| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Iain" |
| Date: |
30 Oct 2004 01:51:55 PM |
| Object: |
God's lack of maker. |
If god exists and has no maker, the three alternatives are:
First alternative: God always existed.
Second alternative: God appeared instantly.
The first and second ideas are superfluous -- however fair it is to
suppose that a sophisticated god has always existed or appeared
instantly, it is equally fair, if not moreso, to say that a
sophisticated world has always existed or appeared instantly.
Third alternative: God is self-made. He developed from something
simpler.
The third alternative of complexity arising from simplicity is
instantiated by that of biological evolution by natural selection.
Even moreso is the idea that god is a product of a much simpler god,
and he of another, ad-infinitum.
~Iain
.
|
|
| User: "VoiceOfReason" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
31 Oct 2004 11:55:19 AM |
|
|
(Iain) wrote in message news:<6feb9a89.0410301100.7aba36c4@posting.google.com>...
If god exists and has no maker, the three alternatives are:
First alternative: God always existed.
I vote for #1. If you chose 2 or 3, you're a heretic and will perish
in the eternal bonfire of wrong guesses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "U.O" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
31 Oct 2004 01:24:09 PM |
|
|
"VoiceOfReason" <papa_fox@cybertown.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:78e3ae70.0410311004.150dd19a@posting.google.com...
iain_inkster@hotmail.com (Iain) wrote in message
news:<6feb9a89.0410301100.7aba36c4@posting.google.com>...
If god exists and has no maker, the three alternatives are:
First alternative: God always existed.
I vote for #1. If you chose 2 or 3, you're a heretic and will perish
in the eternal bonfire of wrong guesses.
On the other hand, if you deny alternative #4, ie that Odin's grandpa Bure
was formed by the giant cow Audhumbla licking a salty rock, Odin might get
offended and send you to freeze in Hel until Ragnarök (unless you die
gloriously in battle, of course). Tricky choice indeed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Thomas Grisham" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
01 Nov 2004 09:51:10 AM |
|
|
(Iain) wrote in message news:<6feb9a89.0410301100.7aba36c4@posting.google.com>...
If god exists and has no maker, the three alternatives are:
First alternative: God always existed.
Second alternative: God appeared instantly.
The first and second ideas are superfluous -- however fair it is to
suppose that a sophisticated god has always existed or appeared
instantly, it is equally fair, if not moreso, to say that a
sophisticated world has always existed or appeared instantly.
Third alternative: God is self-made. He developed from something
simpler.
The third alternative of complexity arising from simplicity is
instantiated by that of biological evolution by natural selection.
Even moreso is the idea that god is a product of a much simpler god,
and he of another, ad-infinitum.
~Iain
The origin of an entity that primitive humans might reasonably
consider a deity only requires relativity (For every action there is
an equal and opposite reaction). Relativity cannot exist in a void.
For relativity to exist, there must be something equal and opposite to
the void (in our minimal context represented by the vacuum of space).
This somethingness consists of all matter and all energy seeking
through relativity to be be equal to the void, growing and expanding
(as is life and space/time). God may be in you and all around you.
This might seem to support your third alternative, however relativity
may not be simple but more complex, more pan-dimensional. In such a
case, deity may be simplicity formed from complexity beyond our
understanding, as would be evolution.
JTG 11/1/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
01 Nov 2004 10:37:52 AM |
|
|
"John Thomas Grisham" <jgrisham@scu.k12.ca.us> wrote in message
news:1e9d6178.0411010800.5a0cf996@posting.google.com...
iain_inkster@hotmail.com (Iain) wrote in message
news:<6feb9a89.0410301100.7aba36c4@posting.google.com>...
If god exists and has no maker, the three alternatives are:
First alternative: God always existed.
Second alternative: God appeared instantly.
The first and second ideas are superfluous -- however fair it is to
suppose that a sophisticated god has always existed or appeared
instantly, it is equally fair, if not moreso, to say that a
sophisticated world has always existed or appeared instantly.
Third alternative: God is self-made. He developed from something
simpler.
The third alternative of complexity arising from simplicity is
instantiated by that of biological evolution by natural selection.
Even moreso is the idea that god is a product of a much simpler god,
and he of another, ad-infinitum.
~Iain
The origin of an entity that primitive humans might reasonably
consider a deity only requires relativity (For every action there is
an equal and opposite reaction).
Get a Dictionary!!
Newton's Third Law of Motion:
III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Relativity cannot exist in a void.
For relativity to exist, there must be something equal and opposite to
the void (in our minimal context represented by the vacuum of space).
Yup
Newton's laws don't apply in outer space??
This somethingness consists of all matter and all energy seeking
through relativity to be be equal to the void, growing and expanding
(as is life and space/time). God may be in you and all around you.
Isn't this a just Greek Gnostic viewpoint using pseudoscientific terms??
This might seem to support your third alternative, however relativity
may not be simple but more complex, more pan-dimensional. In such a
case, deity may be simplicity formed from complexity beyond our
understanding, as would be evolution.
JTG 11/1/04
Actually why is "complexity beyond our understanding" ( Shantih Hex City??)
not the same as saying
"Beats me!!"
Guinness time, Folks!!
RJ Pease
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Thomas Grisham" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
09 Nov 2004 11:32:01 AM |
|
|
"Bob Pease" <robertjp@askmeinapost.com> wrote in message news:<cm5p9d$gkn@dispatch.concentric.net>...
"John Thomas Grisham" <jgrisham@scu.k12.ca.us> wrote in message
news:1e9d6178.0411010800.5a0cf996@posting.google.com...
iain_inkster@hotmail.com (Iain) wrote in message
news:<6feb9a89.0410301100.7aba36c4@posting.google.com>...
If god exists and has no maker, the three alternatives are:
First alternative: God always existed.
Second alternative: God appeared instantly.
The first and second ideas are superfluous -- however fair it is to
suppose that a sophisticated god has always existed or appeared
instantly, it is equally fair, if not moreso, to say that a
sophisticated world has always existed or appeared instantly.
Third alternative: God is self-made. He developed from something
simpler.
The third alternative of complexity arising from simplicity is
instantiated by that of biological evolution by natural selection.
Even moreso is the idea that god is a product of a much simpler god,
and he of another, ad-infinitum.
~Iain
The origin of an entity that primitive humans might reasonably
consider a deity only requires relativity (For every action there is
an equal and opposite reaction).
Get a Dictionary!!
Newton's Third Law of Motion:
III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Just trying to keep it simple for the non-physics crowd.
Relativity cannot exist in a void.
For relativity to exist, there must be something equal and opposite to
the void (in our minimal context represented by the vacuum of space).
Yup
Newton's laws don't apply in outer space??
Yes, yes, yes... but that inherently leads to the argument that there
was no space or time before the beginning (a.k.a. Big Bang). In a
minimal context within our understanding "the void" might be
represented or something like the vacuum of space, but that's only a
representation. Now, Newton's laws might apply to "the void" and if
they do (did), then that's really all that's required. It's the
parallel for the primordial soup of biological evolution.
This somethingness consists of all matter and all energy seeking
through relativity to be be equal to the void, growing and expanding
(as is life and space/time). God may be in you and all around you.
Isn't this a just Greek Gnostic viewpoint using pseudoscientific terms??
For most of human history, the cross cultural underlying belief has
been that nature is god and god is nature. Modern science tries to
alter this perception by putting nature under the complete dominion of
man, making man greater than nature and greater than god. Obviously,
there are practical reasons for reversing the perception, it provides
a different and valuable scientific perspective. However, man no
matter how he alters his perception is a subset of nature and
promoting a belief (atheism) that this fact is otherwise is as highly
delusional as organized religions.
This might seem to support your third alternative, however relativity
may not be simple but more complex, more pan-dimensional. In such a
case, deity may be simplicity formed from complexity beyond our
understanding, as would be evolution.
JTG 11/1/04
Actually why is "complexity beyond our understanding" ( Shantih Hex City??)
not the same as saying
"Beats me!!"
Guinness time, Folks!!
To believe that we have complete understanding in every context of
understanding fails every realistic perspective, available. Carl Sagan
noted that based on our understanding the scientific evidence dictates
there is no significant intelligent life in the universe (I'm quite
sure, he included his own intelligence in that evaluation). You can't
have it both ways.
JTG 11/9/04
RJ Pease
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/04
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
01 Nov 2004 12:36:13 PM |
|
|
John Thomas Grisham wrote:
The origin of an entity that primitive humans might reasonably
consider a deity only requires relativity (For every action there is
an equal and opposite reaction).
There's a rather important difference between what some person might
*consider* a deity and actually being one. I have little doubt that
there are all manner of things which both primitive and modern people
could confuse with an actual god-thing, but all that shows is how
stupid they are. In other words, just because you are dumb enough to
bow to to a clever beast who says he's your god, that doesn't mean I
would be so easily fooled.
(as is life and space/time). God may be in you and all around you.
Yeah, right. Typical godsoaked blather.
This might seem to support your third alternative, however relativity
may not be simple but more complex, more pan-dimensional. In such a
case, deity may be simplicity formed from complexity beyond our
understanding, as would be evolution.
"Beyond our understanding" covers a lot of territory, yet gets smaller
every day. But even if some entity remained forever beyond our ken, why
say it is anything but natural?
--
Tony Lawrence
http://aplawrence.com/Personal/
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Thomas Grisham" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
09 Nov 2004 10:32:42 AM |
|
|
"pcunix@gmail.com" <pcunix@gmail.com> wrote in message news:<1099334173.383209.270840@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
John Thomas Grisham wrote:
The origin of an entity that primitive humans might reasonably
consider a deity only requires relativity (For every action there is
an equal and opposite reaction).
There's a rather important difference between what some person might
*consider* a deity and actually being one. I have little doubt that
there are all manner of things which both primitive and modern people
could confuse with an actual god-thing, but all that shows is how
stupid they are. In other words, just because you are dumb enough to
bow to to a clever beast who says he's your god, that doesn't mean I
would be so easily fooled.
So what would you prefer to be fooled by? Humanity?
Humanity is a clever beast. It kills. It destroys. It's unjust. It's
cruel. It is an animal pretending to be more than itself or it's the
manifestation of the image of God. One man's evolved consciousness is
another man's organized religion. A rose by any other name...
(as is life and space/time). God may be in you and all around you.
Yeah, right. Typical godsoaked blather.
Really, I didn't think it was altogether typical.
This might seem to support your third alternative, however relativity
may not be simple but more complex, more pan-dimensional. In such a
case, deity may be simplicity formed from complexity beyond our
understanding, as would be evolution.
"Beyond our understanding" covers a lot of territory, yet gets smaller
every day. But even if some entity remained forever beyond our ken, why
say it is anything but natural?
It would be Natural by definition (Nature = God). Words like
"supernatural" and "paranormal" were brought into usage by those
wishing to eliminate God from Nature, from the normal. Fools that use
the words without understanding the meanness and mockery inherent in
them are... well, fools.
JTG 11/9/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Richards" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
09 Nov 2004 11:01:36 AM |
|
|
John Thomas Grisham wrote:
The origin of an entity that primitive humans might reasonably
consider a deity only requires relativity (For every action there is
an equal and opposite reaction).
Newton's third law of motion != Relativity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Lawrence" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
30 Oct 2004 02:27:02 PM |
|
|
Iain wrote:
If god exists and has no maker, the three alternatives are:
First alternative: God always existed.
Second alternative: God appeared instantly.
The first and second ideas are superfluous -- however fair it is to
suppose that a sophisticated god has always existed or appeared
instantly, it is equally fair, if not moreso, to say that a
sophisticated world has always existed or appeared instantly.
Third alternative: God is self-made. He developed from something
simpler.
The third alternative of complexity arising from simplicity is
instantiated by that of biological evolution by natural selection.
Even moreso is the idea that god is a product of a much simpler god,
and he of another, ad-infinitum.
I've contended for some time that the third alternative (evolution from
something simpler) doesn't produce a "god". It may produce a creator -
some unitary being who then goes on to create us, etc. but there's
nothing mystical about that creator - it's just a different life form
that had the great luck (or misfortune) to have no competitors.
However, that leads to another problem: the main driving forces of
evolution seem to be competition from other species and outside forces
(great climate change, shrinking of habitat, etc). If we posit this
evolving creator, what made it evolve? Where were its competitors? If
there were none, then what outside forces caused it to evolve? We
might say radiation, or other outside event, but then we certainly
can't claim this thing is all-powerful - it's genetic material is
subject to damage. And where did the "outside events"
come from - obviously those would have to be things that the "creator"
didn't create. Like
all religious babble, it quickly descends into nonsense.
I had written about this many years ago:
http://aplawrence.com/Personal/Philosophy/complex.html
--
Tony Lawrence, BAAWA Founder
http://aplawrence.com/Personal/Philosophy/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
30 Oct 2004 02:52:48 PM |
|
|
On 30 Oct 2004 12:27:02 -0700, "Tony Lawrence" <pcunix@gmail.com> wrote:
Iain wrote:
If god exists and has no maker, the three alternatives are:
First alternative: God always existed.
Second alternative: God appeared instantly.
The first and second ideas are superfluous -- however fair it is to
suppose that a sophisticated god has always existed or appeared
instantly, it is equally fair, if not moreso, to say that a
sophisticated world has always existed or appeared instantly.
Third alternative: God is self-made. He developed from something
simpler.
The third alternative of complexity arising from simplicity is
instantiated by that of biological evolution by natural selection.
Even moreso is the idea that god is a product of a much simpler god,
and he of another, ad-infinitum.
I've contended for some time that the third alternative (evolution from
something simpler) doesn't produce a "god". It may produce a creator -
some unitary being who then goes on to create us, etc. but there's
nothing mystical about that creator - it's just a different life form
that had the great luck (or misfortune) to have no competitors.
However, that leads to another problem: the main driving forces of
evolution seem to be competition from other species and outside forces
(great climate change, shrinking of habitat, etc). If we posit this
evolving creator, what made it evolve? Where were its competitors? If
there were none, then what outside forces caused it to evolve? We
might say radiation, or other outside event, but then we certainly
can't claim this thing is all-powerful - it's genetic material is
subject to damage. And where did the "outside events"
come from - obviously those would have to be things that the "creator"
didn't create. Like
I think you stumble into error here by making evolution some sort of Platonic ideal
force or process, rather than the only physical consequences allowed to biologic entities,
given all of the physical constraints in effect in a particular time and place. We ought
to suppose that biologic entities in some other environment might be subject to evolution
under a possibly different set of physical constraints than those felt on Earth, but it's
hard for me to see how we can further extrapolate to the soi-disant evolution of gawds
(even if misnamed.) Not knowing anything at all about the nature of this creator entity
posited above, and less about its putative environment, I'd say there's a long way to go
to show that anything resembling terrestrial evolutionary processes need be in any way
relevant to its discussion. In fact, the one way we know that there *is* evolution in
terrestrial organisms is that *the organisms are known to exist, have been isolated and
observed, and their variability over time and locale studied.* We need the skeleton of
the Creator before we can honestly consider its evolution. The details will surely have
to wait for the bones.
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
For e-mail, hold that tiger!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
30 Oct 2004 03:32:09 PM |
|
|
Apostate wrote:
I think you stumble into error here by making evolution some sort of
Platonic ideal
force or process, rather than the only physical consequences allowed
to biologic entities,
given all of the physical constraints in effect in a particular time
and place. We ought
to suppose that biologic entities in some other environment might be
subject to evolution
under a possibly different set of physical constraints than those
felt on Earth, but it's
hard for me to see how we can further extrapolate to the soi-disant
evolution of gawds
(even if misnamed.)
Well, that was part of my point. If we posit that we have a creator,
and that it came from evolution, that's no god. It's just another life
form, subject to physical laws. Agreed, the physics of whatever
universe it exists in may be different than ours, but so what? We
either agree that nothing changes without cause (in which case this
creator thing is subject to cause and effect - not omnipotent) or that
in that universe, things do just change for no reason whatsoever - but
that again says that this thing is just a product of that strange
physics, so again is subject to its influences, is again not
omnipotent, etc.
The truly godsoaked might argue that their favorite Invisible Pal
*became* omnipotent etc. but he'd better not, because that says that
other creatures could do the same - if not in the physics of this
universe then demonstrably (demonstrably if Invisible Pal shows his
face, that is) in some other. And then means competing "gods" - not a
good selling point for a few thousand years, I think.
Not knowing anything at all about the nature of this creator entity
posited above, and less about its putative environment, I'd say
there's a long way to go
to show that anything resembling terrestrial evolutionary processes
need be in any way
relevant to its discussion. In fact, the one way we know that there
*is* evolution in
terrestrial organisms is that *the organisms are known to exist, have
been isolated and
observed, and their variability over time and locale studied.* We
need the skeleton of
the Creator before we can honestly consider its evolution. The
details will surely have
to wait for the bones.
No, I wasn't saying anything about specific biological processes. It's
really just change (which is all evolution is at its heart). If we
agree that a creator thing can't spring into existence full formed,
that it has to be composed of simpler parts, then it has to have
evolved or at least aggregated from the simpler forms. That's no god.
Of course the theist will then insist that their god is homogenous,
made from one single material - that God is made from God and other
such circular nonsense. That refuge is unassailable, idiotic as it is.
But then you can never really get a theist to think, because the
minute they start, they aren't theists any more :-)
--
Tony Lawrence, BAAWA Founder
http://aplawrence.com/Personal/Philosophy/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
30 Oct 2004 08:59:36 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:52:48 -0400, Apostate
<Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote:
On 30 Oct 2004 12:27:02 -0700, "Tony Lawrence" <pcunix@gmail.com> wrote:
Iain wrote:
If god exists and has no maker, the three alternatives are:
First alternative: God always existed.
Second alternative: God appeared instantly.
The first and second ideas are superfluous -- however fair it is to
suppose that a sophisticated god has always existed or appeared
instantly, it is equally fair, if not moreso, to say that a
sophisticated world has always existed or appeared instantly.
Third alternative: God is self-made. He developed from something
simpler.
The third alternative of complexity arising from simplicity is
instantiated by that of biological evolution by natural selection.
Even moreso is the idea that god is a product of a much simpler god,
and he of another, ad-infinitum.
I've contended for some time that the third alternative (evolution from
something simpler) doesn't produce a "god". It may produce a creator -
some unitary being who then goes on to create us, etc. but there's
nothing mystical about that creator - it's just a different life form
that had the great luck (or misfortune) to have no competitors.
However, that leads to another problem: the main driving forces of
evolution seem to be competition from other species and outside forces
(great climate change, shrinking of habitat, etc). If we posit this
evolving creator, what made it evolve? Where were its competitors? If
there were none, then what outside forces caused it to evolve? We
might say radiation, or other outside event, but then we certainly
can't claim this thing is all-powerful - it's genetic material is
subject to damage. And where did the "outside events"
come from - obviously those would have to be things that the "creator"
didn't create. Like
I think you stumble into error here by making evolution some sort of Platonic ideal
force or process, rather than the only physical consequences allowed to biologic entities,
given all of the physical constraints in effect in a particular time and place. We ought
to suppose that biologic entities in some other environment might be subject to evolution
under a possibly different set of physical constraints than those felt on Earth, but it's
hard for me to see how we can further extrapolate to the soi-disant evolution of gawds
(even if misnamed.) Not knowing anything at all about the nature of this creator entity
posited above, and less about its putative environment, I'd say there's a long way to go
to show that anything resembling terrestrial evolutionary processes need be in any way
relevant to its discussion. In fact, the one way we know that there *is* evolution in
terrestrial organisms is that *the organisms are known to exist, have been isolated and
observed, and their variability over time and locale studied.* We need the skeleton of
the Creator before we can honestly consider its evolution. The details will surely have
to wait for the bones.
Evolution is physical reality. Everything in the universe is
subject to one form of evolution or another. Are you assuming a deity
is beyond natural selection? If you are, why would it be 'more'
special and not subject to material inquiry?
Is a god's existence only in the supernatural, where anything goes,
or is there empirical evidence it exists in a dimension we haven't
discovered?
Either way, it still leaves open the question of how a god became a
god. Popping up from nothing and having the ability to create a
universe, including the design myth, seems insane at face value.
A lot of atheists get stuck in the assumption of belief. We spend a
lot of time thinking about the properties of 'god'. Boil it down to
simple logic. Never mind the ***** we have to live in everyday.
It's common sense that a god doesn't exist.
If one did, why do I drive by a child that plays circles in her
wheelchair on her driveway when I drive by? Why do I smile and wave at
her when a god won't?
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
31 Oct 2004 11:28:59 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 01:59:36 GMT, Steve Knight <whooly@sonic.net> wrote:
Evolution is physical reality. Everything in the universe is
subject to one form of evolution or another. Are you assuming a deity
is beyond natural selection? If you are, why would it be 'more'
special and not subject to material inquiry?
Is a god's existence only in the supernatural, where anything goes,
or is there empirical evidence it exists in a dimension we haven't
discovered?
Either way, it still leaves open the question of how a god became a
god. Popping up from nothing and having the ability to create a
universe, including the design myth, seems insane at face value.
A lot of atheists get stuck in the assumption of belief. We spend a
lot of time thinking about the properties of 'god'. Boil it down to
simple logic. Never mind the ***** we have to live in everyday.
It's common sense that a god doesn't exist.
If one did, why do I drive by a child that plays circles in her
wheelchair on her driveway when I drive by? Why do I smile and wave at
her when a god won't?
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
I haven't figured out where this posting argues with a claim in mine that preceded
it. Maybe if I re-read it later, I'll tumble to it.
<backing out of the Warlord's tent, eyes averted>
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
For e-mail, hold that tiger!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
31 Oct 2004 08:07:44 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:28:59 -0500, Apostate
<Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 01:59:36 GMT, Steve Knight <whooly@sonic.net> wrote:
Evolution is physical reality. Everything in the universe is
subject to one form of evolution or another. Are you assuming a deity
is beyond natural selection? If you are, why would it be 'more'
special and not subject to material inquiry?
Is a god's existence only in the supernatural, where anything goes,
or is there empirical evidence it exists in a dimension we haven't
discovered?
Either way, it still leaves open the question of how a god became a
god. Popping up from nothing and having the ability to create a
universe, including the design myth, seems insane at face value.
A lot of atheists get stuck in the assumption of belief. We spend a
lot of time thinking about the properties of 'god'. Boil it down to
simple logic. Never mind the ***** we have to live in everyday.
It's common sense that a god doesn't exist.
If one did, why do I drive by a child that plays circles in her
wheelchair on her driveway when I drive by? Why do I smile and wave at
her when a god won't?
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
I haven't figured out where this posting argues with a claim in mine that preceded
it. Maybe if I re-read it later, I'll tumble to it.
<backing out of the Warlord's tent, eyes averted>
I may have been mind farting, so don't worry. ;-) For some reason,
I was feeling very smart after a six pack.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
31 Oct 2004 05:32:58 AM |
|
|
Steve Knight wrote:
It's common sense that a god doesn't exist.
If one did, why do I drive by a child that plays circles in her
wheelchair on her driveway when I drive by? Why do I smile and wave
at
her when a god won't?
Well, gosh, that's easy: God doesn't like her.
Now, if a lot of God's special friends notice her, and pray real hard,
then maybe God will notice her and there will be a "merkle".
Unless she's been touching herself in that special place. If she's
been doing that, she roasts in hell. Sorry, but those are the rules.
God doesn't *like* making rules like that, but somebody has to draw the
line somewhere.
..
--
Tony Lawrence, BAAWA Founder
There are no gods. God is a dumb answer to any question.
http://aplawrence.com/Philosophy/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
31 Oct 2004 07:31:56 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:52:48 -0400, Apostate <Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote:
I think you stumble into error here by making evolution some sort of Platonic ideal
force or process, rather than the only physical consequences allowed to biologic entities,
given all of the physical constraints in effect in a particular time and place.
God is not a biologic entity. We know from science that mass and energy cannot be
destroyed, but they can be converted into one another. God is spirit that created all
mass and energy, and existed before the beginnings of the universe in the big bang.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
31 Oct 2004 09:40:58 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 07:31:56 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> said in
alt.atheism:
God is not a biologic entity.
Then it couldn't ever have come to be.
We know from science that mass and energy cannot be
destroyed
In this manifestation of this universe - not applicable in a
discussion of the "entity" that "created" the universe.
God is spirit that created all
mass and energy, and existed before the beginnings of the universe in the big bang.
"Where" did this existence occur?
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
01 Nov 2004 05:01:45 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<s2q9o0hpen2ijk4bn7a9imt1i0o2a7q1ji@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:52:48 -0400, Apostate <Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote:
I think you stumble into error here by making evolution some sort of Platonic ideal
force or process, rather than the only physical consequences allowed to biologic entities,
given all of the physical constraints in effect in a particular time and place.
God is not a biologic entity. We know from science that mass and energy cannot be
destroyed, but they can be converted into one another. God is spirit that created all
mass and energy, and existed before the beginnings of the universe in the big bang.
How did god come into existance?
~Iain
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
01 Nov 2004 06:01:40 AM |
|
|
Iain wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<s2q9o0hpen2ijk4bn7a9imt1i0o2a7q1ji@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:52:48 -0400, Apostate
<Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote:
I think you stumble into error here by making evolution some sort
of Platonic ideal
force or process, rather than the only physical consequences
allowed to biologic entities,
given all of the physical constraints in effect in a particular
time and place.
God is not a biologic entity. We know from science that mass and
energy cannot be
destroyed, but they can be converted into one another. God is
spirit that created all
mass and energy, and existed before the beginnings of the universe
in the big bang.
How did god come into existance?
Oooo, ooo! I know! Call on me, teacher, call on me!
God TRANSCENDS all that!
So there.
Actually, I have to take issue with "We know from science that mass and
energy cannot be
destroyed". We don't *know* any such thing. In fact, we don't really
know squat about basic physics and only have theories about it. The
theories we have are incomplete and contradictory, so it's ridiculous
to say we KNOW anything right now. True, thinking the Earth is round is
a hell of lot more accurate than thinking it's a turtle, but we need to
be careful about attaching too much to "roundness".
I also love such crapola as "God is not a biologic entity". Assuming
for a brief moment that there is such a thing at all, how the hell
would he know? Whenever you get into arguments with the godsoaked,
sooner or later they retreat into the "unknowable" nature of their
Invisible Pal. Yet when it suits their purpose, they are quite willing
to tell us what the Big ***** is or isn't.
--
Tony Lawrence
http://aplawrence.com/Personal/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
01 Nov 2004 06:19:35 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<s2q9o0hpen2ijk4bn7a9imt1i0o2a7q1ji@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:52:48 -0400, Apostate <Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote:
I think you stumble into error here by making evolution some sort of Platonic ideal
force or process, rather than the only physical consequences allowed to biologic entities,
given all of the physical constraints in effect in a particular time and place.
God is not a biologic entity. We know from science that mass and energy cannot be
destroyed, but they can be converted into one another. God is spirit that created all
mass and energy, and existed before the beginnings of the universe in the big bang.
How did god come into existance?
~Iain
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
31 Oct 2004 07:27:23 AM |
|
|
On 30 Oct 2004 12:27:02 -0700, "Tony Lawrence" <pcunix@gmail.com> wrote:
Third alternative: God is self-made. He developed from something
simpler.
The third alternative of complexity arising from simplicity is
instantiated by that of biological evolution by natural selection.
Even moreso is the idea that god is a product of a much simpler god,
and he of another, ad-infinitum.
I've contended for some time that the third alternative (evolution from
something simpler) doesn't produce a "god". It may produce a creator -
some unitary being who then goes on to create us, etc. but there's
nothing mystical about that creator
What's mystical about it? The name "God" is applied to the Creator. He's just as soon
been named "Howard". Aren't you simply confusing the concept of a "creator" with a
"name"? After all, the position came before his name.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
31 Oct 2004 09:42:21 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 07:27:23 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> said in
alt.atheism:
On 30 Oct 2004 12:27:02 -0700, "Tony Lawrence" <pcunix@gmail.com> wrote:
Third alternative: God is self-made. He developed from something
simpler.
The third alternative of complexity arising from simplicity is
instantiated by that of biological evolution by natural selection.
Even moreso is the idea that god is a product of a much simpler god,
and he of another, ad-infinitum.
I've contended for some time that the third alternative (evolution from
something simpler) doesn't produce a "god". It may produce a creator -
some unitary being who then goes on to create us, etc. but there's
nothing mystical about that creator
What's mystical about it? The name "God" is applied to the Creator. He's just as soon
been named "Howard". Aren't you simply confusing the concept of a "creator" with a
"name"? After all, the position came before his name.
There's a difference between a natural creator and a supernatural god.
One isn't the other. Since *your* god is supernatural, it's not a
natural creator.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
31 Oct 2004 08:13:29 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 07:27:23 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 30 Oct 2004 12:27:02 -0700, "Tony Lawrence" <pcunix@gmail.com> wrote:
Third alternative: God is self-made. He developed from something
simpler.
The third alternative of complexity arising from simplicity is
instantiated by that of biological evolution by natural selection.
Even moreso is the idea that god is a product of a much simpler god,
and he of another, ad-infinitum.
I've contended for some time that the third alternative (evolution from
something simpler) doesn't produce a "god". It may produce a creator -
some unitary being who then goes on to create us, etc. but there's
nothing mystical about that creator
What's mystical about it? The name "God" is applied to the Creator. He's just as soon
been named "Howard". Aren't you simply confusing the concept of a "creator" with a
"name"? After all, the position came before his name.
Thanks, Puke. No a.a. thread is complete without the village idiot
gibbering 'something'.
Here's a quarter. Go get us some popcorn.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
01 Nov 2004 05:23:36 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 30 Oct 2004 12:27:02 -0700, "Tony Lawrence" <pcunix@gmail.com>
wrote:
Third alternative: God is self-made. He developed from something
simpler.
The third alternative of complexity arising from simplicity is
instantiated by that of biological evolution by natural selection.
Even moreso is the idea that god is a product of a much simpler
god,
and he of another, ad-infinitum.
I've contended for some time that the third alternative (evolution
from
something simpler) doesn't produce a "god". It may produce a
creator -
some unitary being who then goes on to create us, etc. but there's
nothing mystical about that creator
What's mystical about it? The name "God" is applied to the Creator.
He's just as soon
been named "Howard". Aren't you simply confusing the concept of a
"creator" with a
"name"? After all, the position came before his name.
Oh, a particularly dumb one. I love your kind :-)
A creator is not a god. Human biologists/chemists are very close to
creating living cells from inert constituents. When this happens, they
will have created life, but they won't be gods. Among other things,
they won't be concerned with providing an afterlife, designing rules
for their creations sex lives, battling evil, yadda, yadda. They won't
be omnipotent, omniscient or omni-anything. They'll remain
chemists/biologists.
And you, of course, will remain a moron. I hope you are a long lived
moron, and someday get to read how life has been created by non-gods.
No doubt that will do nothing to permanently shake your faith, but it's
always amusing to watch you little rats squirm your way out from under
another collapsed foundation.
--
Tony Lawrence
http://aplawrence.com/Personal/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
31 Oct 2004 01:57:35 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:51:55 +0000 (UTC),
(Iain) wrote:
If god exists and has no maker, the three alternatives are:
First alternative: God always existed.
Second alternative: God appeared instantly.
The first and second ideas are superfluous -- however fair it is to
suppose that a sophisticated god has always existed or appeared
instantly, it is equally fair, if not moreso, to say that a
sophisticated world has always existed or appeared instantly.
Third alternative: God is self-made. He developed from something
simpler.
The third alternative of complexity arising from simplicity is
instantiated by that of biological evolution by natural selection.
Even moreso is the idea that god is a product of a much simpler god,
and he of another, ad-infinitum.
Another alternative is that God is co-substansive with time, so the
notion of God coming into being, or alway being, is meaningless.
Mitchell Coffey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
01 Nov 2004 09:19:09 AM |
|
|
Mitchell Coffey <m.coffey@starpower.net> wrote in message news:<tk39o0p2va21ott9aa4lhvd4s4ffdhaifv@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:51:55 +0000 (UTC),
(Iain) wrote:
If god exists and has no maker, the three alternatives are:
First alternative: God always existed.
Second alternative: God appeared instantly.
The first and second ideas are superfluous -- however fair it is to
suppose that a sophisticated god has always existed or appeared
instantly, it is equally fair, if not moreso, to say that a
sophisticated world has always existed or appeared instantly.
Third alternative: God is self-made. He developed from something
simpler.
The third alternative of complexity arising from simplicity is
instantiated by that of biological evolution by natural selection.
Even moreso is the idea that god is a product of a much simpler god,
and he of another, ad-infinitum.
Another alternative is that God is co-substansive with time, so the
notion of God coming into being, or alway being, is meaningless.
That's a fair point, but about your fourth alternative I say the same
as I did about the first and second alternatives. The absence of maker
in the first two alternatives is instantiated(wow -- I've never used
that word more than once in a thread) in your fourth alternative.
Considering your extra input, I reconclude that creationism is a
superfluous idea.
~Iain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
31 Oct 2004 12:04:29 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:57:35 +0000 (UTC),
Mitchell Coffey <m.coffey@starpower.net> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:51:55 +0000 (UTC),
(Iain) wrote:
If god exists and has no maker, the three alternatives are:
First alternative: God always existed.
Second alternative: God appeared instantly.
The first and second ideas are superfluous -- however fair it is to
suppose that a sophisticated god has always existed or appeared
instantly, it is equally fair, if not moreso, to say that a
sophisticated world has always existed or appeared instantly.
Third alternative: God is self-made. He developed from something
simpler.
The third alternative of complexity arising from simplicity is
instantiated by that of biological evolution by natural selection.
Even moreso is the idea that god is a product of a much simpler god,
and he of another, ad-infinitum.
Another alternative is that God is co-substansive with time, so the
notion of God coming into being, or alway being, is meaningless.
So God's attached to the Universe? I would imagine that would be heretical
to many Christians, and to us non-believers rather begs the question of
what's the point of invoking such a being at all.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
31 Oct 2004 04:40:38 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:04:29 +0000 (UTC), AC
<mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:57:35 +0000 (UTC),
Mitchell Coffey <m.coffey@starpower.net> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:51:55 +0000 (UTC),
(Iain) wrote:
If god exists and has no maker, the three alternatives are:
First alternative: God always existed.
Second alternative: God appeared instantly.
The first and second ideas are superfluous -- however fair it is to
suppose that a sophisticated god has always existed or appeared
instantly, it is equally fair, if not moreso, to say that a
sophisticated world has always existed or appeared instantly.
Third alternative: God is self-made. He developed from something
simpler.
The third alternative of complexity arising from simplicity is
instantiated by that of biological evolution by natural selection.
Even moreso is the idea that god is a product of a much simpler god,
and he of another, ad-infinitum.
Another alternative is that God is co-substansive with time, so the
notion of God coming into being, or alway being, is meaningless.
So God's attached to the Universe?
I didn't say that. I said it was another alternative, my point really
being that what he thought was an exhaustive list, isn't.
I would imagine that would be heretical
to many Christians, and to us non-believers rather begs the question of
what's the point of invoking such a being at all.
I would think so, regarding it being heretical to many Christians.
Don't get me started. I try to put aside one hour a month dedicated
to concocting heresies. My most advanced goes like this "God exists,
is omnipotent, omnipresent and good." Fortunately for me, mainstream
Christians don't understand it. If they did, they'd have it
suppressed.
Your seconded statement is false; it begs the question to believers as
well, they're just not likely to realize it, and tend to get snippy
and bitter when they do.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
________________________________________________________________
From All Through the Night (1942) -
Nazi Agent:
"You're no democrat! You're like me - a man-of-action!"
Humphrey Bogart, as small-time NY hood, nonetheless anti-Nazi:
"I may not be exactly a model citizen, but I've been a
registered Democrat all my life."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
31 Oct 2004 09:35:26 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:57:35 +0000 (UTC), Mitchell Coffey
<m.coffey@starpower.net> said in alt.atheism:
Another alternative is that God is co-substansive with time, so the
notion of God coming into being, or alway being, is meaningless.
Therefore ...
Since time is an attribute of the universe, either the universe has
always existed or no god existed before ca. 14 billion years ago.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: God's lack of maker. |
31 Oct 2004 04:27:30 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:35:26 +0000 (UTC), Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:57:35 +0000 (UTC), Mitchell Coffey
<m.coffey@starpower.net> said in alt.atheism:
Another alternative is that God is co-substansive with time, so the
notion of God coming into being, or alway being, is meaningless.
Therefore ...
Since time is an attribute of the universe, either the universe has
always existed or no god existed before ca. 14 billion years ago.
Under one definition of "universe." I was using the
everything-that-exists definition. If the universe in that sence
popped into existence ca. 14 billion years ago, then given the
alternative I mentioned, it's not meaningful to talk of time existing
before that. And before this discussion goes any further, please
don't anybody think I believe any of this. It's just every once in a
while, someone pops in to this newsgroup with an argument attempting
to deduce some theological conclusion based on a list of catagories
that they honestly consider exhaustive, logical and representative of
scientific knowledged about the universe, but isn't.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
________________________________________________________________
From All Through the Night (1942) -
Nazi Agent:
"You're no democrat! You're like me - a man-of-action!"
Humphrey Bogart, as small-time NY hood, nonetheless anti-Nazi:
"I may not be exactly a model citizen, but I've been a
registered Democrat all my life."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
