Evidence of God

Religions > Atheism > Evidence of God

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 3 of 4

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"someone4"
Date:	13 Aug 2006 08:34:53 AM
Object:	Evidence of God

We are sentient beings, that experience the physical world. The
question is whether the physical is the primary reality, or being is
the primary reality. Some atheists (though not necessarily all) believe
that the physical is the primary reality, and that it is both the cause
of us being sentient, as well as the cause of what we experience as
sentient beings. They might even go so far as to suggest that science
backs up their perspective.
Firstly I will examine this perspective, and point out the 'leaps of
faith' that it requires.
Firstly it requires a belief that the universe is as it is, because
that just happened to be the physical reality of things, and of all of
the possible configurations physical reality could have been, the
universe just happens to support life (is within a very limited
configuration set). All possible configurations being equal (no reason
for it being one configuration rather than another), it is highly
improbable that the universe would support life.
There are a few common replies to this implication.
One is that unless that had been the case, we wouldn't be here to
experience the universe. This is simply a case of assuming their own
conclusions, and ignoring the improbability of it just happening to
support life. To this there is the counter argument that probability is
only applicable to future events, not past events, if it happened it
happened. For example one might say, well if a person won the lottery,
then they won it, you can't look back and view the probability, and say
that it is unlikely they did. The lottery example is a poor example and
designed to mislead when it is used as an analogy to the universe just
happening to support life. The lottery is played by millions of people
(millions of tickets are bought), the physical reality is the
equivalent of one ticket, and the improbability (all configurations
being equal) is far greater than winning the lottery. It is valid to
look at the probability of an explanation being true. To take an
extreme example to highlight the point, supposing a person was on trial
for murder, in which they were a prisoner in a cell which they shared
with the victim, and their explanation was that an alien giant ameoba
type creature came through the bars, picked up the paper weight, and
killed the victim, before disappearing again through the bars. Though
the truth is whatever the truth is, how would you evaluate whether they
are telling the truth if your life depended on getting the answer
right?
One might argue that just because we may never know the reason to why
the universe is like it is, doesn't mean that there couldn't be a
reason that we may forever be ignorant of, therefore it was wrong to
assume that all configurations were equally likely. The problem with
this criticism, is that it just takes the question back a step, why was
the reason the universe is like it is, like it is?
The next 'leap of faith' is that although there are scientific
indications of a 'Big Bang', a starting point, that there was in fact
no starting point (and that a theory will be found to explain the
seeming starting point, without requiring a starting point itself), and
that there is nothing outside of the event horizon of spacetime
expansion of the 'Big Bang'. Within the event horizon spacetime exists,
and outside is nothing, not even space.
One of the biggest leaps of faith, is that the physical causes our
sentience, our consciousness, our being. It may seem logical that the
brain causes us to experience, yet there is no known physical theory in
which interactions of the physical world can be self aware. Though this
is the greatest leap of faith, it also is one that seems intuitive,
that our brains cause us to be aware. We can be given drugs that cause
chemical reactions in the brain, and seemingly make us lose
consciousness. Many assume this to prove that the brain is therefore
the cause of our consciousness. There are problems with this though,
and I will try to highlight these below.
Skipping over the problem of a lack of any physical theory in which
chemical interactions cause awareness, let us simply look at what it
would mean if we were purely physical beings.
What we do would simply be the consequence of a series of chemical
reactions. There would be no mechanism for what you 'will' to happen,
instead, it would be a case of you simply doing whatever the chemical
reactions determined you would do. Therefore there can be no
evolutionary advantage to you being 'aware'. To highlight the point
further, image a digital watch, few would argue, that if you pressed a
button on the side to illuminate the display, that the watch was in
anyway aware that this had happened. That it illuminates is simply
determined by the laws that govern the physical world. Similarly, if I
programmed a computer to say "hello world" , it would have no awareness
that it was saying "hello world". Again, if I programmed a robot, that
appeared to respond in a similar way to humans, there is still no
reason to think it is aware, any more than the digital watch. To
respond, that we are simply organic computers is very tempting, but it
is simply assuming your own conclusions, and glossing over the total
lack of explanation for how chemical reactions can produce awareness.
Regardless, on the robot simulating human responses, we have no more
reason to think it is aware than the digital watch, because chemically,
there is no difference in the reaction. Even if you were to assume it
was aware, simply because it simulated human behaviour, there would be
no advantage to it being aware, it wouldn't act any differently to how
it was programmed.
Extrapolating this to humans, if we were simply physical beings, then
whether we were aware or not, would not effect the way we behaved, we
would simply do whatever the laws of physics determined we would do.
Therefore there can be no evolutionary advantage to our awareness. This
is accepted even on talk.origins, where our awareness is simply counted
as something that just happened to emerge through evolution, though no
explanation for why is given. It is just another leap of faith that is
required. It is also not explained why if awareness emerged, that our
experience was not similar to that of a passenger in a vehicle, we
could experience what happens, but we didn't feel like we could alter
the course of the vehicle, because we would be unable to, the course of
the vehicle being determined by the laws of physics. Instead you would
have to deny your own experience, that you can 'will' your hand to move
in say one minutes time, without any knowledge of whether the laws of
physics would in fact determine that your hand will move (assuming a
human with a functioning hand).
As this mail is getting rather long, I will cut it short now, and give
an alternative perspective, which fits in with science, and our
experience.
It is the perspective that all there is is 'being'. That reality could
only have been 'being' or 'not being'. We know that it wasn't 'not
being' because we are 'being', we experience, and we can through our
will, influence what happens in the physical expression that we all
experience, within the restrictions of the rules that govern our
physical experience. The brain being within the physical does not cause
our experience, but the state of it, has huge influence on what we
experience (including memory). It could be likened to being within a
'matrix', except that it is our being that is presented with the
experience, and within our lives (reflection period), this experience
is governed by rules.
The only leap of faith required is that there are rules because the
reflection period (the time we experience the presentation of the
physical world), is that it is to determine, which it is better to be,
selfless and loving, or selfish and hateful. That there are two
infinite beings presenting us with the physical world, one perfected,
selfless and loving (God), the other the flawed, selfish, and hateful
(the Devil). The Devils motivation is to cause us pain, and therefore
cause God pain through our suffering (the Devil unable to cause God
suffering directly, being met with only pity). God's motivation is to
enlighten the Devil (which remains flawed, because it has the love of
itself, and the love (if only in the form of pity) of God). This might
seem harsh for us, unconsulted pawns in the game, but that we will
eventually be presented with a 'reality' that we call heaven, is a
compensation, that once experienced, will make it all worthwhile. This
explanation also explains why we experience a presentation that is
unbiased, neither heaven nor hell, and why we don't simply experience
heaven, with a VIP section for the perfected beings.

From Isaiah 29:

15 Woe to those who go to great depths
to hide their plans from the LORD,
who do their work in darkness and think,
"Who sees us? Who will know?"
Given that the physical presentation, is presented by God (and the
Devil), and your interaction with it, is by communication of your will,
you can see the foolishness of those thinking "Who sees us? Who will
know?".
16 You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
"He did not make me"?
Can the pot say of the potter,
"He knows nothing"?
That you have turned things upside down, having the physical the
primary, causing being, rather than being presented with the physical
was predicted. As was the rise of atheism, which is surprising given
that at the time, the more likely thing would have been to suggest that
people would fall back into the worship of other gods.
And to the house of Jacob, there was a personal message:
22 Therefore this is what the LORD, who redeemed Abraham, says to the
house of Jacob:
"No longer will Jacob be ashamed;
no longer will their faces grow pale.
23 When they see among them their children,
the work of my hands,
they will keep my name holy;
they will acknowledge the holiness of the Holy One of Jacob,
and will stand in awe of the God of Israel.
Given that the physical is an illusion, and that there is only being,
all beings are produced by God, being the genetic, father or mother is
an illusion. It could be argued that from the explanation above the
children are a product of both God and the Devil, though the Devil
itself came from God, and so God was the beginning, and is the end, and
everything in between came from itself.
Anyway, in summary, some of the the evidence for God is:
The 'Big Bang'.
That the universe is designed in such a way to support life.
That the first cell was determined to come together as it did.
If true randomness were to be believed in, that the history of science
shows causes behind effects, and yet underlying, the root cause of
which event actually happened was not within the physical plane (from
the perspective of the physical plane it was random).
That we are aware.
That our will can influence the presentation of the physical world.
That humanity taking a selfless loving view, and working together for
the common good, would be better for humanity (emphasises that the
wisdom of a loving selfless God, is obviously wise).
That an explanation exists, that is easy to understand, and fits in
with all scientific evidence.
That there are non-local effects, Alain Aspect experiment, which fits
in with matter not being separate (point put forward by Bohm). Hardly
suprising given it is a presentation, and everything in the physical
presentation is within the mind of God.
There are other bits, such as:
The inability of neurons to account for our ability to reach the
conclusions that we do (see works of Roger Penrose,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose for summary). Should note
that it is his objections, not his attempt at an explanation that is
important.
No difference has been found between the neurons that are supposed to
(according to the atheist materialists) produce consciousness, and
those that definitely don't, nor is there any suggested binding
mechanism, where the state of these neurons could be mapped to our
awareness. See http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/Elsevier-NCC.html for
an explanation of the areas that they hope to make progress on and the
problems they face, but also note, that altering the state of the
brain, and noticing a correlation to a change in our awareness would
not prove anything, it is not contested that what we experience is
influenced by the state of the brain. Nor are their assumptions that
"it is known that the entire brain is sufficient to give rise to
consciousness" true, it is simply their working assumption, but as it
is said in Isaiah 29, they have it upside down. They would need to
explain a mechanism whereby the physical could produce experience, and
therefore a physical explanation of what experience is. Presumably they
should be able to show when you are going to move your hand, and that
there is nothing you could do to stop it (the laws of physics are
determining your hand will move).
The above experiment, being shown that your hand will move, and being
unable to stop it, will never occur. Another experiment might be,
wiping a persons memory by use of drugs, placing them in a maze (in a
certain position), recording their actions, then repeating the
experiment, and seeing if they act exactly the same. It won't happen,
nor will any experiment showing that you don't have a choice, while you
experience that you do.Though it does give the concept of a possibility
of a refutation that your being is separate from the physical, and that
it can influence the physical.
Given that it is your very soul at stake, it would be wise to reflect
upon how it is that you can (if you can), will your hand to move, and
how it is that you experience.
It also has implications for the future of humanity. Whether they will
be inspired to use God as a compass, to see us all as beings under God,
and unite, or whether they will be inspired to highlight the
differences in belief, and turn against each other.
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 10:58:51 AM

On 13 Aug 2006 08:33:36 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:

marika wrote:

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155482199.398268.170830@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Was that clear enough even for you?

What positions did I invent?

What connection
are you making? I
.
, not enough lifestyle
change over the years, I think, may have contributed to many of his problems

I'm not sure of your point here. Are you referring to Christopher Lee's
problems?

What "problems", deliberately nasty, in-your-face stupid, lying
theist?
Here's a clue, moron: if you had shown some intelligence and honestly
instead of rubbing your stupidity in our faces, you might have got the
kind of response you hypocritically expect.
.

User: "marika"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 12:13:47 PM

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ctiud2hj4j3ffic8kk0umrjibud34pbaah@4ax.com...

What "problems", deliberately nasty, in-your-face stupid, lying
theist?

This is the dopiest thing I have ever read in my life.
What the HELL are the scientists supposed to use
As far as I'm concerned, anyone can have ANYTHING they want outta me, for
100% free, as long as I'm not using it anymore.

Here's a clue, moron: if you had shown some intelligence and honestly
instead of rubbing your stupidity in our faces, you might have got the
kind of response you hypocritically expect.

First people scream bloody murder
Then in the next breath they get all bent outta shape for the same thing,
instead. What the HELL are the scientists supposed to use, if neither of
those is acceptable? Morons.
Grapefruits?
It's just biomedical trash-picking is all it is.... go for it, I say.
mk5000
"Life has Absolutely NO worth and NO meaning, atleast for me.
If there would be hurricanes in Germany I'd just go outside and
die."--doesn't matter
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 10:46:18 AM

On 13 Aug 2006 08:16:39 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 13 Aug 2006 06:34:53 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:

Why are so many believers so in-your-face stupid, and such deliberate
personal liars?

Stop pretending

You don't understand the difference between having zero reason even to
consider something, and believing your stupid dishonest straw man.

Firstly I will examine this perspective, and point out the 'leaps of
faith' that it requires.

Then you're arguing against your own straw man, deliberately stupid,
in-your-face liar.

[rest of this moron's stupidity and dishonesty deleted]

Here's a free clue for you: "One man's religion is another man's belly
laugh" - Robert Anson Heinlein.

Keep it to yourself and you won't give the rest of us a belly laugh.

Stop in-your-facing it, stop inventing positions others don't have,
etc, and nobody will realise just how stupid and dishonest you are.

Was that clear enough even for you?

What positions did I invent? That some atheists believe that the
physical is the primary reality?

Which was a remarkably stupid thing to say. An atheist is merely
somebody who isn't theist. But brainwashed theists like you who can't
think outside the box are convinced that we waste time and effort
having beliefs that wouldn't even occur to us. But make you feel
better.

As for being stupid and dishonest, take the plank out of your own eye,
before you attempt to take the speck out of someone elses.

Says the whining, lying theist.
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	19 Aug 2006 02:00:05 PM

On 13 Aug 2006 06:34:53 -0700, "someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com>
wrote in alt.atheism

We are sentient beings, that experience the physical world.

*We* are sentient beings. *You* are not.

The question is whether the physical is the primary reality, or being is
the primary reality.

Please calculate an intercept course whereupon you intersect a swiftly
moving heavilly loaded lorry on the carriageway centred between the
headlights and 5 metres in front. You'll almost immediately find out.
No one here's interesting in your zombie droolings about your fantasy
daemons, ***** fer brains. Drool elsewhere, lackwit.
[excrement flushed unread]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 09:41:18 AM

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 06:34:53 -0700, someone4 wrote:

Firstly it requires a belief that the universe is as it is, because
that just happened to be the physical reality of things, and of all of
the possible configurations physical reality could have been, the
universe just happens to support life (is within a very limited
configuration set). All possible configurations being equal (no reason
for it being one configuration rather than another), it is highly
improbable that the universe would support life.

First you need to show all possible configurations, the initial
conditions, and the mechanisms that give rise to the possible universes.
Then we can talk about the probability of this universe coming into being...
--
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: "someone4"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 10:07:36 AM

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 06:34:53 -0700, someone4 wrote:

Actually I don't. Though for arguments sake, lets start off with a
configuration where there is nothing. Then imagine a configuration
where there was simply a single electron. Then one, in which there were
two electrons etc, before we start going into configurations where the
laws of physics caused the expansion after the 'Big Bang' to be slower
than it was for example.
"If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been
smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the
universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present
size" - Stephen Hawkings
"According to this theory [strong anthropic principle], there are
either many different universes or many different regions of a single
universe, each with its own initial configuration and, perhaps, with
its own set of laws of science. In most of these universes the
conditions would not be right for the development of complicated
organisms; only in the few universes that are like ours would
intelligent beings develop and ask the question: "Why is the universe
the way we see it?" The answer is then simple: If it had been
different, we would not be here!" - Stephen Hawkings
Do you believe there are as many conceptual configurations which would
support life? Is that the basis of your belief?
.

User: "Llanzlan Klazmon"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 06:09:46 PM

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1155481656.181467.144140@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 06:34:53 -0700, someone4 wrote:

Firstly it requires a belief that the universe is as it is, because
that just happened to be the physical reality of things, and of all
of the possible configurations physical reality could have been, the
universe just happens to support life (is within a very limited
configuration set). All possible configurations being equal (no
reason for it being one configuration rather than another), it is
highly improbable that the universe would support life.

We don't know if things could be any other way. These finely tuned
arguments are bunk. Life is adapted to the universe, not the other way
around.
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 10:38:53 AM

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 08:07:36 -0700, someone4 wrote:

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 06:34:53 -0700, someone4 wrote:

Actually I don't.

Yes you do. You cannot determine how probable this universe is until you
know how many universes are possible. What if this is the *only possible
universe? What if it's six possible universes? Or a thousand? There's a
huge difference between rolling a single die and winning the lottery you
know?

Though for arguments sake, lets start off with a
configuration where there is nothing. Then imagine a configuration
where there was simply a single electron. Then one, in which there were
two electrons etc,

Um... what?
That doesn't even make any sense.

before we start going into configurations where the
laws of physics caused the expansion after the 'Big Bang' to be slower
than it was for example.

"If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been
smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the
universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present
size" - Stephen Hawkings

How many other rates of expansion are possible?

"According to this theory [strong anthropic principle], there are
either many different universes or many different regions of a single
universe, each with its own initial configuration and, perhaps, with
its own set of laws of science. In most of these universes the
conditions would not be right for the development of complicated
organisms; only in the few universes that are like ours would
intelligent beings develop and ask the question: "Why is the universe
the way we see it?" The answer is then simple: If it had been
different, we would not be here!" - Stephen Hawkings

And?

Do you believe there are as many conceptual configurations which would
support life? Is that the basis of your belief?

I don't "believe" anything. We don't know. Period.
I know of no way to determine how many universes are possible so we can
figure out the probability of this one. And I don't know of anybody who
does know.
--
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: "J Forbes"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 10:15:49 AM

someone4 wrote:

Do you understand what Hawkins is saying here? it appears that you do
not....he is actually shooting down your argument!
Jim
.

User: "someone4"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 10:17:32 AM

J Forbes wrote:

someone4 wrote:

Do you understand what Hawkins is saying here? it appears that you do
not....he is actually shooting down your argument!

Jim

I understand exactly what he is saying, and I dealt with it in the
original post.
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 10:47:01 AM

On 13 Aug 2006 08:17:32 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:

J Forbes wrote:

someone4 wrote:

Do you understand what Hawkins is saying here? it appears that you do
not....he is actually shooting down your argument!

Jim

I understand exactly what he is saying, and I dealt with it in the
original post.

You neither understand what he said nor dealt with it. You turned it
into a straw man to attack.
.

User: "J Forbes"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 10:32:48 AM

someone4 wrote:

J Forbes wrote:

someone4 wrote:

Do you understand what Hawkins is saying here? it appears that you do
not....he is actually shooting down your argument!

Jim

I understand exactly what he is saying, and I dealt with it in the
original post.

You did not deal with it sufficiently...
Take your lottery example, for instance. The odds of me winning the
lottery are infinitesimal (I would have to be given or find the winning
ticket, so they are even lower than for those who actually buy a
ticket). But it is a sure bet that *someone* will win the lottery.
The odds of the universe being the way it is are vanishingly small.
But here we are...
btw, how would you figure the odds of a god-thingy with the ability to
create the universe appearing spontaneously?
Jim
.

User: "someone4"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 11:06:42 AM

J Forbes wrote:

someone4 wrote:

J Forbes wrote:

someone4 wrote:

Do you understand what Hawkins is saying here? it appears that you do
not....he is actually shooting down your argument!

Jim

I understand exactly what he is saying, and I dealt with it in the
original post.

You did not deal with it sufficiently...

Take your lottery example, for instance. The odds of me winning the
lottery are infinitesimal (I would have to be given or find the winning
ticket, so they are even lower than for those who actually buy a
ticket). But it is a sure bet that *someone* will win the lottery.

The odds of the universe being the way it is are vanishingly small.
But here we are...

btw, how would you figure the odds of a god-thingy with the ability to
create the universe appearing spontaneously?

Jim

The point on the lottery is that if only one ticket were ever sold
(there is only the one universe), it would be unlikely that anyone
would win.
Yes the odds of us being here, if the explanation were that it just
happened to be, would be "vanishingly small". So small as to make the
explanation, while not impossible, implausible. There is another
explanation though.
As for the odds of God, it is a different perspective. There is no
physical, there is only 'being'. There either was or wasn't being, and
we know there is being, as we are. So I guess you could say well
between there being 'being' and there not being 'being' was 50/50, but
there is being. As for it appearing spontaneously, it didn't, it always
was, that is all there is, if there was ever no being, or nothing, then
that would be how it always was.
If you were to consider a dimension of being, in which you exist, and
which experiences, then assuming you believe that you are not the only
being (only one experiencing), then you must consider other people to
also be in the dimension of being (ignoring as it goes against Occam's
razor too hugely, that we each inhabit our own dimension of being and
take up the whole dimension ourselves). That you are not the only one
inhabiting the dimension of being, shows that you are of finite being.
The same as time and space intuitively go on for ever, you can imagine
the dimension of being going on for ever. If we are all finite beings,
that leaves infinite being outside of our own being. It is infinite
being that presents you with the physical.
Anyway, as long as you still consider if feasible that your being is
the product of chemical reactions, even though there is no concept of
chemicals experiencing in any physical theory, and that there is no
means to detect 'awareness' or 'being', it will be hard to step through
the looking glass so to speak, and see it from the other perspective,
from which perspective, you have it upside down (thinking the physical
causes being, rather than effects experience).
As Isaiah 29 says:
16 You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
"He did not make me"?
Can the pot say of the potter,
"He knows nothing"?
Anyway, first things first, firstly you need to understand how the
concept of the physical producing being, is not only without
explanation, but also doesn't fit in with what you actually experience.
.

User: "J Forbes"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 11:18:19 AM

someone4 wrote:

J Forbes wrote:

Take your lottery example, for instance. The odds of me winning the
lottery are infinitesimal (I would have to be given or find the winning
ticket, so they are even lower than for those who actually buy a
ticket). But it is a sure bet that *someone* will win the lottery.

The odds of the universe being the way it is are vanishingly small.
But here we are...

btw, how would you figure the odds of a god-thingy with the ability to
create the universe appearing spontaneously?

Jim

The point on the lottery is that if only one ticket were ever sold
(there is only the one universe), it would be unlikely that anyone
would win.

But lotteries don't work that way! so either it's a bad analogy, or
you are missing something.

Yes the odds of us being here, if the explanation were that it just
happened to be, would be "vanishingly small". So small as to make the
explanation, while not impossible, implausible. There is another
explanation though.

Are you sure it's actually an explanation? I see only a further
regression into the realm of the highly improbable

As for the odds of God, it is a different perspective. There is no
physical, there is only 'being'. There either was or wasn't being, and
we know there is being, as we are. So I guess you could say well
between there being 'being' and there not being 'being' was 50/50, but
there is being. As for it appearing spontaneously, it didn't, it always
was, that is all there is, if there was ever no being, or nothing, then
that would be how it always was.

If you can grant eternal existence to your god, then you must also
grant it to the physical world, if you want to keep me interested in
this discussion. Which kind of blows your argument, eh?

If you were to consider a dimension of being, in which you exist, and
which experiences, then assuming you believe that you are not the only
being (only one experiencing), then you must consider other people to
also be in the dimension of being (ignoring as it goes against Occam's
razor too hugely, that we each inhabit our own dimension of being and
take up the whole dimension ourselves). That you are not the only one
inhabiting the dimension of being, shows that you are of finite being.
The same as time and space intuitively go on for ever, you can imagine
the dimension of being going on for ever. If we are all finite beings,
that leaves infinite being outside of our own being. It is infinite
being that presents you with the physical.

You lost me.

Anyway, as long as you still consider if feasible that your being is
the product of chemical reactions, even though there is no concept of
chemicals experiencing in any physical theory, and that there is no
means to detect 'awareness' or 'being', it will be hard to step through
the looking glass so to speak, and see it from the other perspective,
from which perspective, you have it upside down (thinking the physical
causes being, rather than effects experience).

*I* am an example of chemicals experiencing! and I think I am more
than just a concept.

As Isaiah 29 says:
16 You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
"He did not make me"?
Can the pot say of the potter,
"He knows nothing"?

The bible has no authority, and the poetry in it doesn't do anything
for me, sorry.

Anyway, first things first, firstly you need to understand how the
concept of the physical producing being, is not only without
explanation, but also doesn't fit in with what you actually experience.

I really don't understand what you mean by "being"....
Jim
.

User: "Uncle Vic"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 11:37:30 AM

Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet someone4 (glenn.spigel4
@btinternet.com) made the light shine upon us with this:

Primary reality? Are you suggesting there is an alternate reality? That's
a wild one, hope you have some proof to back it up. I skimmed the rest of
your post, it's filled with the usual apologetic arguments from personal
incredulity, authority, ignorance, and circulum in demonstrando. That's
all you people can come up with, and guess what? It only convinces those
who are already convinced.
--
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.
Member: Intensional misspellingg club.
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 12:05:28 PM

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:37:30 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:

Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet someone4 (glenn.spigel4
@btinternet.com) made the light shine upon us with this:

What I don't understand, is why they imagine they have something
Earth-shattering that we haven't heard before - especially when its
preceded by rudely telling us what we "really" believe.
.

User: "wcb"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	12 Aug 2006 12:21:21 PM

someone4 wrote:

Firstly I will examine this perspective, and point out the 'leaps of
faith' that it requires.

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, Brahamnistic
Hinduism.
Some have complained that this does
not disprove all gods. True, but this is not
meant to, 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 speak, by numbers of believers,
these are not that widespread or very important.
Animist gods, such as found in Voodoo and the
like. It is possible to sort other kinds
of gods into a few classes of gods and likewise
disprove each class.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
goesback 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.
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.
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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
***********
IS THERE A GOD? NO.
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER PART 2
THE CLASS OF OMNI-EVERTHING CREATOR GODS
DISPROVEN.
1. 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 one says for purposes of
argument god is omnipotent, one is also
implying god is also omniscient.
B. If god is omnipotent, god must also
specifically have omniscience because if
he does not have omniscience, one
cannot claim omnipotence as an 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 part 1. In this world god supposedly
created, evil exists. So god must not be
omnibenevolent as claimed as all evil is
created by god if man cannot have free will.
Omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence
cannot co-exist as dogmatic claims. A class
of gods that is said to have these is
impossible
D. 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 if one tries to retain
attribute of omnipotence.
E. One can only dispose of omniscience by also
explicitly abandoning omnipotence. If god is
defined as being omnibenevolent then a god
that is also allegedly also creator of all
must be evil a direct contradiction. Since god
is defined as omniscient and omnibenevolent and
omnipotent, by major religions, a god that is
supposedly all three is obviously impossible.
Since omnipotence implies omniscience,
which cannot exist with omnibenevolence,
an omnipotent god is impossible.
F. Omnipotence drives us relentlessly to the
claims god nmust be omniscient and thus to
the conclusion god cannot be anything but the
source of all evil and thus is evil. Thus
generating internal contradictions to claimed
attributes of the class of omni-everything
gods.
G. Omnipotence and omnibenevolence then, cannot
coexist together. A class of gods claiming
to be both is impossible.
2. CREATORHOOD OF GOD
F. One may be tempted then to abandon the idea god
created all. But that creates 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, because of the
power of his omnipotence.
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, that of creating good due
to his attribute of omnibenevolence.
We are back to the problem of evil again, he
could change creation such that no evil John
Smiths can exist.
I. If not he then is sole and only cause for
existence of all evil.
If god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent he
still must modify any creations he did not
himself create to destroy evil, if he can
do so. So claiming god did not create all
does not save the concept of an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent god. It cannot avoid the
problem of evil.
J. Omniscience means we cannot dodge the problem
of evil by stating god did not create the
Universe even if one wished to, nor by limiting
his creatorhood, for example saying god did not
create the original material of the Universe,
but used it as a building material.
J. Thus to get rid of the creator problem, we must
explicitly abandon it all and totally. Only by
doing so could one get around the problem of
creatorhood and omniscience. But if we say god
cannot either create the Universe or modify it
as he finds it, we drop omniscience also,
explicitly. God then turns out not to be
creator of all nor omnipotent as a priori
defined, a contradiction disproving that
a priori defined omni-everything creator god.
K. 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.
L. God being omnipotent cannot be controlled by
any other process or other entities. He may
modify any works or creations made by them.
M. If god cannot change creations of others, or
the pre-existing materials of the Universe,
omnipotence in not an attribute of god as
claimed a priori.
M. Omnipotence and creatorhood thus are entangled
in a manner that makes it hard to abandon the
doctrine god created all and if one does, one
must likewise abandon claims of omnipotence.
3. PRE-EXISTING MATTER AND A PRE-EXISTING
UNIVERSE.
A. 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 Earth and then from the
Earth, first generation of gods, the Titans, who
in their turn created the Olympians gods who
eventually displace the Titans as rulers of the
world.
B. 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 existence is not explained.
C. 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 responsibility 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.
4. God is allegedly all powerful, omnipotent.
Thus there is nothing more powerful than god. No
entity can create anything god cannot change or
modify. Thus any claims that possibly something
exists that may account for evil that was not
god's creation is impossible. God remains then
responsible for all and the problem of evil
cannot be solved by saying there are things that
outside of god, create evil.
5. Thus a few various possible dodges:
A. Omnipotence and omniscience and omnibenevolence
thoroughly contradict each other.
B. Dropping omnibenevolence or omniscience
destroys claimed omnipotence
C. Dropping the claim god created all does not
solve the problem of evil.
D. Limiting god's creatorship does not solve the
problems of evil.
F. If we say god is omnipotent but did not create
all, he still may modify what he did not
create and thus the problem of evil still
remains.
G. Since he is all powerful, there is no power
that can create anything god cannot modify
to account for evil not from god or outside
his control.
Omnipotence and omnibenevolence are not
compatible and cannot be saved by simple dodges.
************************************************
IS THERE A GOD? - No.
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - PART 3
1. MORE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
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, god could also change
them as needed.
B. A god that creates the rules, laws and logic
of the world he creates 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
in definitions of god as omnibenevolent and
omnipotent.
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.
This observation forstalls attempts at
apologisms claiming god abandoned any
abilities.
K. And 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 actually
gave up any abilities.
M. Since god must have had maximum power and
abilities and cannot have at any time
vountarily relinquished any powers or
abilities, at least in the name of banishing
evil 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 laws and rules and
logic.
O. Since the Universe and its laws and rules and
logic are outside and beyond god, god is not
as, 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
have 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 claims
it is. The class of omni-everything, creator
gods cannot exist as asserted.
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
10th 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 very final.
**************************************************
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
.

User: "Gandalf Grey"
Title: Re: Evidence of God: Barwell DEBUNKED	13 Aug 2006 02:16:09 PM

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12duntsj73luvb3@corp.supernews.com...

someone4 wrote:

Firstly I will examine this perspective, and point out the 'leaps of
faith' that it requires.

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 remark alone is an explict admission that you've been lying up to
this point.

No, its just an admission I underestimated the intelligence
of SOME of my audience.

That's a lie. You explicitly stated originally that you had a simple proof
that no god can exist.
So now you're lying about it after failing to demonstrate such a proof.

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.

No, it is not. Since your argument aims at attributes of God, not at the
existence of god per se. The god of the major traditions might still
exist apart from the attributes the theologians have ascribed to that
god.

1. Tom is a doctor.
2. Tom has never been to college and is illiterate
3. Since doctors are literate and have to attend college, Tom
is obviously not a doctor as claimed.

So what?
1. Bill exists.
2. It is said that Bill never picks his nose.
3. But Bill does pick his nose.j
4. Hence Bill does not exist????
Your argument fails. No single attribute or group of attributes necessarily
implies existence would be possible were it proved those attributes were
false.

What I do is point out that the class of omni-everything gods
similarly contains claims that disprove each other.

When are actually going to do that? You've failed to prove, for example
that omniscience cannot exist without omnipotence.
You keep making claims about what you're going to do, but you never actually
do it.

Naturally, all claim specific examples of that class likewise
are impossible.

Do you even know what the above sentence means?

You reek of stupidity and intellectual incapability.

Ad hom in place of a defence noted.

1. Bill Smith exists.
2. It is said by his admirers that Bill Smith always tells the truth.
3. But Bill Smith cannot always tell the truth.
4. Hence Bills Smith does not exist?????

That is just dumb. Just pathetic.

Ad homs 2 and 3
A particularly, glaringly stupid

strawman.

Ad hom 4
You have to be the most dishonest man I have met

on the net this month.

Ad hom 5
If you're done throwing your usual hysterical fit, answer the criticism.

A class of gods is said to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and
creator of all.

Said by who? You? Who made you the decider of what a "class of gods" is
going to consist of.
And even if we give you your homegrown class of gods, you fail to prove
anything by it. The fact remains that any god within this class of gods
could still exist were it shown that one or a combination of the assertions
made about that god is not true.
Once again....

1. Bill Smith exists.
2. It is said by his admirers that Bill Smith always tells the truth.
3. But Bill Smith cannot always tell the truth.
4. Hence Bills Smith does not exist?????

If god creates all, and is omniscient, he knows what his creations will do
in the future. Any possible god must then examine each potential act and
all it to come to pass or something else to be substituted. he and olny
he creates or decides what is created.

Not necessarily. A creator god could know exactly what's going to happen in
a deterministic universe by simply knowing the beginning position of all
molecules and physical entities. That does not mean that god has to examine
each potential act and 'will it' to come to pass. Foreknowledge is not the
same as actively forcing everything to a particular end.

Free will cannot exist for man. Man can decide exactly nothing at all.

So? The same holds true in the deterministic world of the scientific
materialist.

Thus all evil is god's doing, personally and knowingly, all evils from
greatest to smallest.

Absurd. Foreknowledge does not imply personal responsibility. You presume
that omnipotence has to be a part of the mix. It doesn't. There's no
logical law that insists that a creator god must be all powerful.

Evil =/= omnibenevolent as explicitly claimed.

Claimed but nowhere proven. There's nothing about being all good that
implies that god can will evil out of existence. Again, you presume that
god must be omnipotent, but there's no logical necessity for this
conclusion.

All gods that are said to be omniscient and creator of all are thus
contradictory

Nope. You're utterly wrong. Omniscience nowhere implies creation, and both
together are not at all contradictory. You can assert it but you can't
prove it.

Omnibenevolent implies good and evil exist, do I have to make THAT
explicit
too, for the jerk squad? I think I shall just in case.

Ad hom 6. Who was the "King of Ad homs," again?

Omnipotence. Omnipotence mean all powerful. That means not
affected by other forces or powers. Time is does not affect god.

That presumes that Time is a "power." You have no justification in making
such a claim. Like most of your claims, it's rhetorical. Time could be
just as real for an omnipotent being as it is for any other being.

God is outside and transcedent to time.

Why?

Time does not affect god so
theer is thus no past, present, future. To god all is now.
Thus god created all at once in all its particulars to the smallest
physical
degree.

Not necessary and going way too far as a presumption. According to
materialistic determinism, the closest thing to a dogma in science, the only
thing necessary to bring all things to their present state is to arrange
them in a particular sequence at the beginning. Everything follows from
that. Hence God need not know the smallest physical particular of
everything, nor did everything have to be created at once.

Thus again, there is no free will and all evil acts are thus god's
doing.

There may in fact be no free will, but that is not necessarily god's doing.
All things that occur happen because of the initial state. If god is not
omnipotent, god is as powerless to prevent evil as anyone else. God may in
fact have foreknowledge, but that does not imply control.

Thus the class of all gods that are said to be omnipotent, are thus
transcedent to time, not bound by time, and thus free will cannot exist
mthus evil is all god's doing.

You haven't shown this. Omnipotence does not imply transcendence to time
because you haven't shown how time is a "power."
You fail again.
Do you see where you're going wrong yet?

All gods of the class of god that are omnipotent are thus all evil.

That may be true, but you haven't actually addressed the issue. You've
talked about the supposed contradiction of omnibenevolence and omniscience
while leaving omnipotence essentially untouched.

And "Bob's" yer uncle.

Irrelevent comment noted.

Thus the concept of a class of creators gods that are
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent is impossible.

You haven't shown that.

And last but not least, little Gandalf flailing his arms futility as he
trails smoke and fire into the eternal pit of bad ideas and lack
of reasoning ability.

Ad hom 7 noted.

An obvious absurdity.

And so your argument fails. The fact that God cannot logically be
omnipotent in the extreme sense that the Christian tradition insists,
does
not in itself prove that God does not exist.

It does show the god that is indeed dogmatically claimed to be omnipotent
cannot exist.
Obviously.

Only in your preselected strawman universe. And as I've shown, you've
failed miserably even to prove your own handpuppet argument.
If you can't even prove a pre-selected, skewed strawman argument, how are
you possibly going to attack the real article, Barwell?

"Extreme sense" is your strawman.

For example Aquinas states god is only omnipotent in regards to real
thhings, not say bad definitiions like "unmarried batchelors".
I don't have to pick a strawman extreme omnipotence to do the job.

As demonstrated, you flop before you even make it to omnipotence.

Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Brahamnistic Hinduism.
Some have complained that this does not disprove all
gods. True, but this is not meant to, it is meant
only to deal with the gods that are the main problem
for this world,

Another unsupported assertion. Nowhere does your original argument prove
this universal claim. Religion in general has caused tremendous
suffering
in the world, but your argument nowhere addresses this particular
problem.

Supported. You are being irrational here.

Bald assertion without support noted.

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 by believers, these are not that
widespread or important.

According to whom? You may be competent to recognize what is
'widespread'
but who are you to decide what is "important?"

According to all with brains.

Dismissive reply noted. Where's your actual evidence? Where's your actual
defence?

for example, without religious idiots in the US would we be having
problems with creationists assaulting science teaching in schools, and in
may cases, all but gutting science education in backard states and cities?

I repeat...who are YOU to decide what is important?

You are a fool. and wrong.

Ad hom 8.

But it is possible to sort
them into a few classes of gods and likewise disprove
each class.

Which you have not done and cannot do. Hence, another lie on your part.

Which I do, stop lying, it makes the peanut gallery laugh at your
pretensions.

Ad hom 9. If you've done it, you should be able to point to it
specifically. You can't because you haven't and can't.

Here I am primarily looking at the class
of omni-everything creator gods. This does not mean
other classes of gods cannot also be likewise disproven.

And it doesn't mean they can be.

You lame and wrong opinion.
as if you know zip about it.

Ad hom 10

Or 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.

Why is this so and why should it be so? 100s of years ago, the vast bulk
of
humanity believed that space was filled with an ether. Did this make the
fact that it was not filled with ether "unimportant?"

Non sequitur.

It's a perfect analogy. You're attempting to float the notion that the only
gods that need 'debunking' are the gods of the most powerful and numerous
religious traditions.
1. You havne't succeeded in debunking them
2. You haven't demonstrated why those particular gods are the only important
ones.
3. You haven't offered any rational basis upon which a god becomes "second
rate."

Its like
stepping down from a Cadillac to a bicycle.

Why? You're making a value judgement about something that you're
attempting
to prove or disprove. Hence, you're committing the naturalistic fallacy.

Fallacy.

Bald assertion without support noted. If it's a fallacy you should be able
to prove that it's a fallacy.

2. A BASIC DEFINITION THE CLASS OF GOD,
OMNI-EVERYTHING AND CREATOR OF ALL
Also known here as the Grand God of Grand Theology.

There is no evidence whatsover for god. All we
have to work from is claims, or assertions made
about god. I have chosen the following 8 as they are
all part of all great and large religions and
theological traditions of the world.

But mostly because you've decided that they are the weakest factors. In
other words, you still haven't attacked the assertion of God's existence,
only assertions concerning God's attributes.

I need only weak factors to work with and basically all basic claims of
this
class of god are indeed, weak,
Sorry, thems just the facts. All we have are weak assertions.

You've made one honest statement above. William Barwell NEEDS weak factors
to work with. This is the case because you can't handle stronger factors.

I mean, what facts are there that save omnipotence, omnibenevolnece
and omniscience, free will and this class of gods.
Nothing. Nothing at all.

Real existence is hardly "nothing." And, as noted, you've flopped trying to
debunk everything save omnipotence, and THAT is only because you've never
actually attempted to deal with it.

Most of 4 1/2
billion believers will agree with most of these,
and these are all dogma