Is Atheism viable?


 Religions > Atheism > Is Atheism viable?

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 2 of 13

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

7
 

8
 

9
 

10
 

11
 

12
 

13
 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "J Young"
Date: 18 Sep 2006 11:08:15 PM
Object: Is Atheism viable?
http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in a
god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise any
belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to
atheism, it is a negative position.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in
atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you
can't prove a negative regarding God's existence. Of course, that isn't to
say that atheists haven't attempted to offer some proofs that God does not
exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all,
how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in
all places and all times, there is no God? You can't. Besides, if there
were a proof of God's non-existence, then atheists would be continually
using it. But we don't hear of any such commonly held proof supporting
atheism or denying God's existence. The atheist position is very difficult,
if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative.
Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism's truth and there are no
proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.
Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis of
adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and negate
any evidences presented for God's existence in order to give intellectual
credence to their position. If they can create an evidential vacuum in
which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more
intellectually viable. It is in the negation of theistic proofs and
evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed
life.
There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually
defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In
other words, it may be possible that there is no God. But, stating that
something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is wise
to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream
factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a
position worth adopting merely because it is merely a possibility? Not at
all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being
a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for
atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more
than "It is possible," or "There is no evidence for God," otherwise, there
really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step
up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice
cream exists.
At least we Christians have evidences for God's existence such as
fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection, the Transcendental
Argument, the entropy problem, etc.
But there is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for God'
s existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness
testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism
cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there
is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible. At
best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing evidences for God
so far presented. They cannot say there are no evidences for God because
the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At
best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far presented has been
insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented
in the future that will suffice. The atheist must acknowledge that there
may indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the
existence of God is possible. This would make the atheist more of an
agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God's existence.
This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because
Christianity makes very high claims concerning God's existence which
challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the
vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.
--
----------
J Yöung
youngopinions@aol.com
.

User: "wcb"

Title: Re: God cannot exist - Barwell Spam Debunked 20 Sep 2006 10:01:05 PM
GOD IS DISPROVEN
(Short version)
CLASSES OF GODS 8-1-06
Preliminary
God as a concept is not really a single concept
To deal with the idea of god it is necessary to
consider god by classes of gods. Broad classes
of god are fairy easy to disprove, and when a
class of gods is disproven all members of that
class with class characteristics are disproven.
This is economical and powerful.
Some gods map onto other classes of gods.
If a class is impossible, a class that maps
onto to that is also impossible. This makes
the concept of classes of gods a very powerful
tool for examining god ideas for viability.
Basically, there are not that many classes of gods,
about 25 or so depending how you count classes of
gods and god like ideas. Some of this is problematic,
is the concept of souls a god class idea or not?
At the bottom of the list of broadest classes of god
ideas, are classes of things hard to decide if they
are truly worth much in this regard.
Some classes of gods, myth cycles of gods can be
mapped to OEC gods or nature gods, or allegorical gods.
One can brek myth cycle gods down to smaller categories,
Celtic, Greek, Roman gods, henotheistic gods, soter gods,
etc, but that adds little to our task at hand and is
really not necessary
OEC or nature god mappings are all that really matter.
Once a class is disproven, all secondary and tertiary
claims and assertions about that class of gods are
disproven. All particular gods of that class and related
doctrines, theologies, and dogmas are eliminated.
THE MAJOR CLASSES OF GODS.
1. The greatest god imaginable
A. Supergods - Ashvara
The greatest god imaginable must be free of all limits
of logic. But then that god, perfect, all good, all
powerful has no limits to eliminating evil. Evil exists,
so this god cannot exist. Its self contradictory
2. Omni-Everything class class gods
Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, creation
of all combine to create multiple overlapping
incompatibilities and contradictions that show
the class of OEC gods cannot exist.
3. Transcendent
4. Immanent
5. Maya
6. Idealism
These classes of gods map onto OEC class gods
and are thus shown to be impossible. An OEC god is
impossible whether its transcendent or immanent.
Each attribute simply adds further problems
to an OEC class god.
7. Deism
A. Maps to OEC
B. Maps to Pantheistism
Deism class gods thus fail.
8. Pantheism
A. Allegorical
B. Metaphysical
Allegorical is useless. There is no mechanism
for the Universe as a whole to be somehow
intelligent, and science can show all that
the Universe does is in fact a matter of physics.
9. Process theology/metaphysics god
This class of gods has failed. Designed as a
metaphysical rather than revealed god, process
theology from the beginning invented its own
physics and hung its god on that. This physics is
wrong and this god does not work with modern physics,
ruling it out as a viable class of gods.
10. Nature gods
A. Nature gods, numina etc
B. Tutelary gods, guardians of
places, sites, people.
Science has removed room for nature gods. Only science can
explain rain, crop fertility and natural phenomenon. The huge
swarms of nature gods of the past, cannot explain anything.
Nature gods are either reflections of real nature, in which
case the lack of real nature such as jet streams, techtonic
plate movements, atoms, chemistry principles, true biology
principles show the ancients were just guessing and not at
the important underlying forces of nature.
And of course the other aspect, revelation is absent here.
No god's came down to man and introduced themselves,
the gods of quarks, the goddess of the strong nuclear force,
or the goddess of gravity.
Obviously, then, nature gods are impossible and useless.
Related are tutelary gods, gods that offer protection to state,
cities, homes, tribes, families, children, women, personal
protection, et al, these are simply nonsense.
They never protected much, life was always cheap, whole states,
towns, cities, peoples were destroyed despite supposed protector
gods in the past. All the gods of Gaul did not protect them from
the Romans, the Roman gods did not protect them from barbarians.
Without modern medicine, vast numbers of people died alone
and in vast epidemics.
Tutelary gods and nature gods did not help even a little bit here.
For the vast numbers of people in the past, this was religion.
Science leaves no room for them.
11. Myth cycle gods.
A. Maps to OEC class
B. Maps to Nature god
C. Maps to allegorical god class
D. Maps to tutelary gods.
12. Allegorical gods, gods and goddesses that are
simple personifications of human nature or nature itself.
Hope, fear, love, and similar. Ate, goddess of violence,
Fama, goddess of rumor, Eris, goddess of discord, etc.
The stuff of poets, not really meant to be taken seriously.
Useless to explain the creation of this world, or anything
about it.
LESSOR THINGS.
Stuff so low down the food chain its not worth discussing,
spirits, fairies and nonsense.
Nothing that can take the place of god.
Thus we can start with the most powerful imaginable classes
of gods and work down to fairies and there simply is no
viable class of gods.
All viable particular gods are thus disproven.
God cannot exist.
(End)
--

You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
User: "Gandalf Grey"

Title: Re: God cannot exist - Barwell Debunked 20 Sep 2006 10:17:17 PM
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h404n95uttma8@corp.supernews.com...

GOD IS DISPROVEN

Not by anything below.

(Short version)


CLASSES OF GODS 8-1-06
Preliminary


God as a concept is not really a single concept
To deal with the idea of god it is necessary to
consider god by classes of gods.

No it's not. It may be necessary for you to throw up a smokescreen via
classes but people have been dealing with beliefs in god on a case by case
basis for a long time.

Broad classes
of god are fairy easy to disprove

Since you've never done that, the above is an unsupported assertion. We'll
see many more of your unsupported assertions below.

, and when a
class of gods is disproven all members of that
class with class characteristics are disproven.
This is economical and powerful.

That would only be true if
1. All the members of a class actually belonged there.
2. Each member of the class truly represented the beliefs of those the class
pretained to.
Since your OEC class does not represent the beliefs of all the religions you
say it represents, anything you said that was true about it would not be
representative and so would not advance your argument.



Some gods map onto other classes of gods.

Here we see one of Gardner's characteristics of the crank. "map onto" is
one of your typical neologisms. Used more to obscure than to elucidate.
Map Why? Map How?

If a class is impossible, a class that maps
onto to that is also impossible.

Map Why? Map How?

This makes
the concept of classes of gods a very powerful
tool for examining god ideas for viability.

No. It just makes the subject of supposedly being able to disprove the
existence of every possible god unnecessarily cloudy and makes one wonder
what you're really up to. It was your 'class' gimmick that first alerted me
to the smell of a weak argument.



Basically, there are not that many classes of gods,
about 25 or so depending how you count classes of
gods and god like ideas.

What is the criteria you used to establish your classes? I would think that
an honest argument would want to stipulate that up front.

Some of this is problematic,
is the concept of souls a god class idea or not?
At the bottom of the list of broadest classes of god
ideas, are classes of things hard to decide if they
are truly worth much in this regard.

Worth much in what regard? Why? Who decides what kind of god is "worth
consideration?" Since you purport to prove that all possible gods are in
fact impossible, how can you state that any god is 'not truly worth much.'?
Shall we translate "not truly worth much" as impossible for Barwell to even
form an argument on or impossible for Barwell to disprove?



Some classes of gods, myth cycles of gods can be
mapped to OEC gods or nature gods, or allegorical gods.

Mapped How? Mapped Why?

One can brek myth cycle gods down to smaller categories,
Celtic, Greek, Roman gods, henotheistic gods, soter gods,
etc, but that adds little to our task at hand and is
really not necessary

Why not? You're being extremely evasive for someone who is proposing an
argument that disproves the possible existence of any god. It's interesting
that for a guy who is more than willing to keep on rehashing pages worth of
wordy garbage, you seem so intent on simply brushing by the basics.



OEC or nature god mappings are all that really matter.

Who are you to decide that? On what basis do you make the decision?
Further, if you're attempting to disprove ALL gods it follows logically that
all possible gods would 'really matter.' After all, for someone concluding
that 'no god can exist' the possible existence of even one tiny god would in
fact disprove your entire argument.



Once a class is disproven, all secondary and tertiary
claims and assertions about that class of gods are
disproven.

Why? How does a class get disproven. For example, you've failed
spectacularly to disprove or even define the class of gods containing every
god who is 'less than omnipotent.' Your failure was so spectacular and so
complete that you now have retracted the class and chosen to call it the
more shadowy "metaphysical" class. Notably below, you still fail to define
that class, much less disprove it. Your so-called class of 'magnipotent
gods, AKA Process Theology AKA Metaphysics gods.' Since this is the case,
how can we know that secondary, tertiary and other claims about THAT class
of gods are disproven?

All particular gods of that class and related
doctrines, theologies, and dogmas are eliminated.

Again, how? Since you haven't accomplished this for ANY class of gods, how
can we know that it logically follows that all particular gods of that class
are eliminated. Are you simply stating that IN THEORY IF YOU COULD disprove
a particular class all those gods would be disproven?



THE MAJOR CLASSES OF GODS.


1. The greatest god imaginable
A. Supergods - Ashvara


The greatest god imaginable must be free of all limits
of logic.

Non sequitur.
You haven't shown why a greatest god imaginable MUST LOGICALLY be free of
logic.

2. Omni-Everything class class gods


Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, creation
of all combine to create multiple overlapping
incompatibilities and contradictions that show
the class of OEC gods cannot exist.

The one god that fits the description was demolished by the Argument from
evil. So there's nothing novel here at all.



3. Transcendent
4. Immanent
5. Maya
6. Idealism


These classes of gods map onto OEC class gods
and are thus shown to be impossible.

1. You haven't shown how they 'map' [to use your neologism] onto OEC gods
[another neologism].
2. Hence, they are not shown to be impossible.

An OEC god is
impossible whether its transcendent or immanent.

You haven't explained why this is logically true.


7. Deism
A. Maps to OEC

Maps How?

B. Maps to Pantheistism

1. No such word.
2. You fail to explain or define or offer any argument for Panentheism, a
major modern theological movement.
So again, your argument fails.



Deism class gods thus fail.

1. You haven't shown why.
2. Hence they do not fail.



8. Pantheism
A. Allegorical
B. Metaphysical


Allegorical is useless. There is no mechanism
for the Universe as a whole to be somehow
intelligent, and science can show all that
the Universe does is in fact a matter of physics.

1. How do YOU know there is no such mechanism and can you prove it?
2. The findings of physics do not disprove the possible existence of a god.
Hence you've failed again.



9. Process theology/metaphysics god


This class of gods has failed.

1. This is the class of gods you've repackaged when it was pointed out that
you had in fact NO argument against a class of 'less than omnipotent gods'
2. You've failed to define this class.
3. You've failed to show how process theology completely exhausts the
possibilities of a 'matephysical god.'
4. Hence, you've not shown how this class is impossible.
As I page through all of your arbitrary pronouncements and evasions and sly
language, I note that all you're really indulging in is argument by
assertion. A well known logical fallacy, the argument from assertion simply
states an unsupported assertion in some form that looks in passing like a
logical argument, but is really nothing more than a disguised opinion.
.


User: "wcb"

Title: Re: God cannot exist - Hard Proof That Barwell is a pathological liar. 20 Sep 2006 05:58:00 PM
GOD IS DISPROVEN
(Short version)
CLASSES OF GODS 8-1-06
Preliminary
God as a concept is not really a single concept
To deal with the idea of god it is necessary to
consider god by classes of gods. Broad classes
of god are fairy easy to disprove, and when a
class of gods is disproven all members of that
class with class characteristics are disproven.
This is economical and powerful.
Some gods map onto other classes of gods.
If a class is impossible, a class that maps
onto to that is also impossible. This makes
the concept of classes of gods a very powerful
tool for examining god ideas for viability.
Basically, there are not that many classes of gods,
about 25 or so depending how you count classes of
gods and god like ideas. Some of this is problematic,
is the concept of souls a god class idea or not?
At the bottom of the list of broadest classes of god
ideas, are classes of things hard to decide if they
are truly worth much in this regard.
Some classes of gods, myth cycles of gods can be
mapped to OEC gods or nature gods, or allegorical gods.
One can brek myth cycle gods down to smaller categories,
Celtic, Greek, Roman gods, henotheistic gods, soter gods,
etc, but that adds little to our task at hand and is
really not necessary
OEC or nature god mappings are all that really matter.
Once a class is disproven, all secondary and tertiary
claims and assertions about that class of gods are
disproven. All particular gods of that class and related
doctrines, theologies, and dogmas are eliminated.
THE MAJOR CLASSES OF GODS.
1. The greatest god imaginable
A. Supergods - Ashvara
The greatest god imaginable must be free of all limits
of logic. But then that god, perfect, all good, all
powerful has no limits to eliminating evil. Evil exists,
so this god cannot exist. Its self contradictory
2. Omni-Everything class class gods
Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, creation
of all combine to create multiple overlapping
incompatibilities and contradictions that show
the class of OEC gods cannot exist.
3. Transcendent
4. Immanent
5. Maya
6. Idealism
These classes of gods map onto OEC class gods
and are thus shown to be impossible. An OEC god is
impossible whether its transcendent or immanent.
Each attribute simply adds further problems
to an OEC class god.
7. Deism
A. Maps to OEC
B. Maps to Pantheistism
Deism class gods thus fail.
8. Pantheism
A. Allegorical
B. Metaphysical
Allegorical is useless. There is no mechanism
for the Universe as a whole to be somehow
intelligent, and science can show all that
the Universe does is in fact a matter of physics.
9. Process theology/metaphysics god
This class of gods has failed. Designed as a
metaphysical rather than revealed god, process
theology from the beginning invented its own
physics and hung its god on that. This physics is
wrong and this god does not work with modern physics,
ruling it out as a viable class of gods.
10. Nature gods
A. Nature gods, numina etc
B. Tutelary gods, guardians of
places, sites, people.
Science has removed room for nature gods. Only science can
explain rain, crop fertility and natural phenomenon. The huge
swarms of nature gods of the past, cannot explain anything.
Nature gods are either reflections of real nature, in which
case the lack of real nature such as jet streams, techtonic
plate movements, atoms, chemistry principles, true biology
principles show the ancients were just guessing and not at
the important underlying forces of nature.
And of course the other aspect, revelation is absent here.
No god's came down to man and introduced themselves,
the gods of quarks, the goddess of the strong nuclear force,
or the goddess of gravity.
Obviously, then, nature gods are impossible and useless.
Related are tutelary gods, gods that offer protection to state,
cities, homes, tribes, families, children, women, personal
protection, et al, these are simply nonsense.
They never protected much, life was always cheap, whole states,
towns, cities, peoples were destroyed despite supposed protector
gods in the past. All the gods of Gaul did not protect them from
the Romans, the Roman gods did not protect them from barbarians.
Without modern medicine, vast numbers of people died alone
and in vast epidemics.
Tutelary gods and nature gods did not help even a little bit here.
For the vast numbers of people in the past, this was religion.
Science leaves no room for them.
11. Myth cycle gods.
A. Maps to OEC class
B. Maps to Nature god
C. Maps to allegorical god class
D. Maps to tutelary gods.
12. Allegorical gods, gods and goddesses that are
simple personifications of human nature or nature itself.
Hope, fear, love, and similar. Ate, goddess of violence,
Fama, goddess of rumor, Eris, goddess of discord, etc.
The stuff of poets, not really meant to be taken seriously.
Useless to explain the creation of this world, or anything
about it.
LESSOR THINGS.
Stuff so low down the food chain its not worth discussing,
spirits, fairies and nonsense.
Nothing that can take the place of god.
Thus we can start with the most powerful imaginable classes
of gods and work down to fairies and there simply is no
viable class of gods.
All viable particular gods are thus disproven.
God cannot exist.
(End)
--

You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
User: "Gandalf Grey"

Title: Re: God cannot exist - Hard Proof That Barwell is a pathological liar. 20 Sep 2006 06:26:45 PM
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h3hsuf9jcu2da@corp.supernews.com...

GOD IS DISPROVEN
(Short version)


CLASSES OF GODS 8-1-06
Preliminary


God as a concept is not really a single concept
To deal with the idea of god it is necessary to
consider god by classes of gods.

No it's not. It may be necessary for you to throw up a smokescreen via
classes but people have been dealing with beliefs in god on a case by case
basis for a long time.

Broad classes
of god are fairy easy to disprove

Since you've never done that, the above is an unsupported assertion. We'll
see many more of your unsupported assertions below.

, and when a
class of gods is disproven all members of that
class with class characteristics are disproven.
This is economical and powerful.

That would only be true if
1. All the members of a class actually belonged there.
2. Each member of the class truly represented the beliefs of those the class
pretained to.
Since your OEC class does not represent the beliefs of all the religions you
say it represents, anything you said that was true about it would not be
representative and so would not advance your argument.



Some gods map onto other classes of gods.

Here we see one of Gardner's characteristics of the crank. "map onto" is
one of your typical neologisms. Used more to obscure than to elucidate.
Map Why? Map How?

If a class is impossible, a class that maps
onto to that is also impossible.

Map Why? Map How?

This makes
the concept of classes of gods a very powerful
tool for examining god ideas for viability.

No. It just makes the subject of supposedly being able to disprove the
existence of every possible god unnecessarily cloudy and makes one wonder
what you're really up to. It was your 'class' gimmick that first alerted me
to the smell of a weak argument.



Basically, there are not that many classes of gods,
about 25 or so depending how you count classes of
gods and god like ideas.

What is the criteria you used to establish your classes? I would think that
an honest argument would want to stipulate that up front.

Some of this is problematic,
is the concept of souls a god class idea or not?
At the bottom of the list of broadest classes of god
ideas, are classes of things hard to decide if they
are truly worth much in this regard.

Worth much in what regard? Why? Who decides what kind of god is "worth
consideration?" Since you purport to prove that all possible gods are in
fact impossible, how can you state that any god is 'not truly worth much.'?
Shall we translate "not truly worth much" as impossible for Barwell to even
form an argument on or impossible for Barwell to disprove?



Some classes of gods, myth cycles of gods can be
mapped to OEC gods or nature gods, or allegorical gods.

Mapped How? Mapped Why?

One can brek myth cycle gods down to smaller categories,
Celtic, Greek, Roman gods, henotheistic gods, soter gods,
etc, but that adds little to our task at hand and is
really not necessary

Why not? You're being extremely evasive for someone who is proposing an
argument that disproves the possible existence of any god. It's interesting
that for a guy who is more than willing to keep on rehashing pages worth of
wordy garbage, you seem so intent on simply brushing by the basics.



OEC or nature god mappings are all that really matter.

Who are you to decide that? On what basis do you make the decision?
Further, if you're attempting to disprove ALL gods it follows logically that
all possible gods would 'really matter.' After all, for someone concluding
that 'no god can exist' the possible existence of even one tiny god would in
fact disprove your entire argument.



Once a class is disproven, all secondary and tertiary
claims and assertions about that class of gods are
disproven.

Why? How does a class get disproven. For example, you've failed
spectacularly to disprove or even define the class of gods containing every
god who is 'less than omnipotent.' Your failure was so spectacular and so
complete that you now have retracted the class and chosen to call it the
more shadowy "metaphysical" class. Notably below, you still fail to define
that class, much less disprove it. Your so-called class of 'magnipotent
gods, AKA Process Theology AKA Metaphysics gods.' Since this is the case,
how can we know that secondary, tertiary and other claims about THAT class
of gods are disproven?

All particular gods of that class and related
doctrines, theologies, and dogmas are eliminated.

Again, how? Since you haven't accomplished this for ANY class of gods, how
can we know that it logically follows that all particular gods of that class
are eliminated. Are you simply stating that IN THEORY IF YOU COULD disprove
a particular class all those gods would be disproven?



THE MAJOR CLASSES OF GODS.


1. The greatest god imaginable
A. Supergods - Ashvara


The greatest god imaginable must be free of all limits
of logic.

Non sequitur.
You haven't shown why a greatest god imaginable MUST LOGICALLY be free of
logic.

2. Omni-Everything class class gods


Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, creation
of all combine to create multiple overlapping
incompatibilities and contradictions that show
the class of OEC gods cannot exist.

The one god that fits the description was demolished by the Argument from
evil. So there's nothing novel here at all.



3. Transcendent
4. Immanent
5. Maya
6. Idealism


These classes of gods map onto OEC class gods
and are thus shown to be impossible.

1. You haven't shown how they 'map' [to use your neologism] onto OEC gods
[another neologism].
2. Hence, they are not shown to be impossible.

An OEC god is
impossible whether its transcendent or immanent.

You haven't explained why this is logically true.


7. Deism
A. Maps to OEC

Maps How?

B. Maps to Pantheistism

1. No such word.
2. You fail to explain or define or offer any argument for Panentheism, a
major modern theological movement.
So again, your argument fails.



Deism class gods thus fail.

1. You haven't shown why.
2. Hence they do not fail.



8. Pantheism
A. Allegorical
B. Metaphysical


Allegorical is useless. There is no mechanism
for the Universe as a whole to be somehow
intelligent, and science can show all that
the Universe does is in fact a matter of physics.

1. How do YOU know there is no such mechanism and can you prove it?
2. The findings of physics do not disprove the possible existence of a god.
Hence you've failed again.



9. Process theology/metaphysics god


This class of gods has failed.

1. This is the class of gods you've repackaged when it was pointed out that
you had in fact NO argument against a class of 'less than omnipotent gods'
2. You've failed to define this class.
3. You've failed to show how process theology completely exhausts the
possibilities of a 'matephysical god.'
4. Hence, you've not shown how this class is impossible.
As I page through all of your arbitrary pronouncements and evasions and sly
language, I note that all you're really indulging in is argument by
assertion. A well known logical fallacy, the argument from assertion simply
states an unsupported assertion in some form that looks in passing like a
logical argument, but is really nothing more than a disguised opinion.
.
User: "wcb"

Title: Re: God cannot exist - Hard Proof That Barwell is a pathological liar. 20 Sep 2006 10:01:29 PM
Gandalf Grey wrote:


"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h3hsuf9jcu2da@corp.supernews.com...

GOD IS DISPROVEN


(Short version)


CLASSES OF GODS 8-1-06
Preliminary


God as a concept is not really a single concept
To deal with the idea of god it is necessary to
consider god by classes of gods.


No it's not. It may be necessary for you to throw up a smokescreen via
classes but people have been dealing with beliefs in god on a case by case
basis for a long time.

Broad classes
of god are fairy easy to disprove


Since you've never done that, the above is an unsupported assertion.
We'll see many more of your unsupported assertions below.

, and when a
class of gods is disproven all members of that
class with class characteristics are disproven.
This is economical and powerful.


That would only be true if

1. All the members of a class actually belonged there.
2. Each member of the class truly represented the beliefs of those the
class pretained to.

Since your OEC class does not represent the beliefs of all the religions
you say it represents, anything you said that was true about it would not
be representative and so would not advance your argument.



Some gods map onto other classes of gods.


Here we see one of Gardner's characteristics of the crank. "map onto" is
one of your typical neologisms. Used more to obscure than to elucidate.

Map Why? Map How?

If a class is impossible, a class that maps
onto to that is also impossible.


Map Why? Map How?

This makes
the concept of classes of gods a very powerful
tool for examining god ideas for viability.


No. It just makes the subject of supposedly being able to disprove the
existence of every possible god unnecessarily cloudy and makes one wonder
what you're really up to. It was your 'class' gimmick that first alerted
me to the smell of a weak argument.



Basically, there are not that many classes of gods,
about 25 or so depending how you count classes of
gods and god like ideas.


What is the criteria you used to establish your classes? I would think
that an honest argument would want to stipulate that up front.

Some of this is problematic,
is the concept of souls a god class idea or not?
At the bottom of the list of broadest classes of god
ideas, are classes of things hard to decide if they
are truly worth much in this regard.


Worth much in what regard? Why? Who decides what kind of god is "worth
consideration?" Since you purport to prove that all possible gods are in
fact impossible, how can you state that any god is 'not truly worth
much.'? Shall we translate "not truly worth much" as impossible for
Barwell to even form an argument on or impossible for Barwell to disprove?



Some classes of gods, myth cycles of gods can be
mapped to OEC gods or nature gods, or allegorical gods.


Mapped How? Mapped Why?

One can brek myth cycle gods down to smaller categories,
Celtic, Greek, Roman gods, henotheistic gods, soter gods,
etc, but that adds little to our task at hand and is
really not necessary


Why not? You're being extremely evasive for someone who is proposing an
argument that disproves the possible existence of any god. It's
interesting that for a guy who is more than willing to keep on rehashing
pages worth of wordy garbage, you seem so intent on simply brushing by the
basics.




OEC or nature god mappings are all that really matter.


Who are you to decide that? On what basis do you make the decision?
Further, if you're attempting to disprove ALL gods it follows logically
that
all possible gods would 'really matter.' After all, for someone
concluding that 'no god can exist' the possible existence of even one tiny
god would in fact disprove your entire argument.



Once a class is disproven, all secondary and tertiary
claims and assertions about that class of gods are
disproven.


Why? How does a class get disproven. For example, you've failed
spectacularly to disprove or even define the class of gods containing
every
god who is 'less than omnipotent.' Your failure was so spectacular and so
complete that you now have retracted the class and chosen to call it the
more shadowy "metaphysical" class. Notably below, you still fail to
define
that class, much less disprove it. Your so-called class of 'magnipotent
gods, AKA Process Theology AKA Metaphysics gods.' Since this is the case,
how can we know that secondary, tertiary and other claims about THAT class
of gods are disproven?

All particular gods of that class and related
doctrines, theologies, and dogmas are eliminated.


Again, how? Since you haven't accomplished this for ANY class of gods,
how can we know that it logically follows that all particular gods of that
class
are eliminated. Are you simply stating that IN THEORY IF YOU COULD
disprove a particular class all those gods would be disproven?



THE MAJOR CLASSES OF GODS.


1. The greatest god imaginable
A. Supergods - Ashvara


The greatest god imaginable must be free of all limits
of logic.


Non sequitur.

You haven't shown why a greatest god imaginable MUST LOGICALLY be free of
logic.

2. Omni-Everything class class gods


Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, creation
of all combine to create multiple overlapping
incompatibilities and contradictions that show
the class of OEC gods cannot exist.


The one god that fits the description was demolished by the Argument from
evil. So there's nothing novel here at all.



3. Transcendent
4. Immanent
5. Maya
6. Idealism


These classes of gods map onto OEC class gods
and are thus shown to be impossible.


1. You haven't shown how they 'map' [to use your neologism] onto OEC gods
[another neologism].
2. Hence, they are not shown to be impossible.

An OEC god is
impossible whether its transcendent or immanent.


You haven't explained why this is logically true.


7. Deism
A. Maps to OEC


Maps How?

B. Maps to Pantheistism


1. No such word.
2. You fail to explain or define or offer any argument for Panentheism, a
major modern theological movement.

So again, your argument fails.



Deism class gods thus fail.


1. You haven't shown why.
2. Hence they do not fail.



8. Pantheism
A. Allegorical
B. Metaphysical


Allegorical is useless. There is no mechanism
for the Universe as a whole to be somehow
intelligent, and science can show all that
the Universe does is in fact a matter of physics.


1. How do YOU know there is no such mechanism and can you prove it?

2. The findings of physics do not disprove the possible existence of a
god.

Hence you've failed again.



9. Process theology/metaphysics god


This class of gods has failed.


1. This is the class of gods you've repackaged when it was pointed out
that you had in fact NO argument against a class of 'less than omnipotent
gods' 2. You've failed to define this class.
3. You've failed to show how process theology completely exhausts the
possibilities of a 'matephysical god.'
4. Hence, you've not shown how this class is impossible.

As I page through all of your arbitrary pronouncements and evasions and
sly language, I note that all you're really indulging in is argument by
assertion. A well known logical fallacy, the argument from assertion
simply states an unsupported assertion in some form that looks in passing
like a logical argument, but is really nothing more than a disguised
opinion.

--

You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.



User: "wcb"

Title: Re: God cannot exist - Hard Proof god is not possible 20 Sep 2006 05:59:31 PM
GOD IS DISPROVEN
(Short version)
CLASSES OF GODS 8-1-06
Preliminary
God as a concept is not really a single concept
To deal with the idea of god it is necessary to
consider god by classes of gods. Broad classes
of god are fairy easy to disprove, and when a
class of gods is disproven all members of that
class with class characteristics are disproven.
This is economical and powerful.
Some gods map onto other classes of gods.
If a class is impossible, a class that maps
onto to that is also impossible. This makes
the concept of classes of gods a very powerful
tool for examining god ideas for viability.
Basically, there are not that many classes of gods,
about 25 or so depending how you count classes of
gods and god like ideas. Some of this is problematic,
is the concept of souls a god class idea or not?
At the bottom of the list of broadest classes of god
ideas, are classes of things hard to decide if they
are truly worth much in this regard.
Some classes of gods, myth cycles of gods can be
mapped to OEC gods or nature gods, or allegorical gods.
One can brek myth cycle gods down to smaller categories,
Celtic, Greek, Roman gods, henotheistic gods, soter gods,
etc, but that adds little to our task at hand and is
really not necessary
OEC or nature god mappings are all that really matter.
Once a class is disproven, all secondary and tertiary
claims and assertions about that class of gods are
disproven. All particular gods of that class and related
doctrines, theologies, and dogmas are eliminated.
THE MAJOR CLASSES OF GODS.
1. The greatest god imaginable
A. Supergods - Ashvara
The greatest god imaginable must be free of all limits
of logic. But then that god, perfect, all good, all
powerful has no limits to eliminating evil. Evil exists,
so this god cannot exist. Its self contradictory
2. Omni-Everything class class gods
Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, creation
of all combine to create multiple overlapping
incompatibilities and contradictions that show
the class of OEC gods cannot exist.
3. Transcendent
4. Immanent
5. Maya
6. Idealism
These classes of gods map onto OEC class gods
and are thus shown to be impossible. An OEC god is
impossible whether its transcendent or immanent.
Each attribute simply adds further problems
to an OEC class god.
7. Deism
A. Maps to OEC
B. Maps to Pantheistism
Deism class gods thus fail.
8. Pantheism
A. Allegorical
B. Metaphysical
Allegorical is useless. There is no mechanism
for the Universe as a whole to be somehow
intelligent, and science can show all that
the Universe does is in fact a matter of physics.
9. Process theology/metaphysics god
This class of gods has failed. Designed as a
metaphysical rather than revealed god, process
theology from the beginning invented its own
physics and hung its god on that. This physics is
wrong and this god does not work with modern physics,
ruling it out as a viable class of gods.
10. Nature gods
A. Nature gods, numina etc
B. Tutelary gods, guardians of
places, sites, people.
Science has removed room for nature gods. Only science can
explain rain, crop fertility and natural phenomenon. The huge
swarms of nature gods of the past, cannot explain anything.
Nature gods are either reflections of real nature, in which
case the lack of real nature such as jet streams, techtonic
plate movements, atoms, chemistry principles, true biology
principles show the ancients were just guessing and not at
the important underlying forces of nature.
And of course the other aspect, revelation is absent here.
No god's came down to man and introduced themselves,
the gods of quarks, the goddess of the strong nuclear force,
or the goddess of gravity.
Obviously, then, nature gods are impossible and useless.
Related are tutelary gods, gods that offer protection to state,
cities, homes, tribes, families, children, women, personal
protection, et al, these are simply nonsense.
They never protected much, life was always cheap, whole states,
towns, cities, peoples were destroyed despite supposed protector
gods in the past. All the gods of Gaul did not protect them from
the Romans, the Roman gods did not protect them from barbarians.
Without modern medicine, vast numbers of people died alone
and in vast epidemics.
Tutelary gods and nature gods did not help even a little bit here.
For the vast numbers of people in the past, this was religion.
Science leaves no room for them.
11. Myth cycle gods.
A. Maps to OEC class
B. Maps to Nature god
C. Maps to allegorical god class
D. Maps to tutelary gods.
12. Allegorical gods, gods and goddesses that are
simple personifications of human nature or nature itself.
Hope, fear, love, and similar. Ate, goddess of violence,
Fama, goddess of rumor, Eris, goddess of discord, etc.
The stuff of poets, not really meant to be taken seriously.
Useless to explain the creation of this world, or anything
about it.
LESSOR THINGS.
Stuff so low down the food chain its not worth discussing,
spirits, fairies and nonsense.
Nothing that can take the place of god.
Thus we can start with the most powerful imaginable classes
of gods and work down to fairies and there simply is no
viable class of gods.
All viable particular gods are thus disproven.
God cannot exist.
(End)
--

You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
User: "Gandalf Grey"

Title: Re: God cannot exist - Debunked Barwell Spam 20 Sep 2006 06:25:57 PM
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h3hvpp9sjna33@corp.supernews.com...


GOD IS DISPROVEN
(Short version)


CLASSES OF GODS 8-1-06
Preliminary


God as a concept is not really a single concept
To deal with the idea of god it is necessary to
consider god by classes of gods.

No it's not. It may be necessary for you to throw up a smokescreen via
classes but people have been dealing with beliefs in god on a case by case
basis for a long time.

Broad classes
of god are fairy easy to disprove

Since you've never done that, the above is an unsupported assertion. We'll
see many more of your unsupported assertions below.

, and when a
class of gods is disproven all members of that
class with class characteristics are disproven.
This is economical and powerful.

That would only be true if
1. All the members of a class actually belonged there.
2. Each member of the class truly represented the beliefs of those the class
pretained to.
Since your OEC class does not represent the beliefs of all the religions you
say it represents, anything you said that was true about it would not be
representative and so would not advance your argument.



Some gods map onto other classes of gods.

Here we see one of Gardner's characteristics of the crank. "map onto" is
one of your typical neologisms. Used more to obscure than to elucidate.
Map Why? Map How?

If a class is impossible, a class that maps
onto to that is also impossible.

Map Why? Map How?

This makes
the concept of classes of gods a very powerful
tool for examining god ideas for viability.

No. It just makes the subject of supposedly being able to disprove the
existence of every possible god unnecessarily cloudy and makes one wonder
what you're really up to. It was your 'class' gimmick that first alerted me
to the smell of a weak argument.



Basically, there are not that many classes of gods,
about 25 or so depending how you count classes of
gods and god like ideas.

What is the criteria you used to establish your classes? I would think that
an honest argument would want to stipulate that up front.

Some of this is problematic,
is the concept of souls a god class idea or not?
At the bottom of the list of broadest classes of god
ideas, are classes of things hard to decide if they
are truly worth much in this regard.

Worth much in what regard? Why? Who decides what kind of god is "worth
consideration?" Since you purport to prove that all possible gods are in
fact impossible, how can you state that any god is 'not truly worth much.'?
Shall we translate "not truly worth much" as impossible for Barwell to even
form an argument on or impossible for Barwell to disprove?



Some classes of gods, myth cycles of gods can be
mapped to OEC gods or nature gods, or allegorical gods.

Mapped How? Mapped Why?

One can brek myth cycle gods down to smaller categories,
Celtic, Greek, Roman gods, henotheistic gods, soter gods,
etc, but that adds little to our task at hand and is
really not necessary

Why not? You're being extremely evasive for someone who is proposing an
argument that disproves the possible existence of any god. It's interesting
that for a guy who is more than willing to keep on rehashing pages worth of
wordy garbage, you seem so intent on simply brushing by the basics.



OEC or nature god mappings are all that really matter.

Who are you to decide that? On what basis do you make the decision?
Further, if you're attempting to disprove ALL gods it follows logically that
all possible gods would 'really matter.' After all, for someone concluding
that 'no god can exist' the possible existence of even one tiny god would in
fact disprove your entire argument.



Once a class is disproven, all secondary and tertiary
claims and assertions about that class of gods are
disproven.

Why? How does a class get disproven. For example, you've failed
spectacularly to disprove or even define the class of gods containing every
god who is 'less than omnipotent.' Your failure was so spectacular and so
complete that you now have retracted the class and chosen to call it the
more shadowy "metaphysical" class. Notably below, you still fail to define
that class, much less disprove it. Your so-called class of 'magnipotent
gods, AKA Process Theology AKA Metaphysics gods.' Since this is the case,
how can we know that secondary, tertiary and other claims about THAT class
of gods are disproven?

All particular gods of that class and related
doctrines, theologies, and dogmas are eliminated.

Again, how? Since you haven't accomplished this for ANY class of gods, how
can we know that it logically follows that all particular gods of that class
are eliminated. Are you simply stating that IN THEORY IF YOU COULD disprove
a particular class all those gods would be disproven?



THE MAJOR CLASSES OF GODS.


1. The greatest god imaginable
A. Supergods - Ashvara


The greatest god imaginable must be free of all limits
of logic.

Non sequitur.
You haven't shown why a greatest god imaginable MUST LOGICALLY be free of
logic.

2. Omni-Everything class class gods


Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, creation
of all combine to create multiple overlapping
incompatibilities and contradictions that show
the class of OEC gods cannot exist.

The one god that fits the description was demolished by the Argument from
evil. So there's nothing novel here at all.



3. Transcendent
4. Immanent
5. Maya
6. Idealism


These classes of gods map onto OEC class gods
and are thus shown to be impossible.

1. You haven't shown how they 'map' [to use your neologism] onto OEC gods
[another neologism].
2. Hence, they are not shown to be impossible.

An OEC god is
impossible whether its transcendent or immanent.

You haven't explained why this is logically true.


7. Deism
A. Maps to OEC

Maps How?

B. Maps to Pantheistism

1. No such word.
2. You fail to explain or define or offer any argument for Panentheism, a
major modern theological movement.
So again, your argument fails.



Deism class gods thus fail.

1. You haven't shown why.
2. Hence they do not fail.



8. Pantheism
A. Allegorical
B. Metaphysical


Allegorical is useless. There is no mechanism
for the Universe as a whole to be somehow
intelligent, and science can show all that
the Universe does is in fact a matter of physics.

1. How do YOU know there is no such mechanism and can you prove it?
2. The findings of physics do not disprove the possible existence of a god.
Hence you've failed again.



9. Process theology/metaphysics god


This class of gods has failed.

1. This is the class of gods you've repackaged when it was pointed out that
you had in fact NO argument against a class of 'less than omnipotent gods'
2. You've failed to define this class.
3. You've failed to show how process theology completely exhausts the
possibilities of a 'matephysical god.'
4. Hence, you've not shown how this class is impossible.
As I page through all of your arbitrary pronouncements and evasions and sly
language, I note that all you're really indulging in is argument by
assertion. A well known logical fallacy, the argument from assertion simply
states an unsupported assertion in some form that looks in passing like a
logical argument, but is really nothing more than a disguised opinion.
.


User: "wcb"

Title: Re: God cannot exist - Hard Proof god is not a viable idea 20 Sep 2006 06:02:44 PM
IS THERE A GOD? - No.
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - PART 3
1. MORE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of
the Universe or not? Is 2 + 2 = 4 something god
set as part of the nature of the Universe or is
that outside and beyond god?
Can god change 2 + 2 to 5?
2. IF GOD DID IN FACT MAKE THE RULES, LAWS, AND
LOGIC OF THE UNIVERSE.
A. If god did in fact make the rules and laws and
logic of the Universe, God could also change
them as needed.
B. A god that creates the rules, laws and logic
of the world he creates could simply make a
world where man has free will yet freely
chooses only to do moral good. Since such a
god creates the rules of the Universe, he
could change them in name of omnibenevolence,
free will is perserved and evil is banished.
Evil no longer needs to exist to allow for
free will.
C. If a god could do this and fails to, evil
exists solely and only because of god's
failure to use his omnipotence to change
the rules and laws and logic of the Universe
to give man free will and a nature incapable
of doing evil.
D. If a god can do this and fails to, that god is
not omnibenevolent as claimed, a contradiction
in definitions of god as omnibenevolent and
omnipotent.
E. God in fact since he is essentially the
creator and sustaining cause of all evil
that was, is, and shall be is omni-malevolent.
3. IF GOD DOES NOT MAKE THE LAWS, RULES AND
LOGIC OF THE UNIVERSE - THE SECOND HORN
OF THE DILEMMA.
A. If god does not make the rules, the laws, the
very logic of the Universe, then we have the
problem of what these things are and where
they come from.
B. If these laws and rules and logic limit god,
then god is obviously not omnipotent as
claimed.
C. And thus god is not as claimed, the greatest
thing that can be imagined. Obviously laws
and rules and logic that limit the most
powerful being in the Universe are greater
still because they do in fact limit such
a being.
D. If such laws and rules and logic outside and
beyond god do exist, and are thus greater
than god, god is not the greatest thing
imaginable and all ontological 'proofs' that
are based on that basic claim fail.
E. Such rules and laws and logic must exist
outside of god's control and must have always
been outside his control. If there were ever
in god's control, god cannot have reduced his
power to abandon omnipotence voluntarily.
Omnipotence is an inherent ability. It would
be like abandoning a sense of taste or touch.
This observation forstalls attempts at
apologisms claiming god abandoned any
abilities.
F. And if god could indeed abandon omnipotence,
he must avoid that. After all, he is also
omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolence dictates he
must at all times do the good thing, never an
evil thing. Abandoning omnipotence such that
he could no longer create a world where man
has free will, and a nature incapable of evil
is to allow evil to exist. To abandon
omnipotence is to embrace the proposition
evil is to be allowed to flourish. So any
claims god might have for some greater good
abandoned omnipotence freely are not possible.
G. If god is said to be omnipotent, if he at
anytime gave up any abilities he can no
longer said to be omnipotent, if he actually
gave up any abilities. A contradiction with
the claim god has all powers and abilities.
H. Since god must have had maximum power and
abilities and cannot have at any time
voluntarily relinquished any powers or
abilities, at least in the name of banishing
evil the fact that there are laws and rules
and logic of a universe outside and beyond
god, they are truly beyond and outside god,
and always were.
I. Since such laws and rules and laws are outside
god, and always were so, and are properties of
the Universe, the Universe is likewise outside
and beyond god, with its laws and rules and
logic.
J. Since the Universe and its laws and rules and
logic are outside and beyond god, god is not
as, creator of the Universe, of all. A
contradiction again of the claim god created
all.
K. Since the Universe no longer relies on god for
its purported existence, nor on god for the
existence of its laws and rules and logic,
god is no longer a necessary being. If there
are things that have necessary existence, it
would have to be the Universe as whole, or
possibly its laws, its rules or its logic,
or a subset of these rules or laws or the
underlying causes of these things, if any.
None were created by god or can be modified
by god.
L. If these laws and rules and logic could be
modified by god, then the rules and laws
and logic of the Universe would have been
modified to end existence of evil, and must
have modified this if god is actually
omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
M. God then is not omnipotent, or not
omnibenevolent, or is neither, or
does not exist.
4. POSSIBLE DODGES - LOGIC IS PART OF GOD
A. One possible dodge is to say logic is part
of god. An attribute.
B. God is said to be a necessary being, he
must exist, and is necessary for all other
things to exist, all other things rely on god
to create and sustain them, they are
contingent.
C. A house is contingent, it is made of lumber
and bricks and roofing tiles et al. Those
things must exist for the house to exist and
precede the house.
D. God is said to have attributes, intelligence,
personality, all powers and abilities,
foreknowledge, omnipotence, and on and on.
E. But then god cannot be necessary, we must
account for these attributes god is
contingent on.
F. Thus we have an ad hocism in theology,
simplicity. God is said to be simple, that
all these alledged attributes are single, part
of a large, whole attribute. This ad hoc
dodge is created to pretend god is not
contingent as a house is contingent on
its materials. And theology claims it
does not have to account for these attributes
much as we ask for an account of where the
House's bricks and lumber come from.
G. God is said to be simple, not made of parts,
physically or metaphysically, he is a whole,
indivisible.
H. If somehow god is said to be the source of
logic, theology must account how that
somehow becomes the laws and rules and logic
of a Universe god is transcendent to.
I. Since god is also intelligent, and all
powerful, and since all these attributes are a
single simple attribute, then the Universe
should not only have logic, it should also be
intelligent and all powerful, merciful, just
et al.
J. Thus ad hoc claims god is somehow logic
itself and the ad hoc claim god is simple, not
made of parts, metaphysically or physically
create an impossible and contradictory and
incoherent set of claims.
5. MORE PROBLEMS WITH SIMPLICITY
A. What is logic, is it one thing or many?
Is 2 + 2 = 4 a different logic than E=MC**2?
Is Physics something god creates? What
about morality, it that a sort of logic?
B. If physics is something god does, why do
we have massive earthquakes that kill many,
or is that somehow, part of god's nature
and out of his control? If so, god is then
not omnipotent, this doctrine of simplicity
contradicts the claim god is all powerful.
C. How does theology plan to investigate these
issues or is simplicity simply an ad hocism
that theology has no intention of following
up on? Its claims create a tremendous
amount of issues.
Another essay will be written dealing in greater
detail with the issue of simplicity and its
implications.
6. THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF
THE ABOVE EXAMINATION OF GOD
A. Thus the idea god is omnipotent,
omnibenevolent, and creator of all, clash again
and mutually self-destruct over the issue of
evil's existence.
This raises serious questions on the nature
of the Universe that cannot be as Grand
Theology claims it is. The class of
omni-everything, creator gods cannot exist as
asserted.
A. We have shown god cannot have created the
Universe.
B. We have shown god does not create the laws,
rules and laws of that Universe.
C. That god is thus not omnipotent as these laws
limit him.
D. That god is not the greatest imaginable thing.
E. That ontological proofs of god's existence
based on claims god is the greatest thing
imaginable are failed arguments.
F. That god cannot be a necessary being, as
claimed.
G. That any possible claims god might for some
reason abandon or limit any abilities cannot
be true in any attempt to avoid this line of
inquiry. Nor can that approach derail logical
examination of consequences of Grand
Theology's overarching claims to god's
attributes or nature.
The fact that god is allegedly omnibenevolent and
evil exists, demonstrates god cannot make the
rules of the world. 2 + 2 = 4 because that is
the nature of the Universe, not something god
created. Because if god did create the rules and
laws and logic of the Universe, and was omnibenevolent,
we should have no signs of evil, especially moral
evil of man, Satan, demons and devils.
But if one admits to that, Many other important
claims collapse, many other arguments about god
and his attributes and nature no longer are
viable. Some of these claims, god's creation
of the Universe are among the oldest and most
basic of theology.
Ontological proofs started with Anselm in the
10th century, all of these now must be abandoned.
The necessary being argument, long a rhetorical
argument is now finally dead.
Free will defenses against the problem of evil
opened up a line of attack here that is powerful
and very final.
**************************************************
--

You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
User: "Gandalf Grey"

Title: Re: God cannot exist - Debunked Barwell Spam 20 Sep 2006 06:24:51 PM
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h3i5rpllutdfc@corp.supernews.com...


IS THERE A GOD? - No.
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - PART 3

BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DEBUNKED ARGUMENT
DEAR READER:
THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED FOR YOUR READING SAFETY


1. MORE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD

Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of
the Universe or not?

Why? What does that have to do with the necessary existence of God?

THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF THE
ABOVE EXAMINATION OF GOD

Thus the idea god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent,
and creator of all, clash again and mutually
self-destruct over the issue of evil's existance.

Of course they don't.
1.None of these attributes are necessary to the existence of God.
2.Only Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence clash over the issue of evil's
existence.
3.Nowhere have you shown anything else.

This raises serious questions on the nature of the
Universe that cannot be as Grand Theology claims
it is.

That may be but you haven't shown it to be true.

The class of omni-everything, creator
gods cannot exist as asserted.

Unproven as I've already demonstrated in dozens of posts.


A. We have shown god cannot have created the
Universe.

No you haven't. And once again, you're pulling the same dishonest trick
you've pulled from the first. You make claims which you don't prove, then
you go on to compound your error by pretending your original claim has
proved more than you initially said it would.
1. You make fallacious claims.
2. You make no attempt to prove them.
3. When criticized you insist that you have proved them.
4. You go on to insist that they prove more than you claimed they would
prove.
5. When the criticism gets too strong, you backpedal your claims and revise
your comments to pretend that they now are more narrow.
6. You then trot out the original debunked arguments.
7. And you then go on to insist that these arguments, once again, prove more
than you said they would.
As we have seen, in this second attempt of yours after having your initial
argument debunked by myself and others, you said your 'new argument does not
aim at all gods but only particular gods. Yet here in your summary, you
start right out MAKING A UNIVERSAL CLAIM concerning the existence of god.
So once again, you've lied, and your subsequent arguments are essentially
the same arguments that have already been debunked.
You're a scam artist, Barwell. You have no argument. You never had an
argument, just a bunch of assertions that you pasted off the web. I doubt
that you have any intention of writing a book; that too was all part of the
scam. All you've ever had is a cloud of rhetoric that you pretend is
scientific and logical.
At this point, there's one conclusion about you that covers all the facts.
I believe you're a stalking horse placed here intentionally by the right to
play the part of a cardboard cutout scientist as the right conceives of
them.
Certainly your argument has done more damage to humanism, rationality and
science than many an argument coming from the religious right. Your
portrayal of an intellectual is a comedy pastiche of all the bigotry and
stupidity that is the very antithesis of real science.
But even as a stalking-horse for the right wing, you've done a poor job.
You're too 1-dimensional and take offense too easily to be believable as a
real scientist, your logic is simply too sophomoric to believe that you have
any knowledge of logic beyond what you've been coached on, and your tendency
to simply repost your fallacies is far more like the technique of the right
wing than the predictable response of any real scholar.
.


User: "Patricia Heil"

Title: Re: God cannot exist - Hard Proof 20 Sep 2006 06:42:24 PM
Assertions are not proof
.
User: "Gandalf Grey"

Title: Re: God cannot exist - Hard Proof 20 Sep 2006 06:58:24 PM
"Patricia Heil" <pajheil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:AlkQg.14259$bM.12093@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Assertions are not proof

Precisley. You just grasped the entirety of Barwell's routine.



.


User: "Gandalf Grey"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? More Barwell SPAM Debunked 19 Sep 2006 05:23:46 PM
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h0nd0k19hk1ba@corp.supernews.com...

*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD

God is defined as creator of all in most religions.

But not in all.

And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.

Not by all religions.

A. God is said by theologians to have created the Universe
and all in that Universe.

Not by all theologians.

B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all that is in
the Universe and he knows the future state of the Universe
and the state of all its contents as he contemplates creating
the Universe.

This is not a characteristic of all theologies.

C. Augustine claimed that god is sovereign over time and thus
must be outside and transcedent over time.

Augustine is dead and long debunked. What is novel about this?

D. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in it
because he is omniscient, all knowing.

Except that god is not necessarily omniscient.

E. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, in
the distant future, God will know whether John Smith is
to be good or evil.

Only if god is omniscient and THEN only if that omniscience extends to
impossible knowledge of a future that hasn't happened yet. Nearly all
philosophers and theologians understand that this is a logical
impossibility.
The rest of your argument fails due to this.
.
User: "wcb"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? 19 Sep 2006 11:03:02 PM
IS THERE A GOD? NO. STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER
- PART 1.

W.C. Barwell 9-16-06
1. In this essay, proof "God" does not exist
is aimed at an entire class of gods, not
particular gods. This is the class of gods that
are omni-everything and creator of all gods.
Hereafter OEC, that is, omni-everything, creator
gods or OEC class of gods).
If an class of gods can be disproved, all particular
gods that belong to that class are collectively
disproven too. This is an efficient, and sensible
approach to disproving god, by which the
god of major religious and theological traditions.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Brahamanistic
Hinduism and other claimed gods of this class
are meant. But it would also disprove any
other particular gods, known or unknown who
have the characteristics placing them in this
class of gods.
This of course does not disprove all possible
gods, nor is Part 1 alone meant to do that, it
is meant only to deal with the OEC gods that are
the main problem for this world, the gods of
4 1/2 billion believers. The OEC gods that are the
source of fundamentalism, bigotry, fanaticism,
anti-intellectualism and various kinds of
backwardness.
There are a number of other classes of gods but
comparatively speaking far fewer people believe
in these other classes of gods, these believers
are not very numerous or very important.
Animist gods, such as found in Voodoo, nature
gods and the like. It is possible to sort other
kinds of gods into a number of classes of gods
and likewise disprove each class. That shall be
considered in later essays.
Here I am primarily looking at the class of
Omni-everything creator gods. This should not be
taken to mean other classes of gods cannot also
be likewise disproven.
Or that such secondary classes are totally
unimportant. But basically the Omni-everything
class of gods is so far above any other god that
once it is debunked, its hard to step down to
distinctly second rate gods. Its like stepping
down from a Cadillac to a bicycle. If we can
thus disprove that class, we have done most
of strong Atheism's work.
No other class of gods, a lessor kind of god,
can plug the hole left by the debunked OEC gods,
the omni-everything creator gods of classical
major religions and theological systems, either.
These systems have all based themselves on a set
of claims about god that lessor classes of god
cannot fulfill. No lesser class of gods can save
the religions based on this class of gods if the
OEC class of gods proves vulnerable.

2. A BASIC DEFINITION THE CLASS OF
OMNI-EVERYTHING AND CREATOR-OF-ALL GODS.
A. We will start with 8 assertions drawn from
the major religions Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism,
and Islam. Other religions may fit here too.

3. NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD
A. There is no evidence whatsoever for god. One may
search the best textbooks of the best divinity
schools and seminaries and philosophy departments
of the best universities in vain for evidence.
2500 years of philosophy and theology have produced
no good hard, undeniable evidence at all.
4. ALL WE HAVE TO WORK WITH IS ASSERTIONS
A. All we have to work from then, is claims, or
assertions made about god. I have chosen the
following 8 assertions as they are all part of
all great and large religions and theological
traditions of the world. Most of 4 1/2 billion
believers will agree with most of these, and these
are all dogmatic to most main stream religions.
B. If we can show these create contradictions, we
can show that the class omni-everything creator
gods, the Grand God, cannot exist. All we have to
work with are assertions and logic, but this is
all we need. I need not use anything more to
achieve my goal.
C. All these claims are derived from claimed
revelations, taken from the Bible, Quran, Vedas
and other revealed books.
5. THE 8 MAJOR ASSERTIONS I WILL WORK WITH
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and
consciousness.
B. God is intelligent
C. God has free will.
D. God is the creator of all.
E. God is omnipotent.
F. God is omnibenevolent.
G. God is omniscient.
H. 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. I have chosen the
specifically because they are in fact assertions
made about god traditionally by these religions
and are all that is needed to show this class of
OEC class of gods cannot exist.
A.- C.show god is a personal god, not a mere
force of nature or another name for for nature.
This is a personal god, with will, intelligence,
purpose.
B. Omniscience are actually logically derivable from
the claimed attribute of omnipotence and so aren't
not truly independent attributes, and may be considered
a special aspect of omnipotence.
6. WE CAN THUS ABSTRACT A GENERAL CLASS OF
OMNI-EVERYTHING GOD FROM THESE 8 GENERAL
ASSERTIONS.
A. We can abstract a class of gods,
omni-everything, creator gods from these 8
characteristics. We could probably drop G. and
collapse B. into A.
We can initially ignore secondary claims though such
claims as god's mercy, justice and love. These are
also affected and could be used to strengthen the
argument. Many of these are destroyed by considering
assertions A. - G and the resulting contradictions
these cause. But the idea is to use minimal number of
basic claims found in all major religious and
theological traditions. If these do the job of
disproving this class of gods, that is all we
need. Anything else is a luxury.
B. There are other attributes of god, that god is
eternal, infinite, that god is simple and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary. Some
claims can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above or are destroyed by
discussion of the 8 attributes discussed above.
C. It does not mean we cannot later consider
such secondary claims as many are also rather
useful at showing this class of gods is
impossible. Some are rather amusing in this
regard. But they are secondary and not critical
for the main argument here. But some are peculiar
to one religion, for example Christian theologians
alone have the doctrine of god's simplicity.
7. CLASSES OF GODS
A. It is important to note here in 2., that this
is a definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods. This is key to this
disproof which is designed to be general in nature.
B. If we disprove the entire class of gods by
examining the logical implications of a few
claims, all secondary claims are also destroyed.
We need not examine claims of god's simplicity or
whether god is immanent or transcendent or other
similar claims. We need not break down
omnibenevolence into secondary associated claims
such as such as mercy, justice, or implied claims,
though we might mention their destruction
in passing when appropriate, and damage done to
such concepts of damnation, or punishment or sin.
C. If we disprove a class of gods, those particular
gods belonging to that class are also disproven.
God of the bible, Allah, Hindu Ishvara.
If the class of omni-everything creator gods is
disproven these gods are disproven if we succeed.
All known gods and possible new or obscure gods
are all dealt with, we need not worry about a god
we have never heard of it it is of this class.
D. Tertiary claims are also likewise disproven.
Mohammad is not a prophet of god and Jesus was not
son of god. Moses did not meet god on the
mountain, God did not promise all of Canaan to
Abraham. God did not part the Red Sea. God does
not speak to prophets. Creationism based on Genesis
claims People's of the Book are to be subdued, or
that Allah sent revelations to Mohammad via angel
Gabriel are all irrelevant now.
E. Thus taking a general approach of disproving
classes of gods is efficient and far more effective
than trying to disprove particular gods one by one.
8. THE PROBLEMS OF AN OMNI-EVERYTHING, CREATOR GOD
The most basic problems are the problems of evil, and
free will. These start the collapse of the OEC class
of gods.
9. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
It is found in Christian writer Lactantius's
"Treatise on the Anger of God".
A basic formulation is:
A. God is defined as powerful
B. God is defined as as good.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not powerful as claimed.
E. Or God is not good as claimed.
F. Or god is neither powerful or
good.
G. Or god is not existent.
It should be noted the original version as found
in Lactantius's "Treatise of the Anger of God" does
not use the words omnipotent or omnibenevolent,
these are much later restatements of the original
problem of evil which works just as well without
these terms. Later versions come basically from
David Hume's "Dialogues on Natural Religion"
posthumously published in 1779.
10. THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
A. The free will defense of the problem of evil
goes back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It
is still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by many other
theologians, old and modern.
B. God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to
do evil. Ability to do evil, having a free will,
is more important for god than lacking free will.
11. THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DISPROVEN. FIRST WAY
God has free will.
God is has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god-like
free will and a god-like good nature.
D. Inability then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
good.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
H. Thus since all evil exists because of god's choices
where evil may be eliminated it if god choses to act
means god is evil, a contradiction in claims about god.
a god taht is claimed to be all good cannot exist.

So god can have free will and a good nature and
still be said to have free will despite never
doing evil. Man can thus also have this and
inability to do evil is not a sign of lack of free
will. We both would have potential to do evil, but
simply don't. Here, the free will defense fails,
the problem of evil remains.
13 OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
FREE WILL DISPROVEN, SECOND WAY.
God is defined as creator of all in these
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent. A contradiction of assertions
about the nature of god.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
14. OMNI-EVERYTHING GODS HAVE THUS SELF
DESTRUCTED.
A.The OEC class of gods is thus self destructive,
it is incoherent and contradictory as a theory
and such a god is impossible.
B. Further more such a situation makes god a
problematic idea. If there is no free will and if
thus god makes all decisions to the smallest
physical extent possible, at all times, then not
only is this god not good, but evil, a contradiction,
and it destroys all of this purported god's secondary
attributes. In such a universe, mercy, justice, god's
alleged love of mankind are all incomprehensible
nonsense. It makes no sense to create a man to do
evil acts and condemn him to eternal torment forever for
something god decided, not that man.
C. Any system of theology that claims god created
all and that god is omniscient, knowing the
future, faces this problem and dissolves into
total incoherent nonsense, a reductio ad absurdum
that makes a mockery of all religions based on a
god that is allegedly creator of all and
omniscient, knowing the future. As we will see,
omnipotence, time and creation will combine
(in future parts) to create a far more powerful
disproof of this class of gods.
15. THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
6. This destroys all other claimed secondary and
good attributes of god, mercy, justice, love.
16. GOD AND TIME.
A. Both Augustine and Boethius described god as
being transcendent to time, outside and beyond it.
Thus there is no past, present, or future to god,
all is now. Since all is now, god must have
create all things at once at once. Including
again, our every act, thought and inclination.
God is said to be out of time because otherwise he
must affected by time, which would mean he is not
as defined, all powerful or omnipotent. But this
means he is omniscient and again, we have no free
will.
B. As seen, explicit claims of omniscience, and
creatorship of god doom free will and more. Any
claim god is outside of time forces us to the
claim god is effectively omniscient.
C. But if we drop claims god is out of time and
now is affected by time, god cannot be as claimed,
omnipotent. And since omniscience, foreknowledge
of the future is important to the concept of
prophecy, that secondary assertion fails too.
Prophecy is a key concept of traditional religions
and theologies of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
17. MANY SECONDARY AND LESSOR ATTRIBUTES ARE
DOOMED BY THE CONCEPT OF OMNIPOTENCE AND
CREATORSHIP OF GOD
A. If evil exists, god is evil. We have no free
will which means secondary attributes of God such
as mercy, love, justice are pretty meaningless
in face of a god that creates many of us morally
evil. Heaven, hell, damnation, sin, punishment,
salvation, nothing much makes any sense with such an
omniscient god. Augustine's free will defense of
God in face of Epicurus's problem of evil is
utterly undone by his claim god is sovereign over
time because he is all powerful, or omnipotent.
B. Besides these attributes being destroyed, this
destroys all religions that dogmatically claim
god is omniscient, creator of all and has these
secondary tributes.
C. This all calls all claims of revelation
in regard to revealed books into question.
18. TIME CONTRADICTS GOD'S CREATION OF ALL.
A. If we say god is omnipotent, all powerful, he
is outside of time then free will is impossible
and all else is simply an Universe utterly alien,
incoherent and mad and most certainly not anything
the great theological traditions tell us it is.
B. To avoid this, if we say god is not outside
of time, this then implies time is outside and
beyond god and he cannot have created it. Thus
contradicting claims of being the creator of all.
Especially ex nihilo as many religions claim.
C. Thus the another contradiction pops up
dooming a major claim, god created all. Theology
cannot keep the claim god is outside of time or
keep the claim god is subject to time, as then
they lose omnipotence and creatorship of the
entire universe as dogmatic claims.
19. Here, the OEC class of gods has collapsed.
As has theology and revealed religion itself as a
methodology. As pointed out, this destroys the
claims and viability of an entire class of
possible gods, all secondary and tertiary
claims for such a god of this class also
fail, as do dogmas or secondary or tertiary
claims based on real existance of this class
of gods in any way.
20. If this entire class of omni-everything
creator gods cannot exist as defined, specific
gods cannot, nor can claims such as this or that
Grand God sent this or that revelation to man or
some prophet or did this or that. This there are
no grounds to use these religions to deny rights
to say, homosexuals, or to claim Genesis myths are
true since they are god's word and thus evolution
must not be taught in schools.
21. This OEC class of gods is thus disproven and is
utter irrelevant to anything real and existant.
And this is not the last of the problems of the
class of Omni-everything gods that are creators
of all.
And there are more problems that will be
considered in other parts to come. Such as the
nature of logic, and the rules and laws of the
Universe.
(End of Part 1)
*************************************************
--

You ar