| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"one that cries out in the wilderness" |
| Date: |
03 Oct 2003 03:05:46 PM |
| Object: |
Is atheism viable? |
I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why you
would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
paragraphs).
http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than we
can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
Thank you
.
|
|
| User: "Sentinel" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism viable? |
05 Oct 2003 02:37:52 AM |
|
|
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> schreef in bericht
news:3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why
you
would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
paragraphs).
http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than we
can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
Or, maybe the question should be "is theism viable?"
My 2 cents: no!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sentinel" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism viable? |
03 Oct 2003 03:18:59 PM |
|
|
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> schreef in bericht
news:3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why
you
would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
paragraphs).
http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than we
can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
Try looking at it from another POV. You can't disprove the existence of just
about any creature mankind ever came up with; the list includes thousands of
gods, demons, ghosts, leprechauns, etc etc ad nauseam.
The only questions that DO matter should be:
Is there any evidence of any god(s) out there?
Since there appears to be none, the sources for any such claims should
start becoming very suspect...
.
|
|
|
| User: "one that cries out in the wilderness" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism viable? |
03 Oct 2003 03:43:49 PM |
|
|
"Sentinel" <NOSPAMbs241352@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:blklji$ddfur$1@ID-175962.news.uni-berlin.de...
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> schreef in bericht
news:3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why
you
would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
paragraphs).
http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than
we
can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
Try looking at it from another POV. You can't disprove the existence of
just
about any creature mankind ever came up with; the list includes thousands
of
gods, demons, ghosts, leprechauns, etc etc ad nauseam.
I agree.
The only questions that DO matter should be:
Is there any evidence of any god(s) out there?
It would seem to me that this question is the MOST important question ever.
Certainly a better question than, "how many licks does it take to get to the
center of a tootsie pop".
It seems evident to me when I open my eyes everyday that God certainly
exists. Cyberspace just didn't create itself and I don't think that space
just created itself either. I cannot explain how God exists. All he has told
us is that, "I am." If I could apprehend that, I'd be God.
I can also understand your position. It certainly does take a leap of faith
and you're looking for irrefutable proof. If God gave us irrefutable
evidence that he was God we would just be a bunch of robots noding our
heads. A great test of true love is to see if someone still loves you when
they are not forced to.
Since there appears to be none, the sources for any such claims should
start becoming very suspect...
I would have to disagree very strongly that there is "none".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nikolaos D. Bougalis" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism viable? |
03 Oct 2003 04:09:24 PM |
|
|
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in message
news:3f7ddd60$0$35831$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
"Sentinel" <NOSPAMbs241352@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:blklji$ddfur$1@ID-175962.news.uni-berlin.de...
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> schreef in bericht
news:3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site
I'm
reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me
why
you
would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only
6
paragraphs).
http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than
we
can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
Try looking at it from another POV. You can't disprove the existence of
just
about any creature mankind ever came up with; the list includes
thousands
of
gods, demons, ghosts, leprechauns, etc etc ad nauseam.
I agree.
The only questions that DO matter should be:
Is there any evidence of any god(s) out there?
It would seem to me that this question is the MOST important question
ever.
Certainly a better question than, "how many licks does it take to get to
the
center of a tootsie pop".
It seems evident to me when I open my eyes everyday that God certainly
exists. Cyberspace just didn't create itself and I don't think that space
just created itself either. I cannot explain how God exists. All he has
told
us is that, "I am." If I could apprehend that, I'd be God.
Arguing from awe is a logical fallacy. The arguments that have to do
with the "beginning" -- there are different variations -- have been
thorougly refuted. See George H. Smith's book, "Atheism: The Case Against
God."
And for the record, God hasn't told us anything. All we have is stories
and hearsay, corrected, modified and updated through the last few thousand
years (depending on your variety of God), which each different sect seems to
interpret differently.
I can also understand your position. It certainly does take a leap of
faith
and you're looking for irrefutable proof. If God gave us irrefutable
evidence that he was God we would just be a bunch of robots noding our
heads. A great test of true love is to see if someone still loves you when
they are not forced to.
If you loved someone, who was not forced to love you back, would you
then proceed to punish them for not doing so?
Since there appears to be none, the sources for any such claims
should
start becoming very suspect...
I would have to disagree very strongly that there is "none".
Really? Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us all. But remember, a
prerequisite for proving evidence for God is proving a coherent, logical
definition for God first. After all, you can't provide evidence for
something that is not clearly defined.
-n
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism viable? |
03 Oct 2003 05:24:58 PM |
|
|
"Nikolaos D. Bougalis" <nikb@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:aAlfb.12373$Rd4.10650@fed1read07...
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in message
news:3f7ddd60$0$35831$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
"Sentinel" <NOSPAMbs241352@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:blklji$ddfur$1@ID-175962.news.uni-berlin.de...
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> schreef in bericht
news:3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site
I'm
reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me
why
you
would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's
only
6
paragraphs).
http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more
than
we
can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
Try looking at it from another POV. You can't disprove the existence
of
just
about any creature mankind ever came up with; the list includes
thousands
of
gods, demons, ghosts, leprechauns, etc etc ad nauseam.
I agree.
The only questions that DO matter should be:
Is there any evidence of any god(s) out there?
It would seem to me that this question is the MOST important question
ever.
Certainly a better question than, "how many licks does it take to get to
the
center of a tootsie pop".
It seems evident to me when I open my eyes everyday that God certainly
exists. Cyberspace just didn't create itself and I don't think that
space
just created itself either. I cannot explain how God exists. All he has
told
us is that, "I am." If I could apprehend that, I'd be God.
Arguing from awe is a logical fallacy. The arguments that have to do
with the "beginning" -- there are different variations -- have been
thorougly refuted. See George H. Smith's book, "Atheism: The Case Against
God."
And for the record, God hasn't told us anything. All we have is
stories
and hearsay, corrected, modified and updated through the last few thousand
years (depending on your variety of God), which each different sect seems
to
interpret differently.
I can also understand your position. It certainly does take a leap of
faith
and you're looking for irrefutable proof. If God gave us irrefutable
evidence that he was God we would just be a bunch of robots noding our
heads. A great test of true love is to see if someone still loves you
when
they are not forced to.
If you loved someone, who was not forced to love you back, would you
then proceed to punish them for not doing so?
Since there appears to be none, the sources for any such claims
should
start becoming very suspect...
I would have to disagree very strongly that there is "none".
Really? Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us all. But remember, a
prerequisite for proving evidence for God is proving a coherent, logical
definition for God first. After all, you can't provide evidence for
something that is not clearly defined.
That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having no
potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual not
being part of the space time universe.The source of all finite being which
participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
Dont think of being as a thing, think of being as ultimate reality.
Does the above definition help? I doubt it!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism viable? |
05 Oct 2003 04:54:48 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:vnrtrmlkobhk57@corp.supernews.com:
"Nikolaos D. Bougalis" <nikb@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:aAlfb.12373$Rd4.10650@fed1read07...
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in message
news:3f7ddd60$0$35831$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
"Sentinel" <NOSPAMbs241352@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:blklji$ddfur$1@ID-175962.news.uni-berlin.de...
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> schreef in
bericht news:3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this
site
I'm
reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain
to me
why
you
would disagree with what is said at the following website.
(It's
only
6
paragraphs).
http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any
more
than
we
can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
Try looking at it from another POV. You can't disprove the
existence
of
just
about any creature mankind ever came up with; the list includes
thousands
of
gods, demons, ghosts, leprechauns, etc etc ad nauseam.
I agree.
The only questions that DO matter should be:
Is there any evidence of any god(s) out there?
It would seem to me that this question is the MOST important
question
ever.
Certainly a better question than, "how many licks does it take to
get to
the
center of a tootsie pop".
It seems evident to me when I open my eyes everyday that God
certainly exists. Cyberspace just didn't create itself and I don't
think that
space
just created itself either. I cannot explain how God exists. All he
has
told
us is that, "I am." If I could apprehend that, I'd be God.
Arguing from awe is a logical fallacy. The arguments that have to
do
with the "beginning" -- there are different variations -- have been
thorougly refuted. See George H. Smith's book, "Atheism: The Case
Against God."
And for the record, God hasn't told us anything. All we have is
stories
and hearsay, corrected, modified and updated through the last few
thousand years (depending on your variety of God), which each
different sect seems
to
interpret differently.
I can also understand your position. It certainly does take a leap
of
faith
and you're looking for irrefutable proof. If God gave us
irrefutable evidence that he was God we would just be a bunch of
robots noding our heads. A great test of true love is to see if
someone still loves you
when
they are not forced to.
If you loved someone, who was not forced to love you back, would
you
then proceed to punish them for not doing so?
Since there appears to be none, the sources for any such
claims
should
start becoming very suspect...
I would have to disagree very strongly that there is "none".
Really? Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us all. But remember, a
prerequisite for proving evidence for God is proving a coherent,
logical definition for God first. After all, you can't provide
evidence for something that is not clearly defined.
That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant
having no potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being,
purely spiritual not being part of the space time universe.The source
of all finite being which participate in existence but are not part of
infinite being.
Meaningless drool. Try again.
Llanzlan.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nikolaos D. Bougalis" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism viable? |
03 Oct 2003 11:26:55 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vnrtrmlkobhk57@corp.supernews.com...
"Nikolaos D. Bougalis" <nikb@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:aAlfb.12373$Rd4.10650@fed1read07...
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in message
news:3f7ddd60$0$35831$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
"Sentinel" <NOSPAMbs241352@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:blklji$ddfur$1@ID-175962.news.uni-berlin.de...
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> schreef in
bericht
news:3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this
site
I'm
reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to
me
why
you
would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's
only
6
paragraphs).
http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more
than
we
can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
Try looking at it from another POV. You can't disprove the existence
of
just
about any creature mankind ever came up with; the list includes
thousands
of
gods, demons, ghosts, leprechauns, etc etc ad nauseam.
I agree.
The only questions that DO matter should be:
Is there any evidence of any god(s) out there?
It would seem to me that this question is the MOST important question
ever.
Certainly a better question than, "how many licks does it take to get
to
the
center of a tootsie pop".
It seems evident to me when I open my eyes everyday that God certainly
exists. Cyberspace just didn't create itself and I don't think that
space
just created itself either. I cannot explain how God exists. All he
has
told
us is that, "I am." If I could apprehend that, I'd be God.
Arguing from awe is a logical fallacy. The arguments that have to do
with the "beginning" -- there are different variations -- have been
thorougly refuted. See George H. Smith's book, "Atheism: The Case
Against
God."
And for the record, God hasn't told us anything. All we have is
stories
and hearsay, corrected, modified and updated through the last few
thousand
years (depending on your variety of God), which each different sect
seems
to
interpret differently.
I can also understand your position. It certainly does take a leap of
faith
and you're looking for irrefutable proof. If God gave us irrefutable
evidence that he was God we would just be a bunch of robots noding our
heads. A great test of true love is to see if someone still loves you
when
they are not forced to.
If you loved someone, who was not forced to love you back, would you
then proceed to punish them for not doing so?
Since there appears to be none, the sources for any such claims
should
start becoming very suspect...
I would have to disagree very strongly that there is "none".
Really? Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us all. But remember, a
prerequisite for proving evidence for God is proving a coherent, logical
definition for God first. After all, you can't provide evidence for
something that is not clearly defined.
That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant
having no potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being,
purely spiritual not being part of the space time universe.The source
of all finite being which participate in existence but are not part of
infinite being.
That's really no definition at all. It's just a lot of handwaving//
Dont think of being as a thing, think of being as ultimate reality.
What exactly is "ultimate reality?" It is like HDTV compared to normal
TV?
Does the above definition help? I doubt it!
The above is really no definition. So, you are right, it does not help
at all.
-n
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism viable? |
07 Oct 2003 01:22:12 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message news:<vnrtrmlkobhk57@corp.supernews.com>...
"Nikolaos D. Bougalis" <nikb@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:aAlfb.12373$Rd4.10650@fed1read07...
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in message
news:3f7ddd60$0$35831$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
"Sentinel" <NOSPAMbs241352@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:blklji$ddfur$1@ID-175962.news.uni-berlin.de...
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> schreef in bericht
news:3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site
I'm
reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me
why
you
would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's
only
6
paragraphs).
http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more
than
we
can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
Try looking at it from another POV. You can't disprove the existence
of
just
about any creature mankind ever came up with; the list includes
thousands
of
gods, demons, ghosts, leprechauns, etc etc ad nauseam.
I agree.
The only questions that DO matter should be:
Is there any evidence of any god(s) out there?
It would seem to me that this question is the MOST important question
ever.
Certainly a better question than, "how many licks does it take to get to
the
center of a tootsie pop".
It seems evident to me when I open my eyes everyday that God certainly
exists. Cyberspace just didn't create itself and I don't think that
space
just created itself either. I cannot explain how God exists. All he has
told
us is that, "I am." If I could apprehend that, I'd be God.
Arguing from awe is a logical fallacy. The arguments that have to do
with the "beginning" -- there are different variations -- have been
thorougly refuted. See George H. Smith's book, "Atheism: The Case Against
God."
And for the record, God hasn't told us anything. All we have is
stories
and hearsay, corrected, modified and updated through the last few thousand
years (depending on your variety of God), which each different sect seems
to
interpret differently.
I can also understand your position. It certainly does take a leap of
faith
and you're looking for irrefutable proof. If God gave us irrefutable
evidence that he was God we would just be a bunch of robots noding our
heads. A great test of true love is to see if someone still loves you
when
they are not forced to.
If you loved someone, who was not forced to love you back, would you
then proceed to punish them for not doing so?
Since there appears to be none, the sources for any such claims
should
start becoming very suspect...
I would have to disagree very strongly that there is "none".
Really? Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us all. But remember, a
prerequisite for proving evidence for God is proving a coherent, logical
definition for God first. After all, you can't provide evidence for
something that is not clearly defined.
That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having no
potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual not
being part of the space time universe.The source of all finite being which
participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
Dont think of being as a thing, think of being as ultimate reality.
Does the above definition help? I doubt it!
Describing a thing as necessary does not make it so. The only thing
which is necessary is all that is, which is best described as "the
universe". The best way to study the nature of the universe is
science.
If part of the universe is some sort of ubermind, we are not yet aware
of it.
If there is some entity which is somehow "outside" of this universe,
it is sending mixed signals. If any.
If there is a god, and she favors those who think clearly and
consistently, then she judges us on our motives and methods of
thinking on these things, not the right conclusions. In which case
youe are in trouble.
"What do you think I gave you a mind for?" she will yell, waving her
hands.
--- Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism viable? |
03 Oct 2003 05:43:13 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having no
potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual not
being part of the space time universe.
Okay, you've made it clear what your god is not.
The source of all finite being which
participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
If something is not part of an infinite being, then that being is not
infinite by definition because there is something not part of it.
Dont think of being as a thing, think of being as ultimate reality.
Does the above definition help? I doubt it!
Right on that count.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism viable? |
03 Oct 2003 11:03:32 PM |
|
|
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:alurnvcraejlngavbv4gn2nd9uhfuo99dk@4ax.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having
no
potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual
not
being part of the space time universe.
Okay, you've made it clear what your god is not.
The source of all finite being which
participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
If something is not part of an infinite being, then that being is not
infinite by definition because there is something not part of it.
God is infinite in the type of existence he has, that does not mean that God
can not create something that has a different type of existence. Our
existence is finite, his is infinite. He is the source in that he holds us
in existence but we are not part of his being or we would be Pantheists.
Dont think of being as a thing, think of being as ultimate reality.
Does the above definition help? I doubt it!
Right on that count.
http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism viable? |
07 Oct 2003 01:35:40 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message news:<vnshmj9esgu10d@corp.supernews.com>...
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:alurnvcraejlngavbv4gn2nd9uhfuo99dk@4ax.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having
no
potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual
not
being part of the space time universe.
Okay, you've made it clear what your god is not.
The source of all finite being which
participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
If something is not part of an infinite being, then that being is not
infinite by definition because there is something not part of it.
God is infinite in the type of existence he has, that does not mean that God
can not create something that has a different type of existence. Our
existence is finite, his is infinite. He is the source in that he holds us
in existence but we are not part of his being or we would be Pantheists.
He knows when you are sleeping; he knows when you're awake. He knows
when you've been bad or good, so be good, for goodness's sake!
Got any evidence?
Dont think of being as a thing, think of being as ultimate reality.
Does the above definition help? I doubt it!
Right on that count.
http://www.shatnerology.com
The ontological argument is an old one, and wasn't especially
persuasive 500 years ago.
--- Kermit
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/o/ont-arg.htm#The%20Argument%20Described
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism viable? |
08 Oct 2003 02:53:04 PM |
|
|
On 7 Oct 2003 11:35:40 -0700, (Kermit)
wrote:
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message news:<vnshmj9esgu10d@corp.supernews.com>...
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
snip
Dont think of being as a thing, think of being as ultimate reality.
Does the above definition help? I doubt it!
Right on that count.
http://www.shatnerology.com
The ontological argument is an old one, and wasn't especially
persuasive 500 years ago.
Randy thinks that philosophy and logic stopped with Anselm. Even
Aquinas rejected his argument.
Thomas P.
"That there are manes, a subterranean kingdom, a ferryman with a long pole, and black frogs in the whirlpools
of the Styx; that so many thousand men could cross the waves in a single boat, today even children refuse to believe."
Juvenal
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism viable? |
05 Oct 2003 06:27:39 AM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:alurnvcraejlngavbv4gn2nd9uhfuo99dk@4ax.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having
no
potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual
not
being part of the space time universe.
Okay, you've made it clear what your god is not.
The source of all finite being which
participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
If something is not part of an infinite being, then that being is not
infinite by definition because there is something not part of it.
God is infinite in the type of existence he has, that does not mean that God
can not create something that has a different type of existence. Our
existence is finite, his is infinite. He is the source in that he holds us
in existence but we are not part of his being or we would be Pantheists.
Ahh, I see. He's infinite as long as you redefine "infinite" to mean
"not infinite".
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "phobos" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism viable? |
11 Oct 2003 10:20:29 AM |
|
|
John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message news:<lvvvnv4gibmqm6ghqjeeimmb17g4ejtnqa@4ax.com>...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:alurnvcraejlngavbv4gn2nd9uhfuo99dk@4ax.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having
no
potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual
not
being part of the space time universe.
Okay, you've made it clear what your god is not.
The source of all finite being which
participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
If something is not part of an infinite being, then that being is not
infinite by definition because there is something not part of it.
God is infinite in the type of existence he has, that does not mean that God
can not create something that has a different type of existence. Our
existence is finite, his is infinite. He is the source in that he holds us
in existence but we are not part of his being or we would be Pantheists.
Ahh, I see. He's infinite as long as you redefine "infinite" to mean
"not infinite".
How many odd numbers are there? Infinite, right? And yet there are
numbers that are not odd - we call them even. So a god, made of an
infinite number of odd numbers, could create as many people, each made
of a finite number of even numbers, as he liked.
Indeed, we could interleave an arbitratrily large number of
infinities: we could, for instance, have ten parallel infinities,
consisting of numbers ending in 0, those ending in 1, those ending in
2... and so on up to those ending in 9. Each set is certainly
infinite, but does not include more than one tenth of the whole set of
positive integers.
Since it is possible for separate infinities to coexist, 'God exists',
'God is infinite' and 'There exist things that are not God' do not
necessarily contradict each other.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism viable? |
11 Oct 2003 10:29:12 AM |
|
|
(phobos) wrote:
John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message news:<lvvvnv4gibmqm6ghqjeeimmb17g4ejtnqa@4ax.com>...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:alurnvcraejlngavbv4gn2nd9uhfuo99dk@4ax.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having
no
potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual
not
being part of the space time universe.
Okay, you've made it clear what your god is not.
The source of all finite being which
participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
If something is not part of an infinite being, then that being is not
infinite by definition because there is something not part of it.
God is infinite in the type of existence he has, that does not mean that God
can not create something that has a different type of existence. Our
existence is finite, his is infinite. He is the source in that he holds us
in existence but we are not part of his being or we would be Pantheists.
Ahh, I see. He's infinite as long as you redefine "infinite" to mean
"not infinite".
How many odd numbers are there? Infinite, right? And yet there are
numbers that are not odd - we call them even. So a god, made of an
infinite number of odd numbers, could create as many people, each made
of a finite number of even numbers, as he liked.
The difference being that numbers do not exist as entities, so it is
possible to have an infinite number of them in a finite space.
Or are you now asserting that your god exists as an abstraction and is
not an actual being?
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "phobos" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism viable? |
14 Oct 2003 02:53:43 PM |
|
|
John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message news:<r98gov41pta3quaken5tf9g7g2s48jccv9@4ax.com>...
phobos2@hotmail.com (phobos) wrote:
John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message news:<lvvvnv4gibmqm6ghqjeeimmb17g4ejtnqa@4ax.com>...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:alurnvcraejlngavbv4gn2nd9uhfuo99dk@4ax.com...
If something is not part of an infinite being, then that being is not
infinite by definition because there is something not part of it.
God is infinite in the type of existence he has, that does not mean that God
can not create something that has a different type of existence. Our
existence is finite, his is infinite. He is the source in that he holds us
in existence but we are not part of his being or we would be Pantheists.
Ahh, I see. He's infinite as long as you redefine "infinite" to mean
"not infinite".
How many odd numbers are there? Infinite, right? And yet there are
numbers that are not odd - we call them even. So a god, made of an
infinite number of odd numbers, could create as many people, each made
of a finite number of even numbers, as he liked.
The difference being that numbers do not exist as entities, so it is
possible to have an infinite number of them in a finite space.
Or are you now asserting that your god exists as an abstraction and is
not an actual being?
Sorry... whose god? To me this is just an interesting jaunt into the
mathematics of infinity. The fact that the pretext happens to be a god
is quite irrelevant :-)
Anyway... I suppose we'd have to ask Randy exactly what quality of God
is claimed to be infinite. Let's assume (as is often claimed) that God
is almighty - in more mundane terms, he has an infinite energy supply.
He's already expended some energy in manufacturing at least one
Universe. So... let's take all the joules in existence and number them
off, one, two, three... Now, take the joules from 1 to 10^n where n is
some biggish number, and call that the finite Universe. The joules
from 1+10^n onward we will call God's reserve. Now, is God's reserve
finite or infinite? Infinite, undoubtedly - it has no upper bound.
But maybe the Universe is infinite - this is quite possible. OK - then
let the Universe be made of all the odd-numbered joules, and God's
reserve consist of the even-numbered joules. Again, God's supply is
undoubtedly infinite - but so is that of the Universe.
You'll notice that this is the same argument as before, but now
instead of numbers I'm talking about joules, which we have assigned
notional numbers for bookkeeping purposes. But joules certainly exist
- energy is a definite and real quantity in physics.
We could make similar arguments for other properties of God - maybe he
is infinitely large, but that doesn't preclude a Universe as a bubble
of not-God embedded inside an infinite expanse of God. Presumably
there are other quantities in which God might be said to be infinite -
but I believe my point stands in general.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism viable? |
04 Oct 2003 09:26:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 21:03:32 -0700, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>,
Message ID: <vnshmj9esgu10d@corp.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:alurnvcraejlngavbv4gn2nd9uhfuo99dk@4ax.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having
no
potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual
not
being part of the space time universe.
Okay, you've made it clear what your god is not.
The source of all finite being which
participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
If something is not part of an infinite being, then that being is not
infinite by definition because there is something not part of it.
God is infinite in the type of existence he has, that does not mean that God
can not create something that has a different type of existence. Our
existence is finite, his is infinite. He is the source in that he holds us
in existence but we are not part of his being or we would be Pantheists.
So you constantly and pathetically drool.
Sad.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Letao" |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism viable? |
04 Oct 2003 02:43:48 PM |
|
|
In article <vnrtrmlkobhk57@corp.supernews.com>,
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having no
potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual not
being part of the space time universe.The source of all finite being which
participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
Sounds like a bastardized description of emergence intentionally warped
and colloquialized to fit an infantile need to avoid uncertainty.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*Nemo*" |
|
| Title: aa - TQOTM II (was: Is atheism viable? |
04 Oct 2003 05:18:14 AM |
|
|
In article <vnrtrmlkobhk57@corp.supernews.com>,
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
Another gem from Randy! I think he's giving Duke a run for his money now.
That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having no
potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual not
being part of the space time universe.The source of all finite being which
participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
Dont think of being as a thing, think of being as ultimate reality.
Does the above definition help? I doubt it!
Seconds?
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM II (was: Is atheism viable? |
07 Oct 2003 11:53:09 AM |
|
|
"*Nemo*" <nemo0037@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-3FFC39.06181404102003@news04.east.earthlink.net...
In article <vnrtrmlkobhk57@corp.supernews.com>,
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
Another gem from Randy! I think he's giving Duke a run for his money now.
That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having
no
potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual
not
being part of the space time universe.The source of all finite being
which
participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
Dont think of being as a thing, think of being as ultimate reality.
Does the above definition help? I doubt it!
Seconds?
Second.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM II (was: Is atheism viable? |
04 Oct 2003 09:27:58 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 10:18:14 GMT, *Nemo* <nemo0037@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com>,
Message ID: <nemo0037-3FFC39.06181404102003@news04.east.earthlink.net>
wrote in alt.atheism;
In article <vnrtrmlkobhk57@corp.supernews.com>,
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
Another gem from Randy! I think he's giving Duke a run for his money now.
That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having no
potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual not
being part of the space time universe.The source of all finite being which
participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
Dont think of being as a thing, think of being as ultimate reality.
Does the above definition help? I doubt it!
Seconds?
Yes.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
| | | | |
