on 07 Sep 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
(stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa) made the light shine upon us with this:

"nsaifi" <saifi_nizam@yahoo.co.in> wrote in message
news:1126096062.749505.35630@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

If you think you a great atheist and think out of the box ,you need to
prove it here right now !!!

Why?
And what is a "great atheist"?

Me, I'm a great atheist. I'm so great my underwear doesn't fit me
anymore, and I have to have someone else tie my shoes.

I'm so great, horses run and hide when they see me coming with a saddle in
tow.

(Any more suggestions?)

on 07 Sep 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
(stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa) made the light shine upon us with this:

"nsaifi" <saifi_nizam@yahoo.co.in> wrote in message
news:1126096062.749505.35630@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

If you think you a great atheist and think out of the box ,you need to
prove it here right now !!!

Why?
And what is a "great atheist"?

Me, I'm a great atheist. I'm so great my underwear doesn't fit me
anymore, and I have to have someone else tie my shoes.

I'm so great, horses run and hide when they see me coming with a saddle in
tow.

(Any more suggestions?)

On 8 Sep 2005 07:22:34 -0700, "Atheist # 1!" <clubzone@sify.com>
wrote:

<begin nominated portion>

If one thinks he is an ATHEIST just because he is here to abuse the GOD
and make fun of HIM by writing some silliest messages right here,I
think he is not merely a THEIST.

<end nominated portion>

Seconds?

maf and dog, aa #1954
EAC Cruise Director and Lounge Pianist, Respectively

"WCB" <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:11hug03l57l92cd@corp.supernews.com...

nsaifi wrote:

If you think you a great atheist and think out of the box ,you need to
prove it here right now !!!

Part 1

IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.

A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.

The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:

A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.

These are the basic attributes that can be claimed for
the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and
Hinduism.

Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually logically
derivable from the claimed attribute of omnipotence and
so aren't not truely independent attributes, and may be
considered special aspects of omnipotence.

There are other attributes of god, that he is the only
such god, that he is is immortal and that god has always
existed that are not important for this discussion and for
now, can be ignored. They are secondary arguments and in
no way are foundational or truely necessary, except those
that can be logically derived from the attributes listed
above.

A CLASS OF GODS

It is important to note here that this is a definition
not for a particular god, but an entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here. Christianity
claims one may attain salvation only through Jesus, Islam
claims the Christian dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous. Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a personal,
creator, omni-everything god. I have coined a term,
The Grand God of Grand Theologies for this sort of god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have adopted this
class of god as their basic attributes concerning the nature
of god. But it is important to remember here that what is
being discussed here is a class of gods, not particular gods.

THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS

Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand Theologies
holding to this basic class of god as their basic
definitions of what god is at god's most basic level.

A big problem with this class of gods is, it collapses
rather easily into internal self contradiction.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.

The problem of evil was first written down by Epicurus
in about the third century BCE.

Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.

THE FREE WILL DEFENSE

The free will defense of the problem of evil goes back
to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is still popular,
and is championed most notably today by Alvin Plantinga.

God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do evil.
Ability to do evil is less evil than lacking free will.

THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.

God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature incapable
of doing evil.

A. If god can have free will, and a good nature, this good
nature is not allowed to cound againts god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count against
man's free will than it does for god's free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will and god
does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free will, thus
free will is not a true necessity at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and can give
man a god like free will and a god like good nature
incapable of moral evil, god must do so or god is not
moral, not omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.

So free will does not exist, or it does and we can have
a god like free will and a god like good nature.
Either way, free will cannot explain away the existance
of evil. This free will defense then, is a failed argument.

OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD

God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.

A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all in
the Universe and he knows the future of the Universe
and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, God
will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present state will
have a John Smith, god may then contemplate the future state
of Smith and decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a specific personal
and will choice made solely by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god. In fact all moral evil done by creations of god
will be evil and do evil only because of personal and willful
creations of god allowing evil acts to be done, by direct
decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient creator god, it is
solely and only because god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal choices of god, god
then is not as defined, omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a Universe cannot have
any free will, not even in principle. A Universe with a god
that creates all and knows all precludes free will for all
beings god creates in the strongest possible manner.

The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is incoherent
and contradictory as a theory.

THE SITUATION SO FAR.

1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this Grand God,
has been defined here with as few terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defence, free will is fatally flawed.
God's good nature and free will doom claims free
will makes evil necessary for man to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further doom claims of
god's omnibenevolence and man's free will Free will cannot
exist for man. All evil is the direct and knowing creation
of god contradicting claims of omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible, free will
cannot be a good quality, much less neccesary.

Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims and viability
of an entire class of possible gods, all secondary and tertiary
claims for such a god of this class also fail, as do dogmas or
secondary claims.

If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined, specific gods
cannot, nor can claims such as this or that Grand God sent this
or that relevation to man or some prophet.

***********
OMNIPOTENCE AND OMNISCIENCE

A. Omnipotence is a special sort of attribute, of all god's alledged
attributes the most important. Because from that attribute you can
derive others attributes, including omniscience. If you say for
purposes of argument god is omnipotent, you are also implying
god is also omniscient.

B. If god is omnipotent, god must also have omniscience because
if he does not have omniscience, that destroys omnipotence
as a claimed attribute.

C. Thus if god is omnipotent, and created all, free will is impossible
because creation and omniscience rule out free will as was shown.
In this world god supposedly created, evil exists. So god must not
be omnibenevolent as claimed.

D. So omnipotence and omnibenevolence are thus mutually exclusive
in a world that does in fact have evil in it.
Because omniscience must exist as part of omnipotence and omniscience
and creatorhood cannot coexist with free will, omnipotence is also not
compatible with creatorhood and omnibenevolence.
One cannot finesse this all by ignoring omniscience or abandoning
omniscience.

E. One can only dispose of omniscience by also explicitly
abandoning omnipotence.

F. One may be tempted to abandon the idea god created all.
But that has some very strong logical problems also.

G. If god is omnipotent, he can create all. Or modify any other
creation he does not himself create. No other being or process
may create something god could not modify, by the power of
his omniscience.

H. So if for purposes of argument, we claim the Universe was
not created by god, he could, being omnipotent, change
that creation for his own purposes.
We are back to the problem of evil again, he could change
creation such that no evil John Smiths can exist.
If not he then is sole and only cause for existance of all evil.

I. If evil exists because god could change the Universe he did not
create, and he fails to do so, then all evil exists solely because
of knowing and personal choices god makes.

J. God being omnipotent cannot be controlled by any other process or
other entities. He may modify anty works or creations made by them.

K. Omnipotence and creatorhood thus are entangled in a manner
that makes it hard to abandon the doctrine god created all.

PRE-EXISTING MATTER AND A PRE-EXISTING UNIVERSE.

The Greek writer Hesiod in his Theogony, starts with a Universe that
is a chaotic void. This void, through the mysterious property of
emanation, created the first generation of gods, the Titans, who in
their turn created the Olympians gods who eventually displace the
Titans as rulers of the world.

Likewise, some theologians see Genesis as representing god creating
the world out of a similar void, a primordial sea god did not himself
create, but used as raw material for his creations.
God's existance is not explained.

This idea god did not create all still would not absolve an omnipotent
god from responsibility for evil. The biblical god if he did not create
the Universe and its component materials used them as he pleased. If
that god is omnipotent, then he bears all responsibilty for the world he
did create out of pre-existing material. Whether this god is said
to be eternal or like Hesiod's Titans was somehow emanated from the
chaos of the void does not materially change any arguments involving
omnipotence, omniscience or omnibenevolence, if god is said to have
these attributes.
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD PART THREE


Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe
or not? Is 2 + 2 = 4 something god set as part of the nature of
the Universe or is that outside and beyond god? Can god change 2 + 2 to 5?

A. If god did in fact make the rules and laws and logic of the Universe,
he could also change them as needed. God is claimed to be omnipotent
as one of his attributes.

B. For example, many claim that man's free will is necessary. That
is why evil exists. But a god that is omnipotent and omnibenevolent
could simply make a world where man has free will yet freely choses
only to do moral good. Since god creates the rules of the Universe, he
could change them in name of omnibenevolence, free will is perserved
and evil is banished. Evil no longer needs to exist to allow for free
will.

C. If god could do this and fails to, evil exists solely and only because
of god's failure to use his omnipotence to change the rules and laws
and logic of the Universe to give man free will and a nature incapable
of doing evil.

D. If god can do this and fails to, god is not omnibenevolent as claimed,
a contradiction.

E. God in fact since he is essentially the creator and sustaining cause
of
all
evil that was, is, and shall be is omni-malevolent.

F. If god does not make the rules, the laws, the very logic of the
Universe,
then we have the problem of what these things are and where they come
from.

G. If these laws and rules and logic limit god, then god is obviously not
omnipotent as claimed.

H. And thus god is not as claimed, the greatest thing that can be
imagined.
Obviously laws and rules and logic that limit the most powerful being
in the Universe are greater still because they do in fact limit such a
being.

I. If such laws and rules and logic outside and beyond god do exist, and
are
thus greater than god, god is not the greatest thing imaginable and all
ontological 'proofs' that are based on that basic claim fail.

J. Such rules and laws and logic must exist outside of god's control and
must have always been outside his control. If there were ever in god's
control, god cannot have reduced his power to abandon omnipotence
voluntarily.
Omnipotence is an inherent ability. It would be like abandoning a sense
of
taste or touch.

K. If god could indeed abandon omnipotence, he must avoid that. After
all,
he is also omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolence dictates he must at all
times do the good thing, never an evil thing. Abandoning omnipotence
such that he could no longer create a world where man has free will,
and a nature incapable of evil is to allow evil to exist. To abandon
omnipotence is to embrace the proposition evil is to be allowed to
flourish.
So any claims god might have for some greater good abandoned
omnipotence
freely are not possible.

L. If god is said to be omnipotent, if he at anytime gave up any
abilities
he can no longer said to be omnipotent, if he gave them up in
actuality.

M. Since god must have had maximum power and abilities and cannot have at
any
time vountarily relinquished any powers or abilities, the fact that
there
are laws and rules and logic of a universe outside and beyond god, they
are truely beyond and outside god, and always were.

N. Since such laws and rules and laws are outside god, and always were
so,
and are properties of the Universe, the Universe is likewise outside
and beyond god, with its collection of laws and rules and logic.

O. Since the Universe and its laws and rules and logic are outside
of god, god is not as claimed, creator of all.

P. Since the Universe no longer relies on god for its purported
existance,
nor on god for the existance of its laws and rules and logic, god is no
longer
a necessary being. If there are things that have necessary existance,
it
would
have to be the Universe as whole, or possibly its laws, its rules or
its
logic,
or a subset of these rules or laws or the underlying causes of these
things,
if any. None were created by god or can be modified by god.

Q. If these laws and rules and logic could be modified by god, then the
rules
and laws and logic of the Universe would have been modified to end
existance of
evil, and must be modified this if god is actually omnipotent and
omnibenevolent.

R. God then is not omnipotent, or not omnibenevolent, or is neither, or
does not
exist.

THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE EXAMINATION OF GOD

Thus the idea god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and creator of all, clash
again
and mutually self-destruct over the issue of evil's existance. This
raises
serious questions on the nature of the Universe that cannot be as Grand
Theology
tells us it is.

A. We have shown god cannot have created the Universe.
B. We have shown god does not create the laws, rules and laws of that
Universe.
C. That god is thus not omnipotent as these laws limit him.
D. That god is not the greatest imaginable thing.
E. That ontological proofs of god's existance based on claims
god is the greatest thing imaginable are failed arguments.
F. That god cannot be a necessary being, as claimed.
G. That any possible claims god might for some reason abandon or limit
any abilities cannot be true in any attempt to avoid this line of
inquiry. Nor can that approach derail logical examination of
consequences
of Grand Theology's overarching claims to god's attributes or nature.

The fact that god is alledgedly omnibenevolent and evil exists,
demonstrates
god cannot make the rules of the world. 2 + 2 = 4 because that is the
nature
of the Universe, not something god created. Because if god did create the
rules
and laws and logic of the Universe, and was omnibenevolent, we should have
no
signs of evil, especially moral evil of man, Satan, demons and devils.

But if one admits to that, Many other important claims collapse, many
other
arguments
about god and his attributes and nature no longer are viable. Some of
these
claims,
god's creation of the Universe are among the oldest and most basic of
theology.

Ontological proofs started with Anselm in the 11th century,
all of these now must be abandoned.
The necessary being argument, long a rhetorical argument is
now finally dead.

Free will defenses against the problem of evil opened up a line
of attack here that is powerful and pretty final.

--

Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!

Cheerful Charlie

I apologize, Charlie; I may be a great atheist, but I am not a patient one,
and that text was long.

Anyway, I don't believe such detail is necessary to defend atheism. The
simplest argument is that there's no reason (from a logical, philosophical
standpoint) to be a theist. Or will you now claim that I am a closet theist
because my argument for atheism lacks depth?

On the other hand, in view of the fact that I haven't read the text, you may
have posted a subtle and detailed argument for theism.

In that case, let me know and I will alter my reply accordingly.

JD