So it posits that God doesn't exist? Is this true?

Well said.
But I am only interested those that think that God doesn't exist as oppose
to those that hold it open as a possiblity. I call that type agnostics and
not atheist. Perhaps my definition is wrong but those are the people I am
directing this post too.
Greg

--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0

The Bible was written by the same people who said the Earth was flat.
-- bumper sticker

User: "Enkidu the Atheist"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	12 Nov 2005 11:07:11 PM

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:4Nzdf.6039$5R4.1624@trnddc06:

"Enkidu the Atheist" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns970CD477CE35255229@130.133.1.4...

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:qvzdf.6032$5R4.5289@trnddc06:

"Enkidu the Atheist" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns970CD0BC66AC6255229@130.133.1.4...

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06:

Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it
assumes one of two other possiblities.

1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.

Atheism posits nothing of the kind. If it posits anything at all,
it's that there has been no complelling evidence that any god or
gods exist.

So it posits that God doesn't exist? Is this true?

Well said.

But I am only interested those that think that God doesn't exist as
oppose to those that hold it open as a possiblity. I call that type
agnostics and not atheist. Perhaps my definition is wrong but those
are the people I am directing this post too.

Then you would be more succesful calling such people "strong atheists" or
"explicit atheists".
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
But if there is one thing which proves to me that the Ten Commandments
were written by man, and heartless man at that, it is the ommission of
any mention of children. Donkeys (*****) get a mention, but not children.
.

User: "Llanzlan Klazmon"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	13 Nov 2005 04:14:07 PM

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in news:4Nzdf.6039$5R4.1624
@trnddc06:

"Enkidu the Atheist" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns970CD477CE35255229@130.133.1.4...

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:qvzdf.6032$5R4.5289@trnddc06:

"Enkidu the Atheist" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns970CD0BC66AC6255229@130.133.1.4...

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06:

Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it
assumes one of two other possiblities.

1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.

Atheism posits nothing of the kind. If it posits anything at all,
it's that there has been no complelling evidence that any god or gods
exist.

So it posits that God doesn't exist? Is this true?

Well said.

But I am only interested those that think that God doesn't exist

Which god? If by God you mean specifically the christian or moslem type of
gods then those sorts of gods were disproved by Epicurus before they were
invented.
Klazmon.
.

User: "Bear"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	12 Nov 2005 11:27:09 PM

"Greg Flynn" wrote
: "Enkidu the Atheist" wrote
: > "Greg Flynn" wrote
: > > "Enkidu the Atheist" wrote
: > >> "Greg Flynn" wrote
: > >>
: > >> > Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it
: > >> > assumes one of two other possiblities.
: > >> >
: > >> > 1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
: > >> > 2. The universe has always existed.
: > >>
: > >> Atheism posits nothing of the kind. If it posits anything at all,
: > >> it's that there has been no complelling evidence that any god or gods
: > >> exist.
: > >
: > > So it posits that God doesn't exist? Is this true?
: >
: > No. Atheism in nothing more than the lack of theism, the belief that
: > there is one or more gods. Many atheists in do believe that there is no
: > god, but many of them also drink Budweiser. You can't assume all
: > atheists drink Budweiser *or* that they all believe there is no god just
: > because some do.
:
: Well said.
:
: But I am only interested those that think that God doesn't exist as oppose
: to those that hold it open as a possiblity. I call that type agnostics
and
: not atheist. Perhaps my definition is wrong but those are the people I am
: directing this post too.
Then get your definition right before you start spewing your idiocy!
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
.

User: "bob young"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	12 Nov 2005 11:28:02 PM

Greg Flynn wrote:

"Enkidu the Atheist" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns970CD477CE35255229@130.133.1.4...

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:qvzdf.6032$5R4.5289@trnddc06:

"Enkidu the Atheist" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns970CD0BC66AC6255229@130.133.1.4...

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06:

Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it
assumes one of two other possiblities.

1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.

Atheism posits nothing of the kind. If it posits anything at all,
it's that there has been no complelling evidence that any god or gods
exist.

So it posits that God doesn't exist? Is this true?

Well said.

But I am only interested those that think that God doesn't exist as oppose
to those that hold it open as a possiblity. I call that type agnostics and
not atheist. Perhaps my definition is wrong but those are the people I am
directing this post too.

Then I suggest you adress you post to:
'Those with a normal allocation by evolution of a standard amount of common
sense coupled with a very low drive in the areas ofwishywashy superstition and
romancetic sillyness.
This should corner a good number of Atheistsic types.
now what?

Greg

--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0

The Bible was written by the same people who said the Earth was flat.
-- bumper sticker

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	13 Nov 2005 03:28:50 PM

In <4Nzdf.6039$5R4.1624@trnddc06>, "Greg Flynn"
<bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote:

"Enkidu the Atheist" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns970CD477CE35255229@130.133.1.4...

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:qvzdf.6032$5R4.5289@trnddc06:

"Enkidu the Atheist" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns970CD0BC66AC6255229@130.133.1.4...

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06:

Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it
assumes one of two other possiblities.

1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing 2. The
universe has always existed.

Atheism posits nothing of the kind. If it posits anything at all,
it's that there has been no complelling evidence that any god or gods
exist.

So it posits that God doesn't exist? Is this true?

Well said.

But I am only interested those that think that God doesn't exist as oppose
to those that hold it open as a possiblity. I call that type agnostics
and not atheist. Perhaps my definition is wrong but those are the people
I am directing this post too.

Are all your definitions this defective?
And how many things that you do not believe in do you "hold open as a
possibility?" Name them all.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Feds are treating Louisiana like enemy
"...it may be that they may have written us off."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O21E51C1C
Design flaws and malfeasance
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W35E21C1C
Outdated standards
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X14E32C1C
http://www.nola.com
.

User: "655321"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	13 Nov 2005 03:11:49 AM

On 2005-11-12 21:01:52 -0800, "Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> said:

But I am only interested those that think that God doesn't exist

Why?
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --

"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
.

User: "J Forbes"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	12 Nov 2005 10:48:29 PM

Greg Flynn wrote:

"Enkidu the Atheist" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns970CD0BC66AC6255229@130.133.1.4...

Atheism posits nothing of the kind. If it posits anything at all, it's
that there has been no complelling evidence that any god or gods exist.

So it posits that God dosn't exist? Is this true?

Read it again....slowly. Then read it again...slowly.
Jim
.

User: "Greg Flynn"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	13 Nov 2005 09:15:29 PM

"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1131857309.066086.104330@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Greg Flynn wrote:

"Enkidu the Atheist" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns970CD0BC66AC6255229@130.133.1.4...

Atheism posits nothing of the kind. If it posits anything at all,

it's

that there has been no complelling evidence that any god or gods

exist.

So it posits that God dosn't exist? Is this true?

Read it again....slowly. Then read it again...slowly.

Jim,
I am clearly missing something. What folks are saying is that I don't
understand atheism. I have heard what folks have said it seems the same as
what I'm thinking. Let me try to cross over our misunderstanding by
presenting what I think atheism is one piece at a time and you tell me where
I have gotten off track:
1. Someone poses to an individual that God exists.
2. The individual examines the evidence about the possible existence of God
and finds that it unconvincing.
Right so far?
3. The individual decides in their mind that this existence is unlikely.
4. The individual becomes confident that this existence is not real.
Still on track?
5. This individual could now be called an atheist.
Are we in agreement here?
The next step is simply to examine the repercussions of this confident
decision. In this case I pose that the universe must either have been
created or have always existed. If you exclude the possibility of a God
then don't you also exclude the possibility of a creator? I figure that
these word have always gone together.
This seems simple and I can't see how I would find disagreement here but if
you do please explain.
Greg

Jim

User: "Enkidu the Atheist"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	13 Nov 2005 09:45:27 PM

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:ljTdf.11892$w85.421@trnddc02:

"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1131857309.066086.104330@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Greg Flynn wrote:

"Enkidu the Atheist" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns970CD0BC66AC6255229@130.133.1.4...

Atheism posits nothing of the kind. If it posits anything at
all,

it's

that there has been no complelling evidence that any god or gods

exist.

So it posits that God dosn't exist? Is this true?

Read it again....slowly. Then read it again...slowly.

Jim,

I am clearly missing something.

Indeed you are. You assume your God is real, and that anyone who does
not believe your God is real must believe your God is unreal, must deny
the reality of your God, must make that denial a core belief. Because
the existence of your God is so important to you, you think it must be
important to everyone.
Let's look at it differently. Do you deny the existence of smorks? Do
you make it a central tenent of you life? Or do you simply fail to
believe in the existence of something that is not clearly defined, and
has no evidence to support it? Would you claim that smorks can't exist
because you're unconvinced they do exist?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
"Religion may in most of its forms be defined as the belief that the gods
are on the side of the Government."

-- Bertrand Russell
.

User: "Greg Flynn"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	13 Nov 2005 10:07:23 PM

"Enkidu the Atheist" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns970DC90176D7A255229@130.133.1.4...

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:ljTdf.11892$w85.421@trnddc02:

"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1131857309.066086.104330@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Greg Flynn wrote:

"Enkidu the Atheist" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns970CD0BC66AC6255229@130.133.1.4...

Atheism posits nothing of the kind. If it posits anything at
all,

it's

that there has been no complelling evidence that any god or gods

exist.

So it posits that God dosn't exist? Is this true?

Read it again....slowly. Then read it again...slowly.

Jim,

I am clearly missing something.

Indeed you are. You assume your God is real, and that anyone who does
not believe your God is real must believe your God is unreal, must deny
the reality of your God, must make that denial a core belief. Because
the existence of your God is so important to you, you think it must be
important to everyone.

Let's look at it differently. Do you deny the existence of smorks? Do
you make it a central tenent of you life? Or do you simply fail to
believe in the existence of something that is not clearly defined, and
has no evidence to support it? Would you claim that smorks can't exist
because you're unconvinced they do exist?

Enkidu,
I agree with you completely. There is no disagreement between us here,
however, the problem presented to me in this thread was that my argument at
the head of this post would not apply to an athiest. I don't understand
that. Lets take it out of the God realm and consider any unnecessary
existance.
Lets say I pose that an island exists at a particular part of of the ocean.
Then you say, "you have no evidence, therefore, I don't believe in the
existance of this island". Can you then say, "lets take a vacation on this
island of yours"?
Thats all my argument is. Sure, you can say that God is an unecessary
existance but that doesn't mean that my argument would be applicable to you.
Thats all I am saying.
Give it a try please! : - ) Here it is reposted:
****************************************************************************
********
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it assumes one
of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.
Since the first case is strictly contradictory then only the second case is
worthy of consideration. I say that the second case is impossible and I
believe I can show this in five steps. Rather then revealing all five steps
I will reveal them one at a time. If the first step is conceded then I will
move on to the second. I assume that the first will never be conceded,
therefore, there is no reason to reveal any of the other steps. I don't
want to reveal the other parts because I think it would allow for focus on
the current part to be lost.
Step One.
Can any material object be divided an infinite number of times? What is
your opinion? Please state reasons. Of course I will reveal my opinion but
I want to see how folks answer this question, hoping that I can jump start
this argument and by-pass what isn't truely necessary.
****************************************************************************
***
Greg

--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0

"Religion may in most of its forms be defined as the belief that the gods
are on the side of the Government."

-- Bertrand Russell

User: "Enkidu the Atheist"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	13 Nov 2005 10:41:38 PM

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:%3Udf.11903$w85.11071@trnddc02:

"Enkidu the Atheist" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns970DC90176D7A255229@130.133.1.4...

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:ljTdf.11892$w85.421@trnddc02:

"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1131857309.066086.104330@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Greg Flynn wrote:

"Enkidu the Atheist" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns970CD0BC66AC6255229@130.133.1.4...

Atheism posits nothing of the kind. If it posits anything at
all,

it's

that there has been no complelling evidence that any god or
gods

exist.

So it posits that God dosn't exist? Is this true?

Read it again....slowly. Then read it again...slowly.

Jim,

I am clearly missing something.

Indeed you are. You assume your God is real, and that anyone who
does not believe your God is real must believe your God is unreal,
must deny the reality of your God, must make that denial a core
belief. Because the existence of your God is so important to you,
you think it must be important to everyone.

Let's look at it differently. Do you deny the existence of smorks?
Do you make it a central tenent of you life? Or do you simply fail
to believe in the existence of something that is not clearly defined,
and has no evidence to support it? Would you claim that smorks can't
exist because you're unconvinced they do exist?

No. But that's got nothing to do with it.

That's all my argument is. Sure, you can say that God is an

unnecessary

existence but that doesn't mean that my argument would be applicable
to you. That's all I am saying.

You claim to have some reason to believe God exists. If you have some
rational argument to support this claim, then why should it only apply to
some people and not others? An argument is not more or less rational,
depending on who you try it out on!

Give it a try please! : - ) Here it is reposted:

***********************************************************************
***** ********
Atheism posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it assumes
one of two other possibilities.

This is simply not true! "Atheism" posits nothing! Does my knowing that
you don't believe in Santa Claus tell me anything about what you *do*
believe? No!

1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.

This is a false dichotomy. There may be other choices we don't yet know
of. And even if those were the only two options, well, what of that? We
don't know enough yet to decide. When we know more, perhaps we'll know
the answer and then we'll know why that's the answer.

Since the first case is strictly contradictory then only the second
case is worthy of consideration.

Why is it contradictory? Have you some secret evidence of how the
universe began that you haven't shared with the rest of us?

I say that the second case is
impossible and I believe I can show this in five steps. Rather then
revealing all five steps I will reveal them one at a time. If the
first step is conceded then I will move on to the second. I assume
that the first will never be conceded, therefore, there is no reason
to reveal any of the other steps. I don't want to reveal the other
parts because I think it would allow for focus on the current part to
be lost.

Step One.

Can any material object be divided an infinite number of times? What
is your opinion? Please state reasons. Of course I will reveal my
opinion but I want to see how folks answer this question, hoping that
I can jump start this argument and by-pass what isn't truly
necessary.

I don't know. At one time, atoms were 'indivisible' and now they're not.
We know more. At one time, electrons, protons and neutrons were
'indivisible', and now they're not. We know more. If you claim that
nothing can be divided into infinitely, then post your reasons for all to
see.
It's your argument, I'll concede nothing you don't demonstrate. A weak
argument, one with holes is worthless.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession.
-- Abraham Lincoln
.

User: "Mike Painter"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	14 Nov 2005 05:30:42 PM

Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
<Snip>

This is simply not true! "Atheism" posits nothing! Does my knowing
that you don't believe in Santa Claus tell me anything about what you
*do* believe? No!

1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.

This is a false dichotomy. There may be other choices we don't yet
know of. And even if those were the only two options, well, what of
that? We don't know enough yet to decide. When we know more,
perhaps we'll know the answer and then we'll know why that's the
answer.

Since the first case is strictly contradictory then only the second
case is worthy of consideration.

Why is it contradictory? Have you some secret evidence of how the
universe began that you haven't shared with the rest of us?

I've asked this also and AFAIK been ignored.

Saying something is of little value as I've said before.
Why not try to stay on topic and post your five steps which shows us that
something can't have existed forever?

Step One.

Can any material object be divided an infinite number of times? What
is your opinion? Please state reasons. Of course I will reveal my
opinion but I want to see how folks answer this question, hoping that
I can jump start this argument and by-pass what isn't truly
necessary.

I don't know. At one time, atoms were 'indivisible' and now they're
not. We know more. At one time, electrons, protons and neutrons were
'indivisible', and now they're not. We know more. If you claim that
nothing can be divided into infinitely, then post your reasons for
all to see.

It's your argument, I'll concede nothing you don't demonstrate. A
weak argument, one with holes is worthless.

User: "Greg Flynn"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	14 Nov 2005 10:29:47 PM

"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:C69ef.18790$Zv5.10366@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
<Snip>

This is simply not true! "Atheism" posits nothing! Does my knowing
that you don't believe in Santa Claus tell me anything about what you
*do* believe? No!

1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.

This is a false dichotomy. There may be other choices we don't yet
know of. And even if those were the only two options, well, what of
that? We don't know enough yet to decide. When we know more,
perhaps we'll know the answer and then we'll know why that's the
answer.

Since the first case is strictly contradictory then only the second
case is worthy of consideration.

Why is it contradictory? Have you some secret evidence of how the
universe began that you haven't shared with the rest of us?

I've asked this also and AFAIK been ignored.

Ok, The question is why the first statement is contradictory. Here it is:
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
How can nothing create something from nothing? This seem pretty obvious but
since you asked let me give an elaborate proof. The real issue is whether
or not causality is a general idea. If it is then the universe needs a
cause and could not have come from nothing by nothing. So here is a
rigorous proof. Remember you asked for this so read it : - )
****************************************************************************
*****************************
Is causality a general idea?
The first principle upon which the inductive method (scientific method) is
grounded is the Principle of Causality. The Principle of Causality is an
extension of the Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Principle of
Sufficient Reason leads logically to the Principle of Causality. The
Principle of Sufficient Reason is an extension of the dual Principles of
Identity and Contradiction. These primary or first principles are
self-evident and need not be proved. In fact, they cannot be proved. If
these principles are not accepted as true and valid, all discussion ceases
and nothing more can be discovered.
The Principle of Identity states: "A thing is what it is." Common sense
insists on this as do philosophy and empirical science. The Principle of
Identity then gives rise to the Principle of Contradiction which states: "A
thing is what it is, and it can be no other thing at the same time in the
same respect."
The Principle of Contradiction gives rise to the Principle of Sufficient
Reason, which states: "Everything must have a sufficient reason to be what
it is." This only makes sense, for if something had no sufficient reason for
its existence, it would have no existence and it would be nothing. If a
thing could exist without sufficient reason, it would exist and not exist at
the same time, that is, if a thing exists, it must have a sufficient reason
why it exists and why it is this particular thing rather than another thing.
This principle leads logically to the Principle of Causality, which is one
of the logical foundations of induction.
Consider this principle in more detail:
a.. Everything, in so far as it is a "thing" or a "being," has reality.
b.. Whatever reality a thing or being has, it must have it (1) either of
and by itself or (2) from and by another thing or being. In other words, the
existence and being of a thing must lie either in (1) the thing itself or
(2) in some other thing. There is no alternative.
c.. In (1), a thing has the sufficient reason for its reality in itself
and in (2), it has the sufficient reason for its reality in some other
thing.
d.. If a thing has no reality, it is nothing at all, and this means that
it has not received reality either of itself or from another thing. It is a
no-thing or non-being because it has no sufficient reason for its reality.
If it could have reality, it would have to receive its reality from no-thing
or non-being, which is absurd, since no-thing or non-being has no reality
and, of course, can never give reality to anything.
e.. If there were such a thing without sufficient reason, it would both
"be" and "not be" at the same time. It would "be," because that is the
supposition; and it would also "not be," because it didn't have the
sufficient reason to account for its reality.
f.. "To be" and "not to be" at the same time violates the Principle of
Contradiction.
g.. Therefore, if a thing has reality, it must have it either of itself or
from another, that is, it must have a sufficient reason for its existence.
h.. Nothing is without a sufficient reason. Everything must have a
sufficient reason for is being and existence.
Why we have gone into such detail about the Principle of Sufficient Reason,
a principle which common sense accepts as self-evident and necessary? The
reason is because this principle has either been denied by many modern
thinkers, probably due to their misunderstanding of it, or it has been
ignored by modern thinkers, many of whom are not acquainted with it. But the
Principle of Sufficient Reason is vital to an understanding and
justification of the Principle of Causality, which itself has been
questioned and sometimes even denied by some non-realistic philosophers.
****************************************************************************
********************************
Greg

Saying something is of little value as I've said before.
Why not try to stay on topic and post your five steps which shows us that
something can't have existed forever?

It's your argument, I'll concede nothing you don't demonstrate. A
weak argument, one with holes is worthless.

User: "Enkidu the Atheist"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	14 Nov 2005 11:23:49 PM

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:%udef.32662$MY4.27065@trnddc03:

"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:C69ef.18790$Zv5.10366@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
<Snip>

Give it a try please! : - ) Here it is reposted:

*******************************************************************
**** ***** ********
Atheism posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it
assumes one of two other possibilities.

This is simply not true! "Atheism" posits nothing! Does my
knowing that you don't believe in Santa Claus tell me anything
about what you *do* believe? No!

1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.

This is a false dichotomy. There may be other choices we don't yet
know of. And even if those were the only two options, well, what
of that? We don't know enough yet to decide. When we know more,
perhaps we'll know the answer and then we'll know why that's the
answer.

Since the first case is strictly contradictory then only the
second case is worthy of consideration.

Why is it contradictory? Have you some secret evidence of how the
universe began that you haven't shared with the rest of us?

I've asked this also and AFAIK been ignored.

Sounds like circular resoning to me. You've just said "The Principle of
Causality is an extention of itself." That's a no-no right there.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason is an extension of the
dual Principles of Identity and Contradiction. These primary or first
principles are self-evident and need not be proved. In fact, they
cannot be proved. If these principles are not accepted as true and
valid, all discussion ceases and nothing more can be discovered.

The Principle of Identity states: "A thing is what it is." Common
sense insists on this as do philosophy and empirical science. The
Principle of Identity then gives rise to the Principle of
Contradiction which states: "A thing is what it is, and it can be no
other thing at the same time in the same respect."

The Principle of Contradiction gives rise to the Principle of
Sufficient Reason, which states: "Everything must have a sufficient
reason to be what it is." This only makes sense, for if something had
no sufficient reason for its existence, it would have no existence and
it would be nothing.

Whoa, there, Dude! You just leaped over a whole lot of ground with a
single bound. "This only makes sense . . ." is not the same as a
rigorous proof, and in this case, it just isn't true on several levels.
In fact, the opposite seems to be the case. First, argument, logic, etc.
only make sense when one *first* assumes existence as a metaphysical
primary. You cannot speak of something existing for a reason if you
intend to extend your argument to the universe existing for a reason.
Reason, explanation, and the language used to express all concepts only
make sense when one assumes existence *first*. Second, you confound
different meanings and uses of the word "exist". When one speaks of a
man existing, one can talk of the reasons he exists, reasons like
evolution, biology, genealogy, etc. That is not the same as talking of
the mass/energy of which the man is composed. That mass/energy existed
before the man came to be, and will exist after the man no longer is.
That mass/energy does not exist for a reason, it just exists, a
fundamental part of the universe.
You simply cannot use arguments based on the existence of objects within
the universe to argue about the existence of the universe. It's
circular.

If a thing could exist without sufficient reason,
it would exist and not exist at the same time, that is, if a thing
exists, it must have a sufficient reason why it exists and why it is
this particular thing rather than another thing. This principle leads
logically to the Principle of Causality, which is one of the logical
foundations of induction.

Your argument died before this paragraph. No need to go on.
"It's your argument, I'll concede nothing you don't demonstrate. A weak
argument, one with holes is worthless."
[snip the rest]
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
"Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe"

-- H.G. Wells
.

User: "Greg Flynn"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	15 Nov 2005 11:23:48 PM

"Enkidu the Atheist" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns970ED9AFA1048255229@130.133.1.4...

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:%udef.32662$MY4.27065@trnddc03:

"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:C69ef.18790$Zv5.10366@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
<Snip>

Give it a try please! : - ) Here it is reposted:

*******************************************************************
**** ***** ********
Atheism posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it
assumes one of two other possibilities.

This is simply not true! "Atheism" posits nothing! Does my
knowing that you don't believe in Santa Claus tell me anything
about what you *do* believe? No!

1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.

This is a false dichotomy. There may be other choices we don't yet
know of. And even if those were the only two options, well, what
of that? We don't know enough yet to decide. When we know more,
perhaps we'll know the answer and then we'll know why that's the
answer.

Since the first case is strictly contradictory then only the
second case is worthy of consideration.

Why is it contradictory? Have you some secret evidence of how the
universe began that you haven't shared with the rest of us?

I've asked this also and AFAIK been ignored.

Enkidu,
It was not Verizon after all but rather I looked that this post last night
but since it was 1:30am I decided to sleep instead : - ) Anyway....

Sounds like circular resoning to me. You've just said "The Principle of
Causality is an extention of itself." That's a no-no right there.

This is simply the beginning and can be ignored if you consider the COMPLETE
proof that follows.

Whoa, there, Dude! You just leaped over a whole lot of ground with a
single bound. "This only makes sense . . ." is not the same as a
rigorous proof, and in this case, it just isn't true on several levels.
In fact, the opposite seems to be the case. First, argument, logic, etc.
only make sense when one *first* assumes existence as a metaphysical
primary. You cannot speak of something existing for a reason if you
intend to extend your argument to the universe existing for a reason.
Reason, explanation, and the language used to express all concepts only
make sense when one assumes existence *first*. Second, you confound
different meanings and uses of the word "exist". When one speaks of a
man existing, one can talk of the reasons he exists, reasons like
evolution, biology, genealogy, etc. That is not the same as talking of
the mass/energy of which the man is composed. That mass/energy existed
before the man came to be, and will exist after the man no longer is.
That mass/energy does not exist for a reason, it just exists, a
fundamental part of the universe.

You simply cannot use arguments based on the existence of objects within
the universe to argue about the existence of the universe. It's
circular.

Your argument died before this paragraph. No need to go on.

"It's your argument, I'll concede nothing you don't demonstrate. A weak
argument, one with holes is worthless."

This arguement is complicated and therefore can be misunderstood late at
night. Lets take it one step at a time. First, do you argree with the
principle of Identity?
The Principle of Identity states: "A thing is what it is."
If you agree to that do you agree with the principle of Contradiction:
The Principle of Identity then gives rise to the Principle of Contradiction
which states: "A thing is what it is, and it can be no other thing at the
same time in the same respect."
Would you go this far? If not then why?
Greg

--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0

"Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe"

-- H.G. Wells

User: "Enkidu the Atheist"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	16 Nov 2005 08:05:39 AM

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:Enzef.59230$MY4.39797@trnddc03:

"Enkidu the Atheist" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns970ED9AFA1048255229@130.133.1.4...

"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:%udef.32662$MY4.27065@trnddc03:

"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:C69ef.18790$Zv5.10366@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
<Snip>

Give it a try please! : - ) Here it is reposted:

****************************************************************
*** **** ***** ********
Atheism posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it
assumes one of two other possibilities.

This is simply not true! "Atheism" posits nothing! Does my
knowing that you don't believe in Santa Claus tell me anything
about what you *do* believe? No!

1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.

This is a false dichotomy. There may be other choices we don't
yet know of. And even if those were the only two options, well,
what of that? We don't know enough yet to decide. When we know
more, perhaps we'll know the answer and then we'll know why
that's the answer.

Since the first case is strictly contradictory then only the
second case is worthy of consideration.

Why is it contradictory? Have you some secret evidence of how
the universe began that you haven't shared with the rest of us?

I've asked this also and AFAIK been ignored.

Enkidu,

It was not Verizon after all but rather I looked that this post last
night but since it was 1:30am I decided to sleep instead : - )
Anyway....

Sounds like circular resoning to me. You've just said "The Principle
of Causality is an extention of itself." That's a no-no right there.

This is simply the beginning and can be ignored if you consider the
COMPLETE proof that follows.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason is an extension of the
dual Principles of Identity and Contradiction. These primary or
first principles are self-evident and need not be proved. In fact,
they cannot be proved. If these principles are not accepted as true
and valid, all discussion ceases and nothing more can be
discovered.

The Principle of Identity states: "A thing is what it is." Common
sense insists on this as do philosophy and empirical science. The
Principle of Identity then gives rise to the Principle of
Contradiction which states: "A thing is what it is, and it can be
no other thing at the same time in the same respect."

The Principle of Contradiction gives rise to the Principle of
Sufficient Reason, which states: "Everything must have a sufficient
reason to be what it is." This only makes sense, for if something
had no sufficient reason for its existence, it would have no
existence and it would be nothing.

Whoa, there, Dude! You just leaped over a whole lot of ground with a
single bound. "This only makes sense . . ." is not the same as a
rigorous proof, and in this case, it just isn't true on several
levels. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case. First, argument,
logic, etc. only make sense when one *first* assumes existence as a
metaphysical primary. You cannot speak of something existing for a
reason if you intend to extend your argument to the universe existing
for a reason. Reason, explanation, and the language used to express
all concepts only make sense when one assumes existence *first*.
Second, you confound different meanings and uses of the word "exist".
When one speaks of a man existing, one can talk of the reasons he
exists, reasons like evolution, biology, genealogy, etc. That is not
the same as talking of the mass/energy of which the man is composed.
That mass/energy existed before the man came to be, and will exist
after the man no longer is. That mass/energy does not exist for a
reason, it just exists, a fundamental part of the universe.

You simply cannot use arguments based on the existence of objects
within the universe to argue about the existence of the universe.
It's circular.

If a thing could exist without sufficient reason,
it would exist and not exist at the same time, that is, if a thing
exists, it must have a sufficient reason why it exists and why it
is this particular thing rather than another thing. This principle
leads logically to the Principle of Causality, which is one of the
logical foundations of induction.

Your argument died before this paragraph. No need to go on.

"It's your argument, I'll concede nothing you don't demonstrate. A
weak argument, one with holes is worthless."

Yes, subject to the understanding that "thing" assumes the existance of
the universe as a postulate. The concept of "thing" presupposes other
things, differences between things. The very word "thing" makes no sense
unless you first assume there is a universe and "things" are within it.

If you agree to that do you agree with the principle of Contradiction:

The Principle of Identity then gives rise to the Principle of
Contradiction which states: "A thing is what it is, and it can be no
other thing at the same time in the same respect."

Yes, in the same sense as I accept the principle of identity.

Would you go this far? If not then why?

Now, any argument that uses these two principles cannot be used as the
starting point for an argument that ends with any conclusion about the
existance of the universe as a whole, because you've assumed the
existance of the universe as a whole before you began.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
There are a lot of brain-related things spiritual belief slows, such as
intelligence and critical thinking.
-- Vic Sagerquist
.

User: "Colin Day"
Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible	15 Nov 2005 01:08:08 AM

Greg Flynn wrote:

"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:C69ef.18790$Zv5.10366@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
<Snip>

This is simply not true! "Atheism" posits nothing! Does my knowing
that you don't believe in Santa Claus tell me anything about what you
*do* believe? No!

1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.

This is a false dichotomy. There may be other choices we don't yet
know of. And even if those were the only two options, well, what of
that? We don't know enough yet to decide. When we know more,
perhaps we'll know the answer and then we'll know why that's the
answer.

Since the first case is strictly contradictory then only the second
case is worthy of consideration.

Why is it contradictory? Have you some secret evidence of how the
universe began that you haven't shared with the rest of us?

I've asked this also and AFAIK been ignored.