Dave Oldridge wrote:

"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1124930536.599862.129920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Dave Oldridge wrote:

WCB <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:11gi15ili0bds64 @corp.supernews.com:

Dave Oldridge wrote:

Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:th9fg1lt3jcom11oig5qgcdu6s988kfcae@4ax.com:

--------------------------------------------------------------

Part 1

IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.

A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.

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

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

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

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

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

A CLASS OF GODS

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

THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS

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

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

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.

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

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

Well, if you assume that God is omnibenevolent. There is little in
scripture to suggest that this omnibenevolence means anything like
what humans would define it as, though. The real key to
understanding this is in the allegory of the fall. You have,
however, hit upon the one atheist argument that actually IS an
argument with some strength and not just an ipse dixit.

You have taken two assumptions here that are unnecessary and lead
into Atheist duck-blinds.

1. Apparently, you would prefer to redefine "omnibenevolent" rather
than say that God is not omnibenevolent. At this point in the
discussion, God is the unknown, not the word. It would be less
circuitous to simply determine whether our word really applies to
God.

No, I'd be just as happy not attributing it to God at all.

The problem is, that is the assertion made officially for god.
By many theologians over 2000, years, and by the Quran also.

It actually come sto Christianity via Greece, Plato stated that all
gods are good, and this dogma came to Christianity because the
theologians of Christianity adopted it. And went through the bible
looking for proof texts that support that claim.

Its a dogma that god only does moral good and never does moral
evil, little things like genocides of the bible not withstanding.
I believe strongly the bible god is not omnibenevlent thus, but I
don't get to define god either.

And as I have repeatedly pointed out a god that creates all, as
claimed, and is omniscient which is also claimed, has to be
responsible for all evil. because man cannot have free will.

Now, I can show you that this officially defined god contradicts
itself and cannot exist.

But, if you start abandoning omnibenevolence, omnipotence,
and omniscience, you soon dig your way into other problems that
disconfirm god.

For example if you drop omnipotence, you have to define just what it
is god can do, if anything at all.

I can have a lot of fun with that one.

You do not have a lot you can abandon.
Free will of god?
Will and conciousness?
Creator of all?
If you abandon omniscience you also automatically
abandon omnipotence.

Redefine evil? A lot of goal post moving going on here.

We soon are back to just what is god anyway?
So the rot sets in anyway one looks at this.
Even if believers start denying obvious millenia old
dogmas.

Of course, as soon as this is published, we shall be hit in rapid
follow-ups to the effect that you may quibble with the benevolence
of God, but you do not see the big picture or the long term. Some
of God's best gifts are unanswered prayers, etc. Let us lay that
argument aside for now.

2. Apparently, you accept the Mosaic Bible ("scriptures") as the
Word of God. But if God does not exist, he cannot have a "Word,"
and the Word cannot therefore be infallible concerning God.

Uh, actually no, I accept the Septuagint, basically, as a collection
of spiritual writings that tell us what the authors thought about
God. They are not infallible, though they do tell us that God's
"word" is actually a person and that Jesus Christ is that person.

In essence, to use the Bible to disprove the existence of God is
just plain silly. The Bible is the work of men, and not a
particularly good work, either.

Well, you can argue about how good or bad it is, but that depends on
how you view it. It contains a record of the spiritual thinking of
certain men over a period of about a millenium, maybe slightly more,
in a more or less continuous spiritual tradition.

The Bible sanctions slavery, blood sacrifice, the subjegation of
women, stoning people, burning people, genocides, blind ritual, a
hereditary priest class, child murder, religious intolerance and
persecution, hereditary vengeance, and some other things that most
parents would not recommend to children.

Taken out of context and treated as an infallible oracle, it can be
interpreted to sanction all of these things. But, being an inanimate
collection of written works, it really can sanction nothing. It
reports, on occasion that GOD sanctioned some of these things and one
might well consider that the authors were merely making excuses for
what they had done.

To use that docuent to disprove the existence of God, well ... let
us just say you have not chosen out your strongest adversary.

I'm not even trying to disprove the existence of God. But God as the
conflicted being that some interpreters of scripture have invented is
certainly not a real being.

Buddha probably had the correct answer to this problem. Get
enlightened first. THEN worry about gods. At least you will then be
equipped to see the answers to your questions.

The real message here is dogmas are often not as infallible as hoped.

Most of these dogmas would have been enforced by the inquisition, one
can still earn the death penalty in Pakistan for much of what we argue
here on AA on this question.

Dave Oldridge wrote:

Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:mdtpg15ei6pc653tfmhn9hh5a1qrhcifub@4ax.com:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:13:02 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

WCB <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:11gi15ili0bds64 @corp.supernews.com:

Dave Oldridge wrote:

Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:th9fg1lt3jcom11oig5qgcdu6s988kfcae@4ax.com:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 21:18:46 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

And only those who are theists can have a theology.

So? Atheists have an atheology.

The fact is: "There are no gods" is a theological proposition
just

as

much as "There are many gods" or "There is only one god."

And it's your own stupid strawman. Not believing in your deity is

no

different than not believing in Zeus, Mithras, Odin, Osiris or
even Santa Claus. But then you already know that.

Hence my point about the claim "there are no gods."

Yes, of course I already know that. It's just a source of wonder
to

me

that atheists cannot see that all three of these claims are

theological

in nature, disagreeing only about the number of gods affected.
Obviously, the atheist vote is for zero. Some pagans have fairly

large

pantheons. Christians have their unity-in-trinity. But ALL of
you

make

statements about the number of gods that are real and those are
theological in nature.

Let's face it, atheism is a theological position. You wouldn't
even bother to classify it if there was no such thing as theism.

Theology is a theological position.
Atheism is a logical position that merely debunks the
errors of theology's baseless assertions.

Nope. It simply prefers its own baseless assertions.

What "baseless assertions", liar?

There is no God.

Sorry, but that isn't a baseless assertion. Try again. It is
actually the opposite of an assertion.

Neither the atheist nor the theist has examined all of reality. So
if either of them makes a categorical negative statement, then they
cannot truthfully say they have proved it.

AND IT'S STILL YOUR STUPID STRAWMAN.

So, you haven't proved it. Don't imply that you have.

Haven't proven what? That your assertion, based on zero evidence, is
true or false? Sorry, but the assertion of this god thing is on you.

Was that clear enough even for you?

Yes it's clear that you'd rather posture and rant than talk.

Yes, it is hard to discuss things with people that have no basis for
asserting something, like god, exists.

Once again: IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN NOT BELIEVING IN SANTA CLAUS.

Except Santa Claus is not a god but a mythical elf constructed out of
a real, historical human being.

Then what do you define as a "god?" For all intents and purposes,
this God thing is a mythical entity, exactly like Santa Claus. It is
constructed out of other gods.

Why do we need to keep repeating this to you? It's not rocket
science.

It's not science of any kind. It's ***** polemics.
Philosophically, it's a null program.

Exactly. Atheism is a null program. There is no need to prove
something one way or another.

You people are sometimes as bad as the fundies with your own versions
of doublespeak.

Doublespeak? Where?

Dave Oldridge wrote:

Let's face it, atheism is a theological position. You wouldn't even
bother to classify it if there was no such thing as theism.

Theology is a theological position.
Atheism is a logical position that merely debunks the
errors of theology's baseless assertions.

Nope. It simply prefers its own baseless assertions.

What "baseless assertions", liar?

There is no God.

Sorry, but that isn't a baseless assertion. Try again. It is actually
the opposite of an assertion.

Neither the atheist nor the theist has examined all of reality. So if
either of them makes a categorical negative statement, then they cannot
truthfully say they have proved it.

AND IT'S STILL YOUR STUPID STRAWMAN.

So, you haven't proved it. Don't imply that you have.

Haven't proven what? That your assertion, based on zero evidence, is
true or false? Sorry, but the assertion of this god thing is on you.