| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Niels van der Linden" |
| Date: |
19 May 2005 04:01:03 PM |
| Object: |
Getting tired of it |
Who here's getting tired of all of it?
Considering a big bang and a universe such as ours, the following are
natural (or 'normal'):
Forming of stars, planets, moons, solar systems, galaxies, etc., their
'lifetimes' and their 'deaths'.
Thinking things are static in the universe is utterly false. It's as dynamic
as it can possibly get. Just considering the lives the planets in our solar
system have behind them is amazing.
If you look at our cozy planet, life appeared very fast (relatively) after
it's creation. Mars has also gone through a moderate state and some moons of
Jupiter are reveiling things that give extraterrestrial-life scientists wet
dreams round the clock. Mass extinctions are also a common thing on our
planet. We have multiple recordings of such. The only thing that makes us
special is that we might actually see it coming.
The appearance of intelligent life also seems inevitable. Once an animal
comes along that incidentally has limbs that were used for something else
before, but with a slight modification can use things as tools and even
modify them, and also has an apt for communication, the path to ... sapien
(knowing ...) seems like a walk in the park.
Now what about religion? Well, I don't think there has ever been a culture
without it. How hard is it to grasp? When you don't understand the largest
part of things happening in your every day, of course you invent stuff to
attribute it to. We do it *all the time*.
However;
Today, we understand the things happening in our every day, we understand
how religions naturally appeared, we understand the rising of intelligent
life and the natural occurence of life on a planet, the natural lifetimes of
planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no afterlife,
there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god. If you can just realize
that, we can try to work together on this cozy little planet of ours.
Niels
.
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
19 May 2005 06:08:57 PM |
|
|
Niels van der Linden wrote:
.....
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife,
there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god.
Niels
Is this your faith statement? -Dylan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
19 May 2005 07:34:08 PM |
|
|
"Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116544137.782776.242410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Niels van der Linden wrote:
....
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife,
there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god.
Niels
Is this your faith statement? -Dylan
Ah, so you are of the opinion that faith is a bad thing since you are using
it in a derogatory manner.
Excellent, I agree.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
19 May 2005 08:11:18 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116544137.782776.242410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Niels van der Linden wrote:
....
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife,
there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god.
Niels
Is this your faith statement? -Dylan
Ah, so you are of the opinion that faith is a bad thing since you are
using
it in a derogatory manner.
Excellent, I agree.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
What drives the assumption that I am using "faith" in a derogatory
manner?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
19 May 2005 11:51:10 PM |
|
|
"Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116551478.568568.125260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116544137.782776.242410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Niels van der Linden wrote:
....
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife,
there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god.
Niels
Is this your faith statement? -Dylan
Ah, so you are of the opinion that faith is a bad thing since you are
using
it in a derogatory manner.
Excellent, I agree.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
What drives the assumption that I am using "faith" in a derogatory
manner?
The snide manner in which it was used. Obviously an athiest would most
likely object to such a characterization of his statements.
Clearly you are implying that his comments are less than true by suggesting
they are a faith statement rather than a factual statement. Oddly, I happen
to agree with you that faith statements are less than factual.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
20 May 2005 12:35:49 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116551478.568568.125260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116544137.782776.242410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Niels van der Linden wrote:
....
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is
no
afterlife,
there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god.
Niels
Is this your faith statement? -Dylan
Ah, so you are of the opinion that faith is a bad thing since you
are
using
it in a derogatory manner.
Excellent, I agree.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
What drives the assumption that I am using "faith" in a derogatory
manner?
The snide manner in which it was used. Obviously an athiest would
most
likely object to such a characterization of his statements.
Clearly you are implying that his comments are less than true by
suggesting
they are a faith statement rather than a factual statement. Oddly, I
happen
to agree with you that faith statements are less than factual.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
How does - "Is this your faith statement?" - demonstrate a "snide
manner"? I can assure you I had no snide intent. Would you care to
address the actual logic of my question? Even if there was a "snide
manner," which I deny, switching to addressing the manner is like
saying, "I can't answer your logic, so I'll point out that you're
wearing a tux with a purple polkadot necktie." Deal with the substance,
Denis. -Dylan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
20 May 2005 11:16:44 AM |
|
|
"Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116567349.475185.68780@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116551478.568568.125260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116544137.782776.242410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Niels van der Linden wrote:
....
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is
no
afterlife,
there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god.
Niels
Is this your faith statement? -Dylan
Ah, so you are of the opinion that faith is a bad thing since you
are
using
it in a derogatory manner.
Excellent, I agree.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
What drives the assumption that I am using "faith" in a derogatory
manner?
The snide manner in which it was used. Obviously an athiest would
most
likely object to such a characterization of his statements.
Clearly you are implying that his comments are less than true by
suggesting
they are a faith statement rather than a factual statement. Oddly, I
happen
to agree with you that faith statements are less than factual.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
How does - "Is this your faith statement?" - demonstrate a "snide
manner"?
Because you were responding to an obviously atheistic position, and trying
to characterize it as a religious or faith-based one. Either you know that
such a characterization is grossly insulting to an atheist, in which case
the question was snide, or you didn't know such a characterization would be
insulting to an atheist, in which case you would be grossly stupid.
Which is it?
I can assure you I had no snide intent.
I think you're lying to my face.
The only other possible intent was an attempt at humor. If it was, I
apologise for my knee-jerk reaction. If it wasn't, as your subsequent
responses seem to indicate, then my position stands.
Would you care to
address the actual logic of my question?
I am, I'm just not responding to the logic you want me to.
Clearly, the question was intended to cast doubt upon the person's claims by
characterizing them as faith-based. I am thus simply agreeing with your
necessary implication that faith-based statements are less trustworthy than
others.
Even if there was a "snide
manner," which I deny, switching to addressing the manner is like
saying, "I can't answer your logic, so I'll point out that you're
wearing a tux with a purple polkadot necktie." Deal with the substance,
The substance, in this case, is the assumption behind the question. Yours is
clear.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deimos" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
24 May 2005 08:51:34 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
Because you were responding to an obviously atheistic position, and trying
to characterize it as a religious or faith-based one.
But an atheistic position *is* a faith-based one! You can no more prove
the existence of God than you can disprove it! By essence, God (would)
transcend(s) our logic...
Either you know that
or you didn't know such a characterization would be
insulting to an atheist, in which case you would be grossly stupid.
Or ignorant.
The substance, in this case, is the assumption behind the question. Yours is
clear.
An "implied assumption" has no place in a rational discussion.
Deimos.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
24 May 2005 09:13:43 AM |
|
|
"Deimos" <magic_address@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:6a8fc$42933161$506cfcc3$30130@news.chello.at...
Denis Loubet wrote:
Because you were responding to an obviously atheistic position, and
trying
to characterize it as a religious or faith-based one.
But an atheistic position *is* a faith-based one!
How is lacking a belief in god(s) a faith-based position. If your lack of
belief in Santa Claus a "faith-based position"?
You can no more prove
the existence of God than you can disprove it!
So? That doesn't have anything to do with the lack of belief in god(s)
By essence, God (would)
transcend(s) our logic...
Your opinion. Where's the proof?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deimos" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
24 May 2005 12:41:23 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
Because you were responding to an obviously atheistic position, and
trying
to characterize it as a religious or faith-based one.
But an atheistic position *is* a faith-based one!
How is lacking a belief in god(s) a faith-based position. If your lack of
belief in Santa Claus a "faith-based position"?
OK: do you agree that the proposition "God exists" is either, true,
false or undecidable?
Then, either you do not attribute a value to that statement
(agnosticism), or you give it some value.
I now assume you answer "yes" to my first question, so if you decide to
give a value to the proposition, it must either be "true" (theist),
"false" (atheist) or "undecidable" (haven't found a word for that one:
can anybody help please?)
For example, it was not because we couldn't prove (for several
centuries, and not for lack of looking *carefully*) that there is no
integer n>2 such that x^n + y^n = z^n has no non-zero integer solutions
for x, y and z that this statement was necesarily true... Try telling
Wiles that he didn't have to prove anything because believing such an
integer existed would've been the same as believing in Santa.
As far as Santa is concerned, I don't know whether one can disprove the
existence of Santa so easily... At least I haven't managed, but I'd be
grateful to anyone who would provide me with a proof.
You can no more prove
the existence of God than you can disprove it!
So? That doesn't have anything to do with the lack of belief in god(s)
Well it depends: either you believe the answer is no, or you believe the
answer is yes, or you say we will never know, or you say you can't answer.
By essence, God (would)
transcend(s) our logic...
Your opinion. Where's the proof?
Proof? OK, I'll give it a shot: please be indulgent, I may well make
mistakes.
First attempt: if you suppose God is almighty, then God can create a
stone that even He cannot lift, which makes him not almighty:
contradiction. Therefore, if God exists, this kind of reasoning must not
apply to Him.
Second attempt: if you suppose God created all things, then He created
logic and all mathematics. Therefore, He cannot be bound by them
(because He created them without using them, by definition of creation).
Third attempt: if you suppose God pre-exists to everything (i.e., He
exists before everything else does) then He has no reason to exist
(meaning that he was not created from something else), therefore He is
absurd (we cannot logically deduce His existence from anything, as He
pre-exists to everything...).
I hope some of this makes sense. Thanks for your reply, anyway.
Deimos.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
24 May 2005 02:33:39 PM |
|
|
"Deimos" <magic_address@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1c4a7$4293673e$506cfcc3$8474@news.chello.at...
Robibnikoff wrote:
Because you were responding to an obviously atheistic position, and
trying
to characterize it as a religious or faith-based one.
But an atheistic position *is* a faith-based one!
How is lacking a belief in god(s) a faith-based position. If your lack
of
belief in Santa Claus a "faith-based position"?
OK: do you agree that the proposition "God exists" is either, true,
false or undecidable?
That question is irrelevant to the default atheist position.
The default atheist position says NOTHING about whether a god exists or not.
It only addresses BELIEF. Does one BELIEVE in a god or not. Those that do
are theists, those that lack that belief, lack that belief.
Then, either you do not attribute a value to that statement
(agnosticism), or you give it some value.
Irrelevant to atheism. I do not claim that god does not exist. I simply
don't believe in any.
I now assume you answer "yes" to my first question, so if you decide to
give a value to the proposition, it must either be "true" (theist),
"false" (atheist) or "undecidable" (haven't found a word for that one:
can anybody help please?)
If you are talking true or false, there IS no third option. If you're
talking belief, there IS no third option. Only if you're talking knowledge
can there be an "I don't know" response. True or fales is a binary
proposition, as is belief vs disbelief. Knowledge, on the other hand, can be
a spectrum of confidence.
So what are you addressing? Reality, belief, or knowledge.
Atheism deals with one's state of belief.
(snip)
You can no more prove
the existence of God than you can disprove it!
So? That doesn't have anything to do with the lack of belief in god(s)
Well it depends: either you believe the answer is no, or you believe the
answer is yes, or you say we will never know, or you say you can't answer.
When the theist says "god exists", the default atheist responds "I don't
believe you."
Default atheism is a skeptical position, it does not put forth a contrary
position, it just doubts the position put forth by the theist.
By essence, God (would)
transcend(s) our logic...
Your opinion. Where's the proof?
Proof? OK, I'll give it a shot: please be indulgent, I may well make
mistakes.
First attempt: if you suppose God is almighty, then God can create a
stone that even He cannot lift, which makes him not almighty:
contradiction. Therefore, if God exists, this kind of reasoning must not
apply to Him.
Second attempt: if you suppose God created all things, then He created
logic and all mathematics. Therefore, He cannot be bound by them
(because He created them without using them, by definition of creation).
Third attempt: if you suppose God pre-exists to everything (i.e., He
exists before everything else does) then He has no reason to exist
(meaning that he was not created from something else), therefore He is
absurd (we cannot logically deduce His existence from anything, as He
pre-exists to everything...).
This is not proof. Actually it's rather far from it. In fact it's the
opposite.
A rational conclusion that we can draw from the above is that the obviously
contradictory description provided can be most easily explained as simply
the non-sensical myths of a primitive culture.
I hope some of this makes sense. Thanks for your reply, anyway.
I hope our responses make sense.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deimos" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
24 May 2005 10:06:51 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
Irrelevant to atheism. I do not claim that god does not exist. I simply
don't believe in any.
OK, then we both are what I call "agnostics": I'll use the word
"atheist" when talking to you. But do you make a distinction between
someone who does not believe in God and someone who claims God does not
exist?
I now assume you answer "yes" to my first question, so if you decide to
give a value to the proposition, it must either be "true" (theist),
"false" (atheist) or "undecidable" (haven't found a word for that one:
can anybody help please?)
If you are talking true or false, there IS no third option.
Yes there is: Russel demonstrated that every axiomatizable consistent
theory is either omega-inconsistent or incomplete, i.e. that there are
propositions in every first-order logical systems to which we cannot
give a value either "true" or "false". For example, both the axiom of
choice and the continuum hypothesis are undecidable in the standard
axiomatization of set theory. Note that I am not saying that every
interesting axiom system is incomplete (counter-example: the Euclidean
system, with minor additions).
Well it depends: either you believe the answer is no, or you believe the
answer is yes, or you say we will never know, or you say you can't answer.
When the theist says "god exists", the default atheist responds "I don't
believe you."
Default atheism is a skeptical position, it does not put forth a contrary
position, it just doubts the position put forth by the theist.
A said before, we were just using two different words for the same
thing. But there is still the position "I believe God does not exist"
which I don't have a word for.
By essence, God (would)
transcend(s) our logic...
This is not proof. Actually it's rather far from it. In fact it's the
opposite.
A rational conclusion that we can draw from the above is that the obviously
contradictory description provided can be most easily explained as simply
the non-sensical myths of a primitive culture.
"Non-sensical" is exactly what I mean: I wanted to show that in our
human logic, if God exists, then He is non-sensical.
I hope our responses make sense.
They do, they do... Although I strongly suspect that we will not prove
or disprove much in this forum, I think it's interesting to clarify
one's ideas by confronting them to the objections of others.
Cheers,
Deimos.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
24 May 2005 11:36:45 PM |
|
|
"Deimos" <magic_address@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:bbb56$4293ebc5$506cfcc3$31299@news.chello.at...
Denis Loubet wrote:
Irrelevant to atheism. I do not claim that god does not exist. I simply
don't believe in any.
OK, then we both are what I call "agnostics": I'll use the word
"atheist" when talking to you. But do you make a distinction between
someone who does not believe in God and someone who claims God does not
exist?
Yes.
The one aspect that both share is that they lack a belief in gods. That is
the sole determiner that makes them both atheists.
The second one makes an additional claim, but that claim is tangental to
whether he is an atheist or not.
I now assume you answer "yes" to my first question, so if you decide to
give a value to the proposition, it must either be "true" (theist),
"false" (atheist) or "undecidable" (haven't found a word for that one:
can anybody help please?)
If you are talking true or false, there IS no third option.
Yes there is: Russel demonstrated that every axiomatizable consistent
theory is either omega-inconsistent or incomplete, i.e. that there are
propositions in every first-order logical systems to which we cannot
give a value either "true" or "false". For example, both the axiom of
choice and the continuum hypothesis are undecidable in the standard
axiomatization of set theory. Note that I am not saying that every
interesting axiom system is incomplete (counter-example: the Euclidean
system, with minor additions).
I'm not going to pretend I understand any of that.
Well it depends: either you believe the answer is no, or you believe the
answer is yes, or you say we will never know, or you say you can't
answer.
When the theist says "god exists", the default atheist responds "I don't
believe you."
Default atheism is a skeptical position, it does not put forth a contrary
position, it just doubts the position put forth by the theist.
A said before, we were just using two different words for the same
thing. But there is still the position "I believe God does not exist"
which I don't have a word for.
That would be the word atheist. To believe that gods do not exist requires
one to also lack belief in gods.
Believing that gods do not exist is a subset of lacking belief in gods.
By essence, God (would)
transcend(s) our logic...
This is not proof. Actually it's rather far from it. In fact it's the
opposite.
A rational conclusion that we can draw from the above is that the
obviously
contradictory description provided can be most easily explained as simply
the non-sensical myths of a primitive culture.
"Non-sensical" is exactly what I mean: I wanted to show that in our
human logic, if God exists, then He is non-sensical.
That's not exactly what you said. You said the god, if it existed, would
transcend our logic.
I do not agree with the use of the word transcend, but I find the phrase
non-sensical to be appropriate.
I hope our responses make sense.
They do, they do... Although I strongly suspect that we will not prove
or disprove much in this forum, I think it's interesting to clarify
one's ideas by confronting them to the objections of others.
Always interesting.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
24 May 2005 01:19:16 PM |
|
|
Deimos wrote:
OK: do you agree that the proposition "God exists" is either, true,
false or undecidable?
(snip)
It is unintelligible. Define God.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
24 May 2005 09:43:30 AM |
|
|
"Deimos" <magic_address@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:6a8fc$42933161$506cfcc3$30130@news.chello.at...
Denis Loubet wrote:
Because you were responding to an obviously atheistic position, and
trying
to characterize it as a religious or faith-based one.
But an atheistic position *is* a faith-based one!
Saying, "I don't believe you" is faith based?
You can no more prove
the existence of God than you can disprove it!
And you can't disprove that there's a toaster orbiting Jupiter. However, you
are justified in dismissing the claim outright, are you not?
By essence, God (would)
transcend(s) our logic...
Now THAT'S a faith based claim. Got any evidence to back it up?
If not, I'll just say "I don't believe you" and leave it at that.
Either you know that
or you didn't know such a characterization would be
insulting to an atheist, in which case you would be grossly stupid.
Or ignorant.
Granted.
The substance, in this case, is the assumption behind the question. Yours
is
clear.
An "implied assumption" has no place in a rational discussion.
Why not? Are you saying one is disallowed from questioning unspoken
premises?
I disagree.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
24 May 2005 11:48:44 AM |
|
|
Deimos wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
Because you were responding to an obviously atheistic position, and
trying
to characterize it as a religious or faith-based one.
But an atheistic position *is* a faith-based one! You can no more prove
the existence of God than you can disprove it! By essence, God (would)
transcend(s) our logic...
**************************************************
God disproven #1 Short Version
W.C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************
By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology,
the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the most
powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of
all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having
conciousness, and will. I mean this in the general
overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
2. That really asks the question, does god create the
rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large?
And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason?
3. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.
4. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.
5. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.
6. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.
7. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.
8. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes
him overtly evil.
9. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.
10. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can
be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.
11. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of
ontological proofs are all thus falsified.
12. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.
13. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is false also.
14. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Universe tht contained evil only because
he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.
15. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the problem of evil
in 250 BCE. If the gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent or possible neither.
16. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.
17. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.
18. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?
19. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other
sciences.
20. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for disembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.
21. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand
God of theological tradition has actual and real
existance.
23. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing theology,
since as demonstrated above, that has proven to
be a total failure as a methodology.
(END)
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deimos" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
24 May 2005 12:48:47 PM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
**************************************************
God disproven #1 Short Version
W.C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************
By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology,
the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the most
powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of
all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having
conciousness, and will. I mean this in the general
overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
Wow! Thanks for this comprehensive reply!
Sure, as I attempted to prove (far less exhaustively than you and not as
well) in another reply, if you suppose God is subject to logic, then God
cannot exist.
Granted, your "version" of God cannot exist. My question is, would it be
possible to conceive the existence of a being not subject to logic and
not responding to your description?
The reason why I cannot be an atheist and why I cannot be a theist
either (I consider myself agnostic) is that I do not know whether our
human logic is applicable to everything including God. I mean, if we had
trouble with traditional models when we developped quantum theory,
wouldn't it be possible that our mathematical understanding is also
non-exhaustive (even if unlimited)?
I totally agree with you that your definition is that of a vast majority
of people. But it might not be adequate...
Cheers,
Deimos.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
24 May 2005 05:40:50 PM |
|
|
Deimos wrote:
wcb wrote:
**************************************************
God disproven #1 Short Version
W.C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************
By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology,
the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the most
powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of
all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having
conciousness, and will. I mean this in the general
overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
Wow! Thanks for this comprehensive reply!
Sure, as I attempted to prove (far less exhaustively than you and not as
well) in another reply, if you suppose God is subject to logic, then God
cannot exist.
Granted, your "version" of God cannot exist. My question is, would it be
possible to conceive the existence of a being not subject to logic and
not responding to your description?
Well, that proof takes two views. God is not subject to logic,
he creates it. If so he is evil.
If he is subject to logic, then where does logic come from?
With logic seperate and not at all reliant on god, we may dispense
with god.
There are other dispoofs.
Epicurus long ago noted that if the gods are omnipotent and omnibenevolent,
evil should not exist.
Ergo, their are either not omnipotent, benevolent or possibly neither.
Since Augustine, christian theologians have relied on the free will defense.
God allows us to have free will, evil comes from that free will.
Disproof 1.
God has free will. God cannot do evil because he has
a good nature incapable of evil.
Since free will and a good nature incapable of moral evil are obviously
capable of coexisting, teh free wil ldefense cannot be true.
God, being good, must by duty, give us a god like free will and a god like
good nature.
If not, again, he is evil.
Disproof 2.
God creats all.
He is omniscient.
He knows all.
If he creates a Universe, he must know all, including the future,
and in the most fine grained manner, all of it to the smallest quantum
level.
If the future has a John Smith he wil know that.
If Smith is evil, he will know that.
If Smith is good, he will know that too.
God as he considers creating a Universe has a choice to allow
a good or evil Smith to exist.
So everything god creates, he knows the future of and has a
personal and purposeful choice to include or disallow.
There can be no free will at all. All is decided long before
by god in the most fine grained and total manner.
So if moral evil exists it is because god purposefully and
knowing creates it.
Since free will cannot exist, even in principle, it cannot
be held as a reason to allow evil to exist.
The Free Will Defense is back in vogue mainly due to
efforts by Alvin Plantinga, to defeat a very strong
disproof of god by R.L. Mackie in 1954 based on the
old problem of evil.
So 2300 years after Epicurus, the problem of evil
is back with a vengeance.
And no inquisition to threaten those who deny
the old dodges.
The problem is, you use logic or you don't.
The reason why I cannot be an atheist and why I cannot be a theist
either (I consider myself agnostic) is that I do not know whether our
human logic is applicable to everything including God.
When somebody makes assertions and claims about god, logic
is applicable. And god cannot withstand the challenge.
And I am not dealing with a specific god, but a general,
maximal class of gods.
Creator gods who are omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent
and greater than anything that can be imagined.
That whole enterprise collapses. It does not matter if you
discuss Allah, the Christian god, the Hindu Atman or any
other specific maximalist god. Take out the entire class of
such gods, all lessor assertions are moot.
Basically, the argument whether god is omnipotent or not
and to what degree enters here.
If god does not create the rules and laws and logic, he is rather
dispensible. If he can do so, he is evil.
If the laws and rules and reality and logic of the Universe are
outside god, beyond him and have no need of him, we don't need
to consider god in considering the nature of reality.
God does not and cannot explain anything here.
The problem is from a theological appraoch is, how do you
deal with the issue of what are these rules, these laws,
this reality or this logic?
As far as I can see, theology has no abilities here,
and has managed to get everything wrong when it has
made any pronouncements about the natural world.
We have but few ways of trying to explain the world.
Natural theology, revealed religion, occultism, mysticism,
philosophy, science, mathematics.
Natural religion takes out maximalist gods and thus
revealed religion with it. And leaves the real meat,
the nature of reality, logic and the laws and rules of
the Universe unexamined.
So I cannot be a theist.
Stepping down, what's left? Squabbling gods like
Zeus and the gang?
Little nature gods that are supposed to explain why wheat
grows and why lambs are born?
Science has made them rather unneeded.
Once you step away from the failed maximalist god
theory, there isn't much to take its place.
As for the rules and laws of the Universe, science
and mathematics are doing pretty good here.
So I cannot be an agnostic either.
I do know some things. Theology
and religion are failures.
I mean, if we had
trouble with traditional models when we developped quantum theory,
wouldn't it be possible that our mathematical understanding is also
non-exhaustive (even if unlimited)?
Science as we know it developed only when Galileo (a physics professor
at the University of Pisa) threw out all physics as failed and
rotten and started physics from scratch. He laid out a plan for that that
we now call science.
It has been very successful in the 450 years it has been developing.
So we really have been only examining the world in a systematic
manner for a short while. We will be doing this for many more
centuries to come. I'd say, give it another 1000.
Then lets complain.
I totally agree with you that your definition is that of a vast majority
of people. But it might not be adequate...
There are plenty of theologians making up new dodges, but
its all so futile.
Theology, occultism, mysticism, these simply fail to do anything.
What is reality and what are the laws and rules of the Universe?
In the last century, physics alone has made more advances than all
of mans history before it. What we do know about the universe, quantum
physics for example, is pretty satisfying so far.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
24 May 2005 03:35:25 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 May 2005 19:48:47 +0200, Deimos <magic_address@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
wcb wrote:
**************************************************
God disproven #1 Short Version
W.C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************
By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology,
the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the most
powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of
all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having
conciousness, and will. I mean this in the general
overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
Wow! Thanks for this comprehensive reply!
Sure, as I attempted to prove (far less exhaustively than you and not as
well) in another reply, if you suppose God is subject to logic, then God
cannot exist.
Granted, your "version" of God cannot exist. My question is, would it be
possible to conceive the existence of a being not subject to logic and
not responding to your description?
I dunno, I think you _both_ ought to be careful to look both ways at
the next zebra crossing.
IMO God doesn't exist on the same grounds that the Loch Ness monster
doesn't exist -- despite centuries of messing around with assertions,
there's just no real evidence for the proposition.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
24 May 2005 05:56:34 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 19:48:47 +0200, Deimos <magic_address@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
wcb wrote:
**************************************************
God disproven #1 Short Version
W.C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************
By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology,
the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the most
powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of
all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having
conciousness, and will. I mean this in the general
overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
Wow! Thanks for this comprehensive reply!
Sure, as I attempted to prove (far less exhaustively than you and not as
well) in another reply, if you suppose God is subject to logic, then God
cannot exist.
Granted, your "version" of God cannot exist. My question is, would it be
possible to conceive the existence of a being not subject to logic and
not responding to your description?
I dunno, I think you _both_ ought to be careful to look both ways at
the next zebra crossing.
IMO God doesn't exist on the same grounds that the Loch Ness monster
doesn't exist -- despite centuries of messing around with assertions,
there's just no real evidence for the proposition.
There is a difference in pointing out evidence is lacking and
pointing out claims are self defeating and contradictory.
With lack of evidence, one may beg off with the claim
lack of evidence is not evidence of non-existance.
But when one's claims develop embaressing damned if you do
and damned if you don't self contradictions, you just
have to pack it in.
Its always nice to be able to drive home the last nails
the coffin of a failed idea with a stake through its heart.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BruceW" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
25 May 2005 05:16:18 AM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
...
1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
...
For my money, your argument is stillborn. Since triangles have
three sides *by definition*, a four-sided triangle is not so
much "impossible" as it is nonsensical, like asking what happens
when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. Many of
the remaining points have similar problems.
It's beyond me why people continue, after 2000 years or so of
failure, to try to construct "logical" proofs and disproofs of
god. Surely it's clear by now that it can't be done in any
meaningful way.
- Bruce W
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
25 May 2005 07:44:29 AM |
|
|
BruceW wrote:
wcb wrote:
...
1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
...
For my money, your argument is stillborn.
For my money, you are simply another idiot.
If you answer yes, we have problems.
If you answer no, you have problems.
What you do, is fail to read the thing through, think,
and realize "Hmmmmm! No matter which way we god with
this, we end up with severe problems
that vitiate the idea of an existant god".
The problem with the net is, most people read two sentences and start
blathering at top speed. What people do not do in this day of
short attention spans is read the entire thing, think carefully
and THEN reply after careful and due consideration.
Since triangles have
three sides *by definition*, a four-sided triangle is not so
much "impossible" as it is nonsensical, like asking what happens
when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. Many of
the remaining points have similar problems.
The question is then, why do these things have these
characteristics? If god writes teh rules, and can change
these things, he must then be evil as I show.
He is defined as good. Good =/= evil.
So we rule that out.
But if god does not make the rules, the logic,
the reality of the universe, where do they come from.
God is defined as having created all ex nihilo.
But that must be wrong, unless god is as pointed out, evil.
You aren't thinking about this, are you.
You are blathering full speed while you
brain is in neutral.
You missed it all.
You didn't get it.
You didn't bother to even try, did you?
You just spout off.
It's beyond me why people continue, after 2000 years or so of
failure, to try to construct "logical" proofs and disproofs of
god. Surely it's clear by now that it can't be done in any
meaningful way.
- Bruce W
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deimos" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
25 May 2005 09:04:24 AM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
BruceW wrote:
wcb wrote:
...
1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
...
For my money, your argument is stillborn.
For my money, you are simply another idiot.
If you answer yes, we have problems.
If you answer no, you have problems.
I don't think you can systematically answer yes or no to any "yes or no"
question. It may be that the question is absurd (i.e., doesn't have a
meaning, i.e. non-sensical). For example, "is tomorrow green?" You could
give a meaning to that question by adding extra hypothesis, but if you
don't and just asked two different people, they might understand the
question two different ways, which makes it quite different from the
question: "do I have two eyes?"
Although I understand what you are trying to do and I think it is
possible to find contradictions to the existence of God if we suppose
that He complies to a few laws (such as logic and causality for
instance), that particular question has no real meaning. Besides, I can
draw you a "square" circle: just draw a circle on a cylindre and if you
choose your dimensions adequately, squint a bit, you'll see a square (or
not ;). Yeah, I know, it's not what you meant, but it's just to show
that asking a meaningful question is not just for the sake of it: if you
don't define what you mean clearly, then the contradiction might vanish...
What you do, is fail to read the thing through, think,
and realize "Hmmmmm! No matter which way we god with
this, we end up with severe problems
that vitiate the idea of an existant god".
No, not really: we *do* have a problem with a God that abides to logic,
but who said that had to be true?
The problem with the net is, most people read two sentences and start
blathering at top speed. What people do not do in this day of
short attention spans is read the entire thing, think carefully
and THEN reply after careful and due consideration.
Argument might work both ways, be careful.
Charly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
25 May 2005 04:31:25 PM |
|
|
Deimos wrote:
wcb wrote:
BruceW wrote:
wcb wrote:
...
1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
...
For my money, your argument is stillborn.
For my money, you are simply another idiot.
If you answer yes, we have problems.
If you answer no, you have problems.
I don't think you can systematically answer yes or no to any "yes or no"
question. It may be that the question is absurd (i.e., doesn't have a
meaning, i.e. non-sensical). For example, "is tomorrow green?" You could
give a meaning to that question by adding extra hypothesis, but if you
don't and just asked two different people, they might understand the
question two different ways, which makes it quite different from the
question: "do I have two eyes?"
"Is tomorrow Green?" is the same sort of guff you see the theists play.
"God does not creat logic, he is logic" and other guff you
get from xians who backed in a corner think if the cobble together some
meaningless gibberish they have done something noteworthy.
We have a claim that is long standing.
God is omnipotent. That claim has always had problems.
Can god make 2 + 2 = 5?
Many theist thinkers have answered that question.
Many no, Aquinas for example, some yes, Descarte for example.
Who is right?
If you frame it right, one can show neither answer gets
you out of hot water. Each answer, yes, or no, leads
to problems.
2500 years of theological games, and nobody got it right.
If yes, god must be evil as I showed.
If no, one has to explain where this reality, this logic, these
laws and rules of the Universe come from so powerful that god
himself must obey them.
At this ppoint one realizes that omnipotence as a concept
is in fact no more sensible than a "green yesterday".
Its just not so obviously so on the face of it.
This is more like squaring the circle.
A Greek problem, the idea was, using only a compass and
straight edge, find way to draw a circle and then a square
the exact same area. No one could for over 2000 yers.
Then somebody realized that it involved trancedental numbers
that could not be created with the tools allowed.
With that realization it was an impossible problem, it
was retired as undoable and we knew why.
Likewise, the problems of god's omnipotence is solved by
realizing it has a deeper aspect, does god make the rules?
One you realize, that either way you answer, yes or no,
omnipotence is not saved, nor is god established as possible.
Rather the opposite.
A god that is supposedly omnipotent is as impossible as
squaring the circle.
"Does god create the rules, laws, logic and reality of
the Universe?", the real underlying problem of omnipotence
does for god what transcedental numbers did for squaring
the circle.
Although I understand what you are trying to do and I think it is
possible to find contradictions to the existence of God if we suppose
that He complies to a few laws (such as logic and causality for
instance), that particular question has no real meaning. Besides, I can
draw you a "square" circle: just draw a circle on a cylindre and if you
choose your dimensions adequately, squint a bit, you'll see a square (or
not ;). Yeah, I know, it's not what you meant, but it's just to show
that asking a meaningful question is not just for the sake of it: if you
don't define what you mean clearly, then the contradiction might vanish...
What you do, is fail to read the thing through, think,
and realize "Hmmmmm! No matter which way we god with
this, we end up with severe problems
that vitiate the idea of an existant god".
No, not really: we *do* have a problem with a God that abides to logic,
but who said that had to be true?
The problem with the net is, most people read two sentences and start
blathering at top speed. What people do not do in this day of
short attention spans is read the entire thing, think carefully
and THEN reply after careful and due consideration.
Argument might work both ways, be careful.
Charly.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deimos" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
26 May 2005 05:30:28 AM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
I don't think you can systematically answer yes or no to any "yes or no"
question. It may be that the question is absurd (i.e., doesn't have a
meaning, i.e. non-sensical). For example, "is tomorrow green?" You could
give a meaning to that question by adding extra hypothesis, but if you
don't and just asked two different people, they might understand the
question two different ways, which makes it quite different from the
question: "do I have two eyes?"
"Is tomorrow Green?" is the same sort of guff you see the theists play.
"God does not creat logic, he is logic" and other guff you
get from xians who backed in a corner think if the cobble together some
meaningless gibberish they have done something noteworthy.
"Is tomorrow green" is indeed a not-so-good example. But there are such
things as undecidable questions. For example, as stated in
http://www.answers.com/topic/g-del-s-incompleteness-theorem, "Gödel's
first incompleteness theorem shows that any such system that allows you
to define the natural numbers is necessarily incomplete: it contains
statements that are neither provably true nor provably false." I don't
think God *is* logic unless by this you mean "logic is a part of God",
because if God is included in logic and God precedes to the existence of
everything, then necessarily logic is God. Allthough I love math, I
wouldn't consider it my God: I haven't seen logic create anything so far.
We have a claim that is long standing.
God is omnipotent. That claim has always had problems.
Can god make 2 + 2 = 5?
Many theist thinkers have answered that question.
Many no, Aquinas for example, some yes, Descarte for example.
Who is right?
This is just a repetition of what you wrote before. If you want, you can
define an "all-mighty being" as a being which can do anything that is
logically acceptable. This is, as you said, the biggest subset of
omnipotence that we can grasp with our logic.
If yes, god must be evil as I showed.
Your proof (if I recall correctly) is: "If god could create such a word
since he creates the Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is
effectively the creator of all evil. Thus god is the author and
sustaining cause of all evil and is himself evil". It all depends how
you define "evil". For example, I do not think that Hitler would agree
with Roosevelt on the question "is Adolf Hitler evil?" If evil is what
the Bible says it is, Christians would argue that God gives them the
choice to do evil things or not. What is more evil? Being denied any
freedom or being allowed to do things that will eventually harm you? A
christian once gave me the example of a father who lets his child do a
mistake so that he cannot learn from it. I won't go down this moral path
because I think it leads essentially nowhere.
If no, one has to explain where this reality, this logic, these
laws and rules of the Universe come from so powerful that god
himself must obey them.
At this ppoint one realizes that omnipotence as a concept
is in fact no more sensible than a "green yesterday".
Its just not so obviously so on the face of it.
Exactly: I am convinced that omnipotence is not sensible, i.e. that we
cannot grasp either by our senses nor by our reason. I do not know
whether it exists or not, but it not being subject to logic certainly
does not disqualify it for existence as far as I'm concerned. Just
because I cannot see or conceive something does not mean that it does
not exist - only that it does not exist *for me*. In that respect, I
totally agree with you: God does not exist *for me* in that He is not a
concept I can grasp in any way. Whether or not I believe in His absolute
existence is another matter.
This is more like squaring the circle.
A Greek problem, the idea was, using only a compass and
straight edge, find way to draw a circle and then a square
the exact same area. No one could for over 2000 yers.
Then somebody realized that it involved trancedental numbers
that could not be created with the tools allowed.
With that realization it was an impossible problem, it
was retired as undoable and we knew why.
Likewise, the problems of god's omnipotence is solved by
realizing it has a deeper aspect, does god make the rules?
One you realize, that either way you answer, yes or no,
omnipotence is not saved, nor is god established as possible.
Rather the opposite.
Well your definition of God, in any case...
A god that is supposedly omnipotent is as impossible as
squaring the circle.
In our mathematical logic yes.
"Does god create the rules, laws, logic and reality of
the Universe?", the real underlying problem of omnipotence
does for god what transcedental numbers did for squaring
the circle.
No, not really: a circle is a sensible concept. I don't think God is.
This is why I think it is essentially useless to discuss the absence or
the existence of God using logic: it's essentially a matter of faith.
Deimos.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
27 May 2005 10:43:03 AM |
|
|
Deimos wrote:
"Is tomorrow green" is indeed a not-so-good example. But there are such
things as undecidable questions. For example, as stated in
The existance of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent,
creator god is not undecidable.
The problem of evil shows us Omnipotence + Omnibenevolence
cannot be.
The theists try to exuse that with free will.
But a god that is creator of all and omniscient
dooms free will even in principle.
Thus a god that is omniscient, creator of all, omnibenevolent,
and omnipotent is impossible. Not undecidable.
Theology for 2500 years simply has either not been
inetlligent enough to put these pieces together and
understand or dishonest about the claims.
Or both.
This understood correctly, shows us god as assertted
cannot exist. Not as a particular omni-everything god,
nor as a class of general omni-everything creator gods.
Its not hard to do the simple reasoning.
At least for people who do not have some psychoilogical
block against considering the possibility god does not
and cannot exist.
Then we have to consider the effects of intellectual
dishonesty and willful stupidity.
http://www.answers.com/topic/g-del-s-incompleteness-theorem, "Gödel's
Irrelevant. Nothing to do with the simple contradictions
these attributes of god cause.
We have a claim that is long standing.
God is omnipotent. That claim has always had problems.
Can god make 2 + 2 = 5?
Many theist thinkers have answered that question.
Many no, Aquinas for example, some yes, Descarte for example.
Who is right?
This is just a repetition of what you wrote before. If you want, you can
And I will repeat until you decide to stop being willfully stupid.
Its not hard.
If yes, by relentless and inexorbable logic god must be evil.
There is no way around it. All one can do is "git stoopid!"
and be willfully ignorant.
If "Yes", we have to account for what and where logic, reality,
the rules and laws of the Universe are and where they come from.
Not god. Immediately, other claims about god are gutted.
Its not hard. If you bother to reason.
define an "all-mighty being" as a being which can do anything that is
logically acceptable. This is, as you said, the biggest subset of
omnipotence that we can grasp with our logic.
I don't make the definitions. Nor care to. I just test what
definitions theology has been using over 2000 years.
It doesn't work.
Case closed.
Your proof (if I recall correctly) is: "If god could create such a world
since he creates the Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is
effectively the creator of all evil. Thus god is the author and
sustaining cause of all evil and is himself evil". It all depends how
you define "evil".
The theists define that and agree it exists.
And those who are evil are punished by god.
I don't have to define it. Just note that theists
claim evil exists and god is against it.
That decided, I don't care about particulars.
The problem of evil still exists.
Exactly: I am convinced that omnipotence is not sensible, i.e. that we
cannot grasp either by our senses nor by our reason. I do not know
It is not sensible because as a concept it causes contradictions
when it is used with other concepts. Omnipotentence + omnibenevolence
= problem of evil.
And no, its not "my definition".
Its theology's.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
27 May 2005 11:10:03 AM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
Deimos wrote:
"Is tomorrow green" is indeed a not-so-good example. But there are such
things as undecidable questions. For example, as stated in
The existance of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent,
creator god is not undecidable.
The problem of evil shows us Omnipotence + Omnibenevolence
cannot be.
The theists try to exuse that with free will.
But a god that is creator of all and omniscient
dooms free will even in principle.
Thus a god that is omniscient, creator of all, omnibenevolent,
and omnipotent is impossible. Not undecidable.
Theology for 2500 years simply has either not been
inetlligent enough to put these pieces together and
understand or dishonest about the claims.
Or both.
This understood correctly, shows us god as assertted
cannot exist. Not as a particular omni-everything god,
nor as a class of general omni-everything creator gods.
Its not hard to do the simple reasoning.
At least for people who do not have some psychoilogical
block against considering the possibility god does not
and cannot exist.
Then we have to consider the effects of intellectual
dishonesty and willful stupidity.
http://www.answers.com/topic/g-del-s-incompleteness-theorem, "Gödel's
Irrelevant. Nothing to do with the simple contradictions
these attributes of god cause.
We have a claim that is long standing.
God is omnipotent. That claim has always had problems.
Can god make 2 + 2 = 5?
Many theist thinkers have answered that question.
Many no, Aquinas for example, some yes, Descarte for example.
Who is right?
This is just a repetition of what you wrote before. If you want, you can
And I will repeat until you decide to stop being willfully stupid.
Its not hard.
If yes, by relentless and inexorbable logic god must be evil.
There is no way around it. All one can do is "git stoopid!"
and be willfully ignorant.
If "Yes", we have to account for what and where logic, reality,
the rules and laws of the Universe are and where they come from.
Not god. Immediately, other claims about god are gutted.
Its not hard. If you bother to reason.
define an "all-mighty being" as a being which can do anything that is
logically acceptable. This is, as you said, the biggest subset of
omnipotence that we can grasp with our logic.
I don't make the definitions. Nor care to. I just test what
definitions theology has been using over 2000 years.
It doesn't work.
Case closed.
Your proof (if I recall correctly) is: "If god could create such a world
since he creates the Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is
effectively the creator of all evil. Thus god is the author and
sustaining cause of all evil and is himself evil". It all depends how
you define "evil".
The theists define that and agree it exists.
And those who are evil are punished by god.
I don't have to define it. Just note that theists
claim evil exists and god is against it.
If you note that theists (and I am a theist) claim that God is against
evil, then explain Isaiah 45:6-7:
"I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create
darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these
things."
-Dylan
That decided, I don't care about particulars.
The problem of evil still exists.
Exactly: I am convinced that omnipotence is not sensible, i.e. that we
cannot grasp either by our senses nor by our reason. I do not know
It is not sensible because as a concept it causes contradictions
when it is used with other concepts. Omnipotentence + omnibenevolence
= problem of evil.
And no, its not "my definition".
Its theology's.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
27 May 2005 04:48:12 PM |
|
|
Dylan wrote:
wcb wrote:
Deimos wrote:
If you note that theists (and I am a theist) claim that God is against
evil, then explain Isaiah 45:6-7:
"I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create
darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these
things."
-Dylan
What this means here is natural evils, floods, drought,
epidemics, invasion by powerful neighbors.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
27 May 2005 06:34:21 PM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
Dylan wrote:
wcb wrote:
Deimos wrote:
If you note that theists (and I am a theist) claim that God is against
evil, then explain Isaiah 45:6-7:
"I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create
darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these
things."
-Dylan
What this means here is natural evils, floods, drought,
epidemics, invasion by powerful neighbors.
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
Not to mention ˇ sending an evil spirit "from the Lord" down into
Saul to make him pick up a javalin and try to run David through, ˇ
allowing Satan to torment God's "perfect and upright servant" Job up to
but not including his very life, ˇ hardening Pharoah's heart so that
he would not allow the people of Israel go free out of slavery, ˇ
sending an angel to unlock the "bottomless pit" (Rev.) and let out the
demons to torment the people of the planet, ˇ using Nebuchadnezzar as
his personal "rod of wrath" to punish his own people (Israel) in ways
that would make So Damn Insane jealous, and then punishing old Neb for
doing what God forced him to do, ....
-Dylan
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
27 May 2005 11:17:57 AM |
|
|
Dylan wrote:
wcb wrote:
Deimos wrote:
"Is tomorrow green" is indeed a not-so-good example. But there are such
things as undecidable questions. For example, as stated in
The existance of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent,
creator god is not undecidable.
The problem of evil shows us Omnipotence + Omnibenevolence
cannot be.
The theists try to exuse that with free will.
But a god that is creator of all and omniscient
dooms free will even in principle.
Thus a god that is omniscient, creator of all, omnibenevolent,
and omnipotent is impossible. Not undecidable.
Theology for 2500 years simply has either not been
inetlligent enough to put these pieces together and
understand or dishonest about the claims.
Or both.
This understood correctly, shows us god as assertted
cannot exist. Not as a particular omni-everything god,
nor as a class of general omni-everything creator gods.
Its not hard to do the simple reasoning.
At least for people who do not have some psychoilogical
block against considering the possibility god does not
and cannot exist.
Then we have to consider the effects of intellectual
dishonesty and willful stupidity.
http://www.answers.com/topic/g-del-s-incompleteness-theorem, "Gödel's
Irrelevant. Nothing to do with the simple contradictions
these attributes of god cause.
We have a claim that is long standing.
God is omnipotent. That claim has always had problems.
Can god make 2 + 2 = 5?
Many theist thinkers have answered that question.
Many no, Aquinas for example, some yes, Descarte for example.
Who is right?
This is just a repetition of what you wrote before. If you want, you can
And I will repeat until you decide to stop being willfully stupid.
Its not hard.
If yes, by rele | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
