Religions > Atheism > Best Denial for God Existence / Problem of Evil Says nothing.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Ho" |
| Date: |
29 May 2006 07:25:14 AM |
| Object: |
Best Denial for God Existence / Problem of Evil Says nothing. |
There is only no rational proof for the existence of God and because
the term God as used by most Christens is meaningless. There is no way
of disproving a meaningless statement because it has no truth value:
It can not be false because they can not be true. If someone says,
"Beauty is the same thing as good." and they don't define the
term "beauty" or the term "good" then the statement is neither
true nor false.
I hope the atheists have calmed down enough to listen to reason. The
problem of evil argument is circular because it assumes that there is
no God. If there is no God then evil is wrong. The atheist assumes
there is no God and then believes that the existence of evil proves
that there is no God.
Let's say someone called A states that nothing is worth a million
dollars. Let's say someone called T says a billion dollars in gold is
worth a million dollars. If A's answer is you aren't going to get
the gold because the offer is a swindle then the argument doesn't
address the point. A isn't saying that nothing is worth a million he
is I wouldn't pay a million because I can't trust anyone to
actually give me what I pay for.
If God exists then he could go back in time and make sure that nothing
evil ever happened. An irrational atheist may respond by saying but
there is no God who can go back in time or do anything else. If there
is no God then the argument from the problem of evil is irreverent.
Again the term God as used by most Christens is meaningless and there
is no way to be disprove a meaningless statement because it has no
truth value.
.
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Best Denial for God Existence / Problem of Evil Says nothing. |
29 May 2006 12:10:42 PM |
|
|
"Ho" <homasubimiyamoto@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148905514.043520.245950@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
There is only no rational proof for the existence of God and because
the term God as used by most Christens is meaningless.
FOAD, troll.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Best Denial for God Existence / Problem of Evil Says nothing. |
29 May 2006 08:35:40 AM |
|
|
Ho wrote:
There is only no rational proof for the existence of God and because
the term God as used by most Christens is meaningless. There is no way
of disproving a meaningless statement because it has no truth value:
It can not be false because they can not be true. If someone says,
"Beauty is the same thing as good." and they don't define the
term "beauty" or the term "good" then the statement is neither
true nor false.
I hope the atheists have calmed down enough to listen to reason. The
problem of evil argument is circular because it assumes that there is
no God.
Damn, you are certainly stupid!
If god is all powerful and god is all good, he should
destroy evil. he does not.
That proves god is not as claimed, all good, all powerful, possibly
neither or does not exist.
CAN GOD EXIST? STRONG ATHEISM SAYS NO.
1.THE SELF DESTRUCTION OF THE CONCEPT OF
OMNIPOTENCE
A. Omnipotence is derived from Latin words
omni - all, potent - power, potency.
B. It thus means all potent, all powerful.
Having all possible powers and abilities.
It means god has all possible powers. Many
theologians hasten to add that god is not
omnipotent in regards to illogical or impossible
things, he cannot make for example, a married
bachelor.
C. It also means lessor powers and entities have
no possible way of affecting god, or in limiting
good in any possible manner.
D. Except for such logical exceptions nothing
can limited god, he is unlimited in ability and
power.
2. GOD AND TIME
A. Time exists
B. But if god is to be omnipotent, time cannot
limit god in any way.
C. Time is what gives us a past, present and
future. We cannot see the future, nor reach
into the future at will.
D. If god is so limited, god is not omnipotent,
time, past and present limit god. Time is more
powerful than unlimited god.
E. Thus past present and future, time, do not
and cannot limit god, for god there is no
past, present or future, all is now.
F. God then can see all of creation at once,
directly, and can experience or interact
with any and all things at once.
G. If time exists, god must have created it, and
he created our inability to see more than a
small part of time, now and not see future nor
past directly.
3. GOD, CREATION, AND TIME.
A. God created all, this is a basic claim
of many religions, Judaism, Christianity,
Hinduism, Islam. The Bible and Quran and
other sacred books are explicit about god's
creation of all.
B. If all is now, and for God there is no past,
and no future in essence, all is for practical
purposes now, and all that was, is and shall
be are now, existant.
C. Thus god created all now, at one time,
complete in all particulars to the last quark
and last fraction of a second in all
particulars and connections to all the rest of
the things in the Universe.
D. A god contemplated his creation, he then had to
think about what he was to create in all
particulars. If he created a man named John
Smith born in 1950, he had contemplate all of
Smith's existence as he created it. Each
atom, each act, each inclination of Smith had
to be created at once.
E. And god had to contemplate creation of each
atom, each act, every second, every inclination
of Smiths life and existence. He had to say
"Yes, I will create that" or "No, I will not
create that".
F. He had to contemplate the last detail of
Smith's life, decide what he would specifically
create Smith as doing and create it all.
If Smith is evil and damned it is totally
God's doing. If good and saved, it is all
totally God's doing.
G. Since all is at once, and all is created at
once, and god creates all, he must likewise
create at once, all sentient beings of his
universe, mortals, angels, demons, djinn.
H. Thus because all must be at once because god
is not limited by time in any way and thus not
past and present, and since he creates all,
there can be no free will at all in this
Universe.
I. All exists only because all was created by god
as it was created in all its particulars to the
smallest degree possible, with god's personal
knowledge and purpose and will.
4. GOD AND OMNIBENEVOLENCE.
1. God is said to be good, all good, supremely
good. Often denoted by the word
omnibenevolent.
2. There is evil.
3. Evil comes in two type, natural evil,
drought, floods, hurricanes and moral evil,
evil deriving from acts of mankind, murder,
rape, lying as examples.
4. But if god made all man's acts to the last
detail including evil ones, then evil exists
only because god exists.
5. God also creates all natural evils that befall
man.
6. Since all evils are directly caused by god and
only god, as nobody has free will except god,
all evil is caused directly and only by god.
7. Therefore god is evil.
5. GOD AND OTHER CLAIMS ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
THAT FAIL HERE.
1. God is claimed to be loving, merciful,
and just.
2. But making a man evil and then condemning him
to hell for being something he has no choice in
being is unjust, unmerciful and not loving.
6. GOD'S FREE WILL
A. If god creates all in one now, no real past
and present, all at once, he also creates in
this all at once creation, all interactions he
has with all aspects of creation. Every
action, every omniscient inspection of all of
creation as it is before him, any possible
interaction at all imaginable.
B. This must mean God is frozen in time as he
makes all his interactions with the Universe
creates also at once. All is including all
god does. He also lacks free will. All is an
eternal now, frozen, unchangeable, unchanging,
static, we are all like insects frozen in
amber forever.
7. GOD AND TIME IN RETROSPECT AT THIS POINT.
A. Suppose we say we cannot have this, we must
rethink this.
B. We must drop then, all explicit claims of
omniscience and thus incidentally, omnipotence.
C. We must drop all claims of perfection, and
omnipotence explicitly also. They lead to god
being sovereign over time.
D. We must explicitly drop all references to
sovereignty or power over time, the future and
the past. Again, omnipotence leads directly to
that claim.
E. If time is now more powerful than god, if
time affects and limits god, god cannot have
created time.
F. Time is thus outside god and not create
by him so we must drop explicit claims god
created the entire Universe.
G. Since he cannot have created the entire
Universe he cannot be in any way a necessary
being, he is under time, limited by time,
and must use time so he is contingent on time
and a contingent being.
H. Thus time shows us god is not as claimed,
perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent, and creator of all.
Few theories in history implode as
spectacularly as omnipotence when we start
examining time in light of claims of
omnipotence.
8. CONCLUSION
1. Perfection -> omnipotence -> omniscience ->
power over time -> creation of all now -> man's
lack of free will -> God's creation of all evil
-> destruction of all good qualities such as
love, mercy and justice -> and finally lack of
free will for god himself.
2. This does not work.
3. And the whole chain does not work. Start any
place from say perfection, or omnipotence,
which leads to sovereignty over time and it
leads to collapse of about all assertions made
by theology and religion about god.
Basically, omnipotence contains the seeds of its
own destruction, dragging down everything else
with it. We end up with an incoherent world where
there can be no love, mercy, justice. Sin and
evil and punishment make no sense when we are
puppets, when all we do to the smallest atom was
gods, specific, knowing, purposeful creation.
Free will means nothing, original sin, means
nothing, heaven, hell and Satan lose all reason to
exist. This world is incoherent and madder than
Alice's Wonderland, or H. P. Lovecraft's fantasy
worlds of mad gods and a Universe gone wrong. A
metaphysical dystopia even Satan could not
design.
God as perfect, omniscient, omnipotent or
sovereign over time cannot be. Nor does it end
there. A God that is omniscient, or has power over
time cannot be. One can try to soften claims for
God by dropping omnipotence, perfection, and many
other claims, but explicit sovereignty over time
and explicit omniscience both doom weaker types
of gods weakened specifically to get around
omnipotence or perfection puzzles.
Soverignty over time dooms all other classes of
possible gods and also shows any other classes of
gods cannot have created all including time also,
not just the class of omni-everything creator
gods.
And as omnipotence soon drags us into this
problem with time, free will and evil,
omnipotence is impossible for all other possible
classes of gods other than just omni-everything,
creator gods.
(End)
--
"Its the hit dog what yelps."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ho" |
|
| Title: Re: Best Denial for God Existence / Problem of Evil Says nothing. |
29 May 2006 08:40:56 AM |
|
|
I use the same argument that you do to reject the existence of God and
you call me stupid.
I am not going to bother reading any more because the board is nothing
with a collection of fanitics.
I reject the Christen God and you call me a Christen who believes in
God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Best Denial for God Existence / Problem of Evil Says nothing. |
29 May 2006 08:42:56 AM |
|
|
On 29 May 2006 06:40:56 -0700, "Ho" <homasubimiyamoto@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I use the same argument that you do to reject the existence of God and
you call me stupid.
That's not why he calls you stupid.
I am not going to bother reading any more because the board is nothing
with a collection of fanitics.
Here's a clue: don't lie about us.
I reject the Christen God and you call me a Christen who believes in
God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ho" |
|
| Title: Re: Best Denial for God Existence / Problem of Evil Says nothing. |
29 May 2006 10:02:03 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 29 May 2006 06:40:56 -0700, "Ho" <homasubimiyamoto@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I use the same argument that you do to reject the existence of God and
you call me stupid.
That's not why he calls you stupid.
I am not going to bother reading any more because the board is nothing
with a collection of fanitics.
Here's a clue: don't lie about us.
I reject the Christen God and you call me a Christen who believes in
God.
You are a liar because you didn't back up your claim.
I use the same argument that you do to reject the existence of God and
you call me stupid.
That's not why he calls you stupid.
Were is your argument? A declartive statement is not an argument. If
you has any education you would you know that but you are dumber then
dog ***** so you don't even know what it means to back up you statement.
Morons like you give atheism a bad name. I just hope that people who
come here don't judge atheists based on the morons on this board. There
are rational atheists. Actually you are too stupid to be an atheist all
you are doing is repeating what you have been told.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Best Denial for God Existence / Problem of Evil Says nothing. |
29 May 2006 10:47:21 AM |
|
|
On 29 May 2006 08:02:03 -0700, "Ho" <homasubimiyamoto@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 29 May 2006 06:40:56 -0700, "Ho" <homasubimiyamoto@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I use the same argument that you do to reject the existence of God and
you call me stupid.
That's not why he calls you stupid.
I am not going to bother reading any more because the board is nothing
with a collection of fanitics.
Here's a clue: don't lie about us.
I reject the Christen God and you call me a Christen who believes in
God.
You are a liar because you didn't back up your claim.
Here's an example, liar, of your lies about us, to us:
"I hope the atheists have calmed down enough to listen to reason. The
problem of evil argument is circular because it assumes that there
is no God. If there is no God then evil is wrong. The atheist
assumes there is no God and then believes that the existence of evil
proves that there is no God."
I use the same argument that you do to reject the existence of God and
you call me stupid.
That's not why he calls you stupid.
Were is your argument? A declartive statement is not an argument. If
you has any education you would you know that but you are dumber then
dog ***** so you don't even know what it means to back up you statement.
The paragraph I quoted shows why you are called stupid, for being
stupid, and a liar for lying.
If you don't like it the solution is easy.
Morons like you give atheism a bad name. I just hope that people who
come here don't judge atheists based on the morons on this board. There
are rational atheists. Actually you are too stupid to be an atheist all
you are doing is repeating what you have been told.
Why do you continue these lies and nastiness?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Best Denial for God Existence / Problem of Evil Says nothing. |
29 May 2006 12:42:47 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 May 2006 10:02:03 -0500, Ho wrote
(in article <1148914923.606686.262500@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 29 May 2006 06:40:56 -0700, "Ho" <homasubimiyamoto@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I use the same argument that you do to reject the existence of God and
you call me stupid.
That's not why he calls you stupid.
I am not going to bother reading any more because the board is nothing
with a collection of fanitics.
Here's a clue: don't lie about us.
I reject the Christen God and you call me a Christen who believes in
God.
You are a liar because you didn't back up your claim.
I use the same argument that you do to reject the existence of God and
you call me stupid.
That's not why he calls you stupid.
Were is your argument? A declartive statement is not an argument. If
you has any education you would you know that but you are dumber then
dog ***** so you don't even know what it means to back up you statement.
Morons like you give atheism a bad name.
And just how do you give a lack of something (theism in this case) a bad
name?
I just hope that people who
come here don't judge atheists based on the morons on this board. There
are rational atheists. Actually you are too stupid to be an atheist all
you are doing is repeating what you have been told.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
"We've upped our standards, up yours."-EAC Department of Literary
Standards-Desdinova
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Best Denial for God Existence / Problem of Evil Says nothing. |
29 May 2006 10:42:59 AM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, Ho in episode
<1148910056.549745.247980@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
I am not going to bother reading any more because the board is nothing
with a collection of fanitics.
Don't let the door hit you on the *****.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "theBeaver" |
|
| Title: Re: Best Denial for God Existence / Problem of Evil Says nothing. |
29 May 2006 08:10:08 AM |
|
|
Ho wrote:
There is only no rational proof for the existence of God and because
the term God as used by most Christens is meaningless. There is no way
of disproving a meaningless statement because it has no truth value:
It can not be false because they can not be true. If someone says,
"Beauty is the same thing as good." and they don't define the
term "beauty" or the term "good" then the statement is neither
true nor false.
I hope the atheists have calmed down enough to listen to reason. The
problem of evil argument is circular because it assumes that there is
no God. If there is no God then evil is wrong. The atheist assumes
there is no God and then believes that the existence of evil proves
that there is no God.
Let's say someone called A states that nothing is worth a million
dollars. Let's say someone called T says a billion dollars in gold is
worth a million dollars. If A's answer is you aren't going to get
the gold because the offer is a swindle then the argument doesn't
address the point. A isn't saying that nothing is worth a million he
is I wouldn't pay a million because I can't trust anyone to
actually give me what I pay for.
If God exists then he could go back in time and make sure that nothing
evil ever happened. An irrational atheist may respond by saying but
there is no God who can go back in time or do anything else. If there
is no God then the argument from the problem of evil is irreverent.
Again the term God as used by most Christens is meaningless and there
is no way to be disprove a meaningless statement because it has no
truth value.
The Existence of Evil argument against the existence of is ironclad and
incontrovertible to anyone with decent morals. If it is not evident to
you that the greatest evils should be avoided over lesser evils, then
you are not decent. If it is not evident to you that flaying or burning
alive an innocent little girl is an example of the kind of evil that
most needs to be avoided, then you are not decent. If you do not admit
that such events occur then you are insane, delusional, or monumentally
stupid. If you do not understand that letting the greatest evil happen
is inconsistent with a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent,
and good, then you have likely been steeped since childhood in the
chronic uncertainty and confusion engendered by Christians to obfuscate
the illogic of their beliefs. It also should be obvious to you that the
definition of God as omnipotent, omniscient, and good, even when not
explicitly stated by Christians, is implicit in their thinking and
behavior. That they don't admit this definition is irrelevant. That
they don't recognize the validity of this argument is irrelevant.
--
"Philosophy is a stage in intellectual development, and is not
compatible with mental maturity." -- Bertrand Russell
"Philosophy, as opposed to science, springs from a kind of
self-assertion: a belief that our purposes have an important relation to
the purposes of the universe, and that, in the long run, the course of
events is bound to be, on the whole, such as we should wish." --
Bertrand Russell
"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there
can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as
God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is
exactly of the same nature as the Indian's view, that the world rested
upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they
said, 'How about the tortoise?' the Indian said, 'Suppose we change the
subject.' The argument is really no better than that." -- Russell
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions,
a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the
unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human
Side , edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein's secretary) and Banesh Hoffman,
and published by Princeton University Press.
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the
spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should
be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality,
deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how
despiceable an ignoreable war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than
be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under
the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." [Albert Einstein]
"I am the entire human race compacted together. I have found that there
is no ingredient of the race which I do not possess in either a small
way or a large way." -- Mark Twain
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public." -- Theodore Roosevelt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ho" |
|
| Title: Re: Best Denial for God Existence / Problem of Evil Says nothing. |
29 May 2006 08:36:48 AM |
|
|
I attack the Christen's claim and you claim that I am a Chrtisten. I
have already rejected the argument for the existence of God. All you
have is name calling. You did not address the point. God could go back
in time and undo all evil so it never happend. As you did not address
the point you will recive no further answer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Best Denial for God Existence / Problem of Evil Says nothing. |
30 May 2006 12:31:16 AM |
|
|
Ho wrote:
I attack the Christen's claim and you claim that I am a Chrtisten. I
have already rejected the argument for the existence of God. All you
have is name calling. You did not address the point. God could go back
in time and undo all evil so it never happend. As you did not address
the point you will recive no further answer.
Time cannot exist for omnipotent gods.
For they are omnipotent, unlimited, time cannot thus limit them.
And it is time that creates past, present future.
Without time there is no past present, future.
See Augustine (Confessions Chapter 11) and Boethius
(Consolatiions of Philosophy)
But, if all is a big now, god created all and everything at one time.
all of it. Everything you do in its totality, past, present, future, all
now.
All evil there fore is gods specific doing.
------------
CAN GOD EXIST? STRONG ATHEISM SAYS NO.
1.THE SELF DESTRUCTION OF THE CONCEPT OF
OMNIPOTENCE
A. Omnipotence is derived from Latin words
omni - all, potent - power, potency.
B. It thus means all potent, all powerful.
Having all possible powers and abilities.
It means god has all possible powers. Many
theologians hasten to add that god is not
omnipotent in regards to illogical or impossible
things, he cannot make for example, a married
bachelor.
C. It also means lessor powers and entities have
no possible way of affecting god, or in limiting
good in any possible manner.
D. Except for such logical exceptions nothing
can limited god, he is unlimited in ability and
power.
2. GOD AND TIME
A. Time exists
B. But if god is to be omnipotent, time cannot
limit god in any way.
C. Time is what gives us a past, present and
future. We cannot see the future, nor reach
into the future at will.
D. If god is so limited, god is not omnipotent,
time, past and present limit god. Time is more
powerful than unlimited god.
E. Thus past present and future, time, do not
and cannot limit god, for god there is no
past, present or future, all is now.
F. God then can see all of creation at once,
directly, and can experience or interact
with any and all things at once.
G. If time exists, god must have created it, and
he created our inability to see more than a
small part of time, now and not see future nor
past directly.
3. GOD, CREATION, AND TIME.
A. God created all, this is a basic claim
of many religions, Judaism, Christianity,
Hinduism, Islam. The Bible and Quran and
other sacred books are explicit about god's
creation of all.
B. If all is now, and for God there is no past,
and no future in essence, all is for practical
purposes now, and all that was, is and shall
be are now, existant.
C. Thus god created all now, at one time,
complete in all particulars to the last quark
and last fraction of a second in all
particulars and connections to all the rest of
the things in the Universe.
D. A god contemplated his creation, he then had to
think about what he was to create in all
particulars. If he created a man named John
Smith born in 1950, he had contemplate all of
Smith's existence as he created it. Each
atom, each act, each inclination of Smith had
to be created at once.
E. And god had to contemplate creation of each
atom, each act, every second, every inclination
of Smiths life and existence. He had to say
"Yes, I will create that" or "No, I will not
create that".
F. He had to contemplate the last detail of
Smith's life, decide what he would specifically
create Smith as doing and create it all.
If Smith is evil and damned it is totally
God's doing. If good and saved, it is all
totally God's doing.
G. Since all is at once, and all is created at
once, and god creates all, he must likewise
create at once, all sentient beings of his
universe, mortals, angels, demons, djinn.
H. Thus because all must be at once because god
is not limited by time in any way and thus not
past and present, and since he creates all,
there can be no free will at all in this
Universe.
I. All exists only because all was created by god
as it was created in all its particulars to the
smallest degree possible, with god's personal
knowledge and purpose and will.
4. GOD AND OMNIBENEVOLENCE.
1. God is said to be good, all good, supremely
good. Often denoted by the word
omnibenevolent.
2. There is evil.
3. Evil comes in two type, natural evil,
drought, floods, hurricanes and moral evil,
evil deriving from acts of mankind, murder,
rape, lying as examples.
4. But if god made all man's acts to the last
detail including evil ones, then evil exists
only because god exists.
5. God also creates all natural evils that befall
man.
6. Since all evils are directly caused by god and
only god, as nobody has free will except god,
all evil is caused directly and only by god.
7. Therefore god is evil.
5. GOD AND OTHER CLAIMS ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
THAT FAIL HERE.
1. God is claimed to be loving, merciful,
and just.
2. But making a man evil and then condemning him
to hell for being something he has no choice in
being is unjust, unmerciful and not loving.
6. GOD'S FREE WILL
A. If god creates all in one now, no real past
and present, all at once, he also creates in
this all at once creation, all interactions he
has with all aspects of creation. Every
action, every omniscient inspection of all of
creation as it is before him, any possible
interaction at all imaginable.
B. This must mean God is frozen in time as he
makes all his interactions with the Universe
creates also at once. All is including all
god does. He also lacks free will. All is an
eternal now, frozen, unchangeable, unchanging,
static, we are all like insects frozen in
amber forever.
7. GOD AND TIME IN RETROSPECT AT THIS POINT.
A. Suppose we say we cannot have this, we must
rethink this.
B. We must drop then, all explicit claims of
omniscience and thus incidentally, omnipotence.
C. We must drop all claims of perfection, and
omnipotence explicitly also. They lead to god
being sovereign over time.
D. We must explicitly drop all references to
sovereignty or power over time, the future and
the past. Again, omnipotence leads directly to
that claim.
E. If time is now more powerful than god, if
time affects and limits god, god cannot have
created time.
F. Time is thus outside god and not create
by him so we must drop explicit claims god
created the entire Universe.
G. Since he cannot have created the entire
Universe he cannot be in any way a necessary
being, he is under time, limited by time,
and must use time so he is contingent on time
and a contingent being.
H. Thus time shows us god is not as claimed,
perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent, and creator of all.
Few theories in history implode as
spectacularly as omnipotence when we start
examining time in light of claims of
omnipotence.
8. CONCLUSION
1. Perfection -> omnipotence -> omniscience ->
power over time -> creation of all now -> man's
lack of free will -> God's creation of all evil
-> destruction of all good qualities such as
love, mercy and justice -> and finally lack of
free will for god himself.
2. This does not work.
3. And the whole chain does not work. Start any
place from say perfection, or omnipotence,
which leads to sovereignty over time and it
leads to collapse of about all assertions made
by theology and religion about god.
Basically, omnipotence contains the seeds of its
own destruction, dragging down everything else
with it. We end up with an incoherent world where
there can be no love, mercy, justice. Sin and
evil and punishment make no sense when we are
puppets, when all we do to the smallest atom was
gods, specific, knowing, purposeful creation.
Free will means nothing, original sin, means
nothing, heaven, hell and Satan lose all reason to
exist. This world is incoherent and madder than
Alice's Wonderland, or H. P. Lovecraft's fantasy
worlds of mad gods and a Universe gone wrong. A
metaphysical dystopia even Satan could not
design.
God as perfect, omniscient, omnipotent or
sovereign over time cannot be. Nor does it end
there. A God that is omniscient, or has power over
time cannot be. One can try to soften claims for
God by dropping omnipotence, perfection, and many
other claims, but explicit sovereignty over time
and explicit omniscience both doom weaker types
of gods weakened specifically to get around
omnipotence or perfection puzzles.
Soverignty over time dooms all other classes of
possible gods and also shows any other classes of
gods cannot have created all including time also,
not just the class of omni-everything creator
gods.
And as omnipotence soon drags us into this
problem with time, free will and evil,
omnipotence is impossible for all other possible
classes of gods other than just omni-everything,
creator gods.
(End)
--
"Its the hit dog what yelps."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Best Denial for God Existence / Problem of Evil Says nothing. |
29 May 2006 12:00:14 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 29 May 2006 05:25:14 -0700, "Ho"
<homasubimiyamoto@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
There is only no rational proof for the existence of God and because
the term God as used by most Christens is meaningless. There is no way
of disproving a meaningless statement because it has no truth value:
It can not be false because they can not be true. If someone says,
"Beauty is the same thing as good." and they don't define the
term "beauty" or the term "good" then the statement is neither
true nor false.
I hope the atheists have calmed down enough to listen to reason. The
problem of evil argument is circular because it assumes that there is
no God.
No, it does not.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Best Denial for God Existence / Problem of Evil Says nothing. |
29 May 2006 12:37:01 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 May 2006 12:00:14 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 May 2006 05:25:14 -0700, "Ho"
<homasubimiyamoto@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
There is only no rational proof for the existence of God and because
the term God as used by most Christens is meaningless. There is no way
of disproving a meaningless statement because it has no truth value:
It can not be false because they can not be true. If someone says,
"Beauty is the same thing as good." and they don't define the
term "beauty" or the term "good" then the statement is neither
true nor false.
I hope the atheists have calmed down enough to listen to reason. The
problem of evil argument is circular because it assumes that there is
no God.
No, it does not.
In fact like many of these, it assumes it for the sake of argument in
order to disprove it.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Best Denial for God Existence / Problem of Evil Says nothing. |
29 May 2006 11:34:02 AM |
|
|
In article <1148905514.043520.245950
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, Ho said...
I hope the atheists have calmed down enough to listen to reason. The
problem of evil argument is circular because it assumes that there is
no God. If there is no God then evil is wrong. The atheist assumes
there is no God and then believes that the existence of evil proves
that there is no God.
"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son."
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Best Denial for God Existence / Problem of Evil Says nothing. |
29 May 2006 05:56:19 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Ho
(homasubimiyamoto@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
There is only no rational proof for the existence of God
Works for me.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
The laws that require me to NOT kill people I don't like REALLY bug
me, or there would be many less of YOUR kind.
-John Weatherly
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Best Denial for God Existence / Problem of Evil Says nothing. |
29 May 2006 10:42:42 AM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, Ho in episode
<1148905514.043520.245950@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>...
I hope the atheists have calmed down enough to listen to reason.
***** you too.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Best Denial for God Existence / Problem of Evil Says nothing. |
30 May 2006 02:08:34 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:-MKdnS5Ey97vi-bZRVn-iA@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Ho in episode
<1148905514.043520.245950@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>...
I hope the atheists have calmed down enough to listen to reason.
***** you too.
<Chortle!>
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ho" |
|
| Title: Re: Best Denial for God Existence / Problem of Evil Says nothing. |
29 May 2006 07:43:54 AM |
|
|
The term God as used my most Christens is meaningless as such it has no
hold on a rational person. Any attempt to disprove the existence of God
gives the term more respect then it deserves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Best Denial for God Existence / Problem of Evil Says nothing. |
30 May 2006 12:32:35 AM |
|
|
Ho wrote:
The term God as used my most Christens is meaningless as such it has no
hold on a rational person. Any attempt to disprove the existence of God
gives the term more respect then it deserves.
Its not hard to do, so do it.
IS THERE A GOD? NO.
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - PART 1.
1. First of all, this proof "God" does not exist
is aimed at an entire class of gods, not
particular gods. This is the class of gods that
are omni-everything and creator of all. If I can
disprove an entire class of gods, all particular
gods that belong to that class are collectively
disproven too. This is an efficient, and sensible
approach to disproving god, by which I mean the
god of major religious and theological traditions.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Brahamanistic
Hinduism and other claimed gods of this class.
This of course does not disprove all possible
gods, nor in Part 1 is this meant to do that, it
is meant only to deal with the gods that are
the main problem for this world, the gods of
4 1/2 billion believers. The god that is the
source of fundamentalism, bigotry, fanaticism,
anti-intellectualism and backwardness.
There are a few other classes of gods but
numerically speaking, by numbers of believers,
these are not that widespread or very important.
Animist gods, such as found in Voodoo and
nature gods and the like. It is possible to sort
other kinds of gods into a few classes of gods and
likewise disprove each class. That shall be
considered in later parts.
Here I am primarily looking at the class of
omni-everything creator gods. This should not be
taken to mean other classes of gods cannot also
be likewise disproven.
Or that such secondary classes are totally
unimportant. But basically the omni-everything
class of gods is so far above any other god that
once it is debunked, its hard to step down to
distinctly second rate gods. Its like stepping
down from a Cadillac to a bicycle.
If we can thus disprove that class, we have done
most of strong Atheism's work.
No other class of gods, a lessor kind of god,
can plug the hole left by the debunked Grand
Gods, the omni-everything creator gods of
classical major religions and theological
systems, either. These systems have all based
themselves on a set of claims about god that
lessor classes of god cannot fulfill, precisely
because to do so, they would have to become again,
omni-everything gods to fulfill the
omni-everything claims made for god in these
traditional systems.
2. A BASIC DEFINITION THE CLASS OF
OMNI-EVERYTHING AND CREATOR OF ALL GODS.
I sometimes call this the Grand God of
Grand Theology. Or the Grand God
for short.
3. NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD
There is no evidence whatsover for god. One may
search the best textbooks of the best divinity
schools and seminaries and philosophy departments
of the best universities in vain for evidence.
2500 years of philosophy and theology have
produced no good hard, undeniable evidence at all.
4. ALL WE HAVE TO WORK WITH IS ASSERTIONS
A. All we have to work from is claims, or
assertions made about god. I have chosen the
following 8 assertions as they are all part of
all great and large religions and theological
traditions of the world. Most of 4 1/2 billion
believers will agree with most of these, and these
are all dogmatic to most mainsteam religions.
B. If we can show these create contradictions, we
can show that the class omni-everything creator
gods, the Grand God, cannot exist. All we have to
work with are assertions and logic, but this is
all we need. I need not use anything more to
achieve my goal.
5. THE 8 MAJOR ASSERTIONS I WILL WORK WITH
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and
consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism. I have chosen the
specifically because they are in fact assertions
made about god traditionally by these religions
and are all that is needed to show this class of
Grand Gods cannot exist.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
6. WE CAN THUS ABSTRACT A GENERAL CLASS OF
OMNI-EVERYTHING GOD FROM THESE 8 GENERAL
ASSERTIONS.
A. We can abstract a class of gods,
omni-everything, creator gods from these 8
characteristics. We could probably drop G. and
collapse B. into A.
We can ignore other claims though such claims
as god's mercy, justice and love are also affected
and could be used to strengthen the argument.
Many of these are destroyed anyway by considering
A. - G. But the idea is to use minimal number of
basic claims found in all major religious and
theological traditions. If these do the job of
disproving this class of gods, that is all we
need. Anything else is a luxury.
B. There are other attributes of god, that god is
eternal, infinite, that god is simple and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above or are destroyed by
discussion of the 8 attributes discussed above.
C. It does not mean we cannot later consider
such secondary claims as many are also rather
useful at showing this class of gods is
impossible. Some are rather amusing in this
regard. But they are secondary and not critical
for the main argument here.
7. CLASSES OF GODS
A. It is important to note here in 2., that this
is a definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods. This is key to this
disproof which is general in nature.
B. If we disprove the entire class of gods by
examining the logical implications of a few
claims, all secondary claims are also destroyed.
We need not examine claims of god's simplicity or
whether god is immanent or transcendent or other
similar claims. We need not break down
omnibenevolence into secondary associated claims
such as such as mercy, justice, or implied claims,
though we might mention their destruction
in passing when appropriate, and damage done to
such concepts of damnation, or punishment or sin.
C. If we disprove a class of gods, those gods
belonging to that class are also disproven. Jesus,
Allah and other gods that properly belong to the
class of omni-everything creator gods are
simultaneously disproven if we succeed.
all known gods and possible new or obscure gods
are all dealt with, we need not worry about a god
we have never heard of it it is of this class.
D. Tertiary claims are also likewise disproven.
Mohammed is not a prophet of god and Jesus was not
son of god. Moses did not meet god on the
mountain, God did not promise all of Canaan to
Abraham. God did not part the Red Sea. God does
not speak to prophets.
8. 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. I chose these since the majority
of believers 4 1/2 billion approximately belong to
these traditions and related religions and sects.
THE PROBLEMS OF AN OMNI-EVERYTHING, CREATOR GOD
9. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
It is found in Christian writer Lactantius's
"Treatise on the Anger of God".
A basic formulation is:
A. God is defined as powerful
B. God is defined as as good.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not powerful as claimed.
E. Or God is not good as claimed.
F. Or god is neither powerful or
good.
G. Or god is not existant.
It should be noted the original version as found
in Lactantius does not use the words omnipotent
or omnibenevolent, these are much later
restatements of the original problem of evil which
works just as well without these terms.
10. THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
A. The free will defense of the problem of evil
goes back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It
is still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by many other
theologians, old and modern.
B. God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to
do evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
11. THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DISPROVEN. FIRST WAY
God has free will.
God is has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god-like
free will and a god-like good nature.
D. Inability 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
good.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So god can have free will and a good nature and
still be said to have free will despite never
doing evil. Man can thus also have this and
inability to do evil is not a sign of lack of free
will. We both would have potential to do evil, but
simply don't. Here, the free will defense fails,
the problem of evil remains.
13 OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
FREE WILL DISPROVEN PART 2.
God is defined as creator of all in these
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.
14. OMNI-EVERYTHING GODS HAVE THUS SELF
DESTRUCTED.
A.The Grand God of Grand Theology is thus self
destroying, it is incoherent and contradictory as
a theory and such a god is impossible.
B. Further more such a situation makes god a
problematic idea. If there is no free will and if
thus god makes all decisions to the smallest
physical extent possible, at all times, then not
only is this god not good, but evil, a
contradiction, but it destroys all of this
purported god's secondary attributes. In such a
universe, mercy, justice, god's alleged love of
mankind are all incomprehensible nonsense. It
makes no sense to create a man to do evil acts
and condemn him to eternal torment forever for
something god decided, not that man.
C. Any system of theology that claims god created
all and that god is omniscient, knowing the
future, faces this problem and dissolves into
total incoherent nonsense, a reductio ad absurdum
that makes a mockery of all religions based on a
god that is allegedly creator of all and
omniscient, knowing the future. As we will see,
omnipotence, time and creation will combine
(in future parts) to create a far more powerful
disproof of this class of gods.
15. THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
6. This destroys all other claimed secondary and
good attributes of god.
16. GOD AND TIME.
A. Both Augustine and Boethius described god as
being transcendent to time, outside and beyond it.
Thus there is no past, present, or future to god,
all is now. Since all is now, god must have
create all things at once at once. Including
again, our every act, thought and inclination.
God is said to be out of time because otherwise he
must affected by time, which would mean he is not
as defined, all powerful or omnipotent. But this
means he is omniscient and again, we have no free
will.
B. As seen, explicit claims of omniscience, and
creatorship of god doom free will and more. Any
claim god is outside of time forces us to the
claim god is effectively omniscient.
C. But if we drop claims god is out of time and
now is affected by time, god cannot be as claimed,
omnipotent. And since omniscience, foreknowledge
of the future is important to the concept of
prophecy, that secondary assertion fails too.
Prophecy is a key concept of traditional religions
and theologies of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
17. MANY SECONDARY AND LESSOR ATTRIBUTES ARE
DOOMED BY THE CONCEPT OF OMNIPOTENCE AND
CREATORSHIP OF GOD
A. If evil exists, god is evil. We have no free
will which means secondary attributes of God such
as mercy, love, justice are pretty meaningless
in face of a god that creates many of us morally
evil. Heaven, hell, damnation, sin, punishment,
salvation, nothing much makes with such an
omniscient god. Augustine's free will defense of
God in face of Epicurus's problem of evil is
utterly undone by his claim god is sovereign over
time because he is all powerful, or omnipotent.
B. Besides these attributes being destroyed, this
destroys all religions that dogmatically claim
god is omniscient, creator of all and has these
secondary tributes.
18. TIME CONTRADICTS GOD'S CREATION OF ALL.
A. If we say god is omnipotent, all powerful, he
is outside of time then free will is impossible
and all else is simply an Universe utterly alien,
incoherent and mad and most certainly not anything
the great theological traditions tell us it is.
B. To avoid this, if we say god is not outside
of time, this then implies time is outside and
beyond god and he cannot have created it. Thus
contradicting claims of being the creator of all.
Especially ex nihilo as many religions claim.
C. Thus the another contradiction pops up
dooming a major claim, god created all. Theology
cannot keep the claim god is outside of time or
keep the claim god is subject to time, as then
they lose Omnipotence and creatorship of the
entire universe as dogmatic claims.
19. Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand Theology itself as a
methodology. As pointed out, this destroys the
claims and viability of an entire class of
possible gods, all secondary and tertiary
claims for such a god of this class also
fail, as do dogmas or secondary or tertiary
claims hanging off this class of gods in anyway.
This dooms religions based on such gods too.
19. If this entire class of omni-everything
creator gods cannot exist as defined, specific
gods cannot, nor can claims such as this or that
Grand God sent this or that revelation to man or
some prophet or did this or that. This there are
no grounds to use these religions to deny rights
to say, homosexuals, or to claim Genesis myths are
true since they are god's word and thus evolution
must not be taught in schools.
20. This Grand God is thus disproven and is
utter irrelevant to anything real and existant.
And this is not the last of the problems of the
class of Omni-everything gods that are creators
of all.
21.
A. Omniscience and creatorship of all doom free
will, the alledged goodness of god and important
concepts like sin, salvation, punishment, mercy,
love and justice of god besides.
B. Omniscience implies either strong
determination, or creation of all things to the
smallest physical extent, or god out of time,
again creating all at once and dooming free will
and again many secondary assertions made for god,
mercy, love, et al.
C. Free will defenses fail in two ways and cannot
save god from the Epicurean problem of evil.
D. Omnibenevolence creates conditions for god
that are destroyed by contradictions between
omniscience and creatorship, and problems
of free will.
E. God's alledged goodness and omnipotence
combine to destroy god's alledged goodness
as seen in section 11. Evil is still a problem
for a good and omnipotent god who creates us.
F. Omnipotence imlies time is not a limit
on god which becomes a problem.
G. Time is a problem for god as it forces one
into a dilemma, time either means all is created
at once, creating B. above, or showing god is
affected by time which implies god is not creator
of all as claimed.
And there are more problems that will be
considered in other parts to come. Such as the
nature of logic, and the rules and laws of the
Universe. But here at this point we can see that
an omni-everything god that creates all is
impossible to sustain as an existing class of
gods. Religions that rely on such a god as their
basic foundation are also disproven thusly also.
(End of Part 1)
*************************************************
--
"Its the hit dog what yelps."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
