Is Atheism viable?


 Religions > Atheism > Is Atheism viable?

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 3 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: "Sphere"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible 21 Sep 2006 09:24:22 PM
kidigus wrote:
....

I'm sorry that you don't like me. You should bare in mind that your
god loves me. I read that somewhere.

Isn't it sad that His [blank] God loves you, but then
tells him to try to destroy whatever it is you happen
to believe and replace that notion with Him?
Would a loving God want to kill other ideas?


Peace be with you.

Jack

.

User: "Alan Ferris"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible 22 Sep 2006 10:40:16 AM
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:05:37 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


You prefer to believe in our existence arising out of a 1 in 1,000,00,000 to
the millionth power.

Care to back up the evidence for that?
Let alone the fact that you have shown you know squat about odds, the
fact you have a 1 at the front is all that is needed.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
User: "BAM"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible 22 Sep 2006 12:05:52 PM
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:5h18h2heq6mkeualbet8de6ig2209dkrbm@4ax.com...

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:05:37 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


You prefer to believe in our existence arising out of a 1 in 1,000,00,000
to
the millionth power.


Care to back up the evidence for that?

Let alone the fact that you have shown you know squat about odds, the
fact you have a 1 at the front is all that is needed.

Did I exagerrate? If so, then what do you claim the odds are of life arising
by chance?
BAM
.
User: "Steve O"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible 22 Sep 2006 02:30:36 PM
"BAM" <mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:GJUQg.8274$vi3.595@bignews3.bellsouth.net...


"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:5h18h2heq6mkeualbet8de6ig2209dkrbm@4ax.com...

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:05:37 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


You prefer to believe in our existence arising out of a 1 in 1,000,00,000
to
the millionth power.


Care to back up the evidence for that?

Let alone the fact that you have shown you know squat about odds, the
fact you have a 1 at the front is all that is needed.


Did I exagerrate? If so, then what do you claim the odds are of life
arising by chance?

BAM

On this planet?
It's a dead certainty.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke
and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of
Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King
impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold
hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the
first place." - Richard Dawkins



.
User: "BAM"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible 22 Sep 2006 04:58:20 PM
"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
news:4nirv0Falhb4U1@individual.net...


"BAM" <mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:GJUQg.8274$vi3.595@bignews3.bellsouth.net...


"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:5h18h2heq6mkeualbet8de6ig2209dkrbm@4ax.com...

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:05:37 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


You prefer to believe in our existence arising out of a 1 in
1,000,00,000 to
the millionth power.


Care to back up the evidence for that?

Let alone the fact that you have shown you know squat about odds, the
fact you have a 1 at the front is all that is needed.


Did I exagerrate? If so, then what do you claim the odds are of life
arising by chance?

BAM


On this planet?
It's a dead certainty.

No. Not on this planet. I'm not giving you an inch. In this universe.
BAM
.
User: "wcb"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible 22 Sep 2006 09:00:23 PM
BAM wrote:


No. Not on this planet. I'm not giving you an inch. In this universe.

BAM


If cosmologist Alan Guth is right, this is indeed just on of an infinite
number of Universes. Intelligent life thus is certain and is common.
--

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: "Alan Ferris"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible 22 Sep 2006 01:59:26 PM
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:05:52 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:5h18h2heq6mkeualbet8de6ig2209dkrbm@4ax.com...

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:05:37 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


You prefer to believe in our existence arising out of a 1 in 1,000,00,000
to
the millionth power.


Care to back up the evidence for that?

Let alone the fact that you have shown you know squat about odds, the
fact you have a 1 at the front is all that is needed.


Did I exagerrate? If so, then what do you claim the odds are of life arising
by chance?

I have made no claim, I am asking you to back up yours with some fact.
If you can't. at least be honest and admit it.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
User: "BAM"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible 22 Sep 2006 04:57:20 PM
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:8oc8h2trrgf08nju63mq2h398pj18n9b44@4ax.com...

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:05:52 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:5h18h2heq6mkeualbet8de6ig2209dkrbm@4ax.com...

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:05:37 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


You prefer to believe in our existence arising out of a 1 in
1,000,00,000
to
the millionth power.


Care to back up the evidence for that?

Let alone the fact that you have shown you know squat about odds, the
fact you have a 1 at the front is all that is needed.


Did I exagerrate? If so, then what do you claim the odds are of life
arising
by chance?


I have made no claim, I am asking you to back up yours with some fact.
If you can't. at least be honest and admit it.

You're denying it - prove I'm wrong.
BAM
.
User: "wcb"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible 22 Sep 2006 08:33:07 PM
BAM wrote:


You're denying it - prove I'm wrong.

If cosmologists like alan Guth and alexei linde are right, this
is just one of an infinite island univers among infinite island
universes in an infinite universe, as they call it, "The Bubble Universe".
If so, then the odds intelligent life exists is way over one,
there must be infinite universes with intelligent life.
So its no big deal, its a sure bet.
We know infinite numbers of virtual particles come and go in
a quantum foam universe. w
e need no gods for such things and
--

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: "Alan Ferris"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible 23 Sep 2006 04:35:11 AM
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:57:20 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:8oc8h2trrgf08nju63mq2h398pj18n9b44@4ax.com...

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:05:52 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:5h18h2heq6mkeualbet8de6ig2209dkrbm@4ax.com...

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:05:37 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


You prefer to believe in our existence arising out of a 1 in
1,000,00,000
to
the millionth power.


Care to back up the evidence for that?

Let alone the fact that you have shown you know squat about odds, the
fact you have a 1 at the front is all that is needed.


Did I exagerrate? If so, then what do you claim the odds are of life
arising
by chance?


I have made no claim, I am asking you to back up yours with some fact.
If you can't. at least be honest and admit it.


You're denying it - prove I'm wrong.

I have not denied it, I have asked a question. I know you are a fool,
but I did not realise you were to thick to follow simple English.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
User: "BAM"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible 23 Sep 2006 02:15:42 PM
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:s50ah2hlpjdpbohq3dq044cipqs3e6q4ob@4ax.com...

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:57:20 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:8oc8h2trrgf08nju63mq2h398pj18n9b44@4ax.com...

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:05:52 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:5h18h2heq6mkeualbet8de6ig2209dkrbm@4ax.com...

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:05:37 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


You prefer to believe in our existence arising out of a 1 in
1,000,00,000
to
the millionth power.


Care to back up the evidence for that?

Let alone the fact that you have shown you know squat about odds, the
fact you have a 1 at the front is all that is needed.


Did I exagerrate? If so, then what do you claim the odds are of life
arising
by chance?


I have made no claim, I am asking you to back up yours with some fact.
If you can't. at least be honest and admit it.


You're denying it - prove I'm wrong.


I have not denied it, I have asked a question. I know you are a fool,
but I did not realise you were to thick to follow simple English.

So you're going to try to win the argument by nickel-dimeing me?
BAM
.
User: "Alan Ferris"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible 24 Sep 2006 04:25:22 AM
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:15:42 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:s50ah2hlpjdpbohq3dq044cipqs3e6q4ob@4ax.com...

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:57:20 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:8oc8h2trrgf08nju63mq2h398pj18n9b44@4ax.com...

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:05:52 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:5h18h2heq6mkeualbet8de6ig2209dkrbm@4ax.com...

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:05:37 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


You prefer to believe in our existence arising out of a 1 in
1,000,00,000
to
the millionth power.


Care to back up the evidence for that?

Let alone the fact that you have shown you know squat about odds, the
fact you have a 1 at the front is all that is needed.


Did I exagerrate? If so, then what do you claim the odds are of life
arising
by chance?


I have made no claim, I am asking you to back up yours with some fact.
If you can't. at least be honest and admit it.


You're denying it - prove I'm wrong.


I have not denied it, I have asked a question. I know you are a fool,
but I did not realise you were to thick to follow simple English.


So you're going to try to win the argument by nickel-dimeing me?

No I would not need that much to make you loose. Your problem is that
you loose for free by simply responding.
Now can you answer the question or not?
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.




User: "Virgil"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible 22 Sep 2006 03:16:51 PM
In article <8oc8h2trrgf08nju63mq2h398pj18n9b44@4ax.com>,
Alan Ferris <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:05:52 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


Did I exagerrate? If so, then what do you claim the odds are of life arising
by chance?


I have made no claim, I am asking you to back up yours with some fact.
If you can't. at least be honest and admit it.

Since life DID develop, and we have no incontrovertable evidence that it
did NOT occur by chance, that probability could be very close to 100%.
.



User: ""

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible 22 Sep 2006 12:50:36 PM
On 22-Sep-2006, Alan Ferris <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:05:37 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


You prefer to believe in our existence arising out of a 1 in 1,000,00,000
to
the millionth power.


Care to back up the evidence for that?

Let alone the fact that you have shown you know squat about odds, the
fact you have a 1 at the front is all that is needed.

Okay - what do you put the odds at?
And this is a serious queastion, I've always
been curious as to the mathematics of it.
Susan
.
User: "Malcolm"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible 23 Sep 2006 02:31:08 AM
<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message


On 22-Sep-2006, Alan Ferris <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:05:37 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


You prefer to believe in our existence arising out of a 1 in
1,000,00,000
to
the millionth power.


Care to back up the evidence for that?

Let alone the fact that you have shown you know squat about odds, the
fact you have a 1 at the front is all that is needed.


Okay - what do you put the odds at?
And this is a serious queastion, I've always
been curious as to the mathematics of it.

One way is to say that DNA has four bases. Now lets imagine what would be
the "minimal" organism. Something that can reproduce itself, using
instructions from the smallest amount of DNA. To make the calculations
simpler we will say that there is only one such minimal organism.
So if DNA bases combine by change, the equation is 4 to the power N. So if
our minimal organism is four bases long, we have a 1 in 256 chance, if it is
eight we have 1 in 64 thousand, if sizteen one in 4 billion, and so on. For
a very short organism we soon get an astronomical number.
However that argument only holds if we accept that there is only a serial
search. Let's say we have a man whose Christian name is "Migakl" and whose
surname you don't know. Finding him in the New York telephone directory will
be a terrible job. Almost certainly there are only two of three people with
that name, but you have to trawl through millions of entries to find him.
Now someone tells you "wasn't his surname Muggins?". Now it is easy. Get the
"M" volume, with maybe a hundred thousand names. Open it somewhere in the
middle, that's "Moggles" try a bit further down, "Myles", a bit up "Muffles"
very close. Within ten or twenty seaches you can locate "Migakl Muggins".
So how would evolution carry out a non-serial search? As far as the origin
of life goes, we don't know the full answer. Once evoltion has got going,
however, the answer is very well understood. Tiny improvements guide genes
to build viable organisms, ignoring the huge number of genetic sequences
that encode gibberish.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.

User: "Alan Ferris"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible 22 Sep 2006 02:01:34 PM
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:50:36 GMT,
wrote:


On 22-Sep-2006, Alan Ferris <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:05:37 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


You prefer to believe in our existence arising out of a 1 in 1,000,00,000
to
the millionth power.


Care to back up the evidence for that?

Let alone the fact that you have shown you know squat about odds, the
fact you have a 1 at the front is all that is needed.


Okay - what do you put the odds at?
And this is a serious queastion, I've always
been curious as to the mathematics of it.

Dunno, it is irrelevant, the fact it has happened does not change the
odds, nor does it matter what they were.
Each week a person has a 1 in 14 million chance of winning the UK
lottery. Now according to the way many use odds when referring to
life, then there should not be many winners, but there is one every
week. If you understand how odds work you understand why.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
User: "BAM"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible 22 Sep 2006 04:59:06 PM
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:bpc8h2tu83co6fgch4pt54qdf7muiv37el@4ax.com...

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:50:36 GMT,

wrote:


On 22-Sep-2006, Alan Ferris <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:05:37 -0400, "BAM"
<mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:


You prefer to believe in our existence arising out of a 1 in
1,000,00,000
to
the millionth power.


Care to back up the evidence for that?

Let alone the fact that you have shown you know squat about odds, the
fact you have a 1 at the front is all that is needed.


Okay - what do you put the odds at?
And this is a serious queastion, I've always
been curious as to the mathematics of it.


Dunno, it is irrelevant, the fact it has happened does not change the
odds, nor does it matter what they were.

That's about the dumbest statement I've read in a long time.
BAM
.




User: "wcb"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible 21 Sep 2006 08:49:26 PM
IS THERE A GOD? NO.
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER PART 2
THE CLASS OF OMNI-EVERTHING CREATOR GODS
DISPROVEN.
1. OMNIPOTENCE AND OMNISCIENCE
A. Omnipotence is a special sort of attribute, of
all god's alledged attributes the most
important, because from that attribute you
can derive others attributes, including
omniscience. If one says for purposes of
argument god is omnipotent, one is also
implying god is also omniscient.
B. If god is omnipotent, god must also
specifically have omniscience because if
he does not have omniscience, one
cannot claim omnipotence as an attribute.
C. Thus if god is omnipotent, and created all,
free will is impossible because creation
and omniscience rule out free will as was
shown in part 1. In this world god supposedly
created, evil exists. So god must not be
omnibenevolent as claimed as all evil is
created by god if man cannot have free will.
Omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence
cannot co-exist as dogmatic claims. A class
of gods that is said to have these is
impossible
D. Omnipotence and omnibenevolence are thus
mutually exclusive in a world that does in
fact have evil in it. Because omniscience
must exist as part of omnipotence and
omniscience and creatorhood cannot coexist
with free will, omnipotence is also not
compatible with creatorhood and
omnibenevolence. One cannot finesse this
all by ignoring omniscience or abandoning
omniscience if one tries to retain
attribute of omnipotence.
E. One can only dispose of omniscience by also
explicitly abandoning omnipotence. If god is
defined as being omnibenevolent then a god
that is also allegedly also creator of all
must be evil a direct contradiction. Since god
is defined as omniscient and omnibenevolent and
omnipotent, by major religions, a god that is
supposedly all three is obviously impossible.
Since omnipotence implies omniscience,
which cannot exist with omnibenevolence,
an omnipotent god is impossible.
F. Omnipotence drives us relentlessly to the
claims god nmust be omniscient and thus to
the conclusion god cannot be anything but the
source of all evil and thus is evil. Thus
generating internal contradictions to claimed
attributes of the class of omni-everything
gods.
G. Omnipotence and omnibenevolence then, cannot
coexist together. A class of gods claiming
to be both is impossible.
2. CREATORHOOD OF GOD
F. One may be tempted then to abandon the idea god
created all. But that creates some very strong
logical problems also.
G. If god is omnipotent, he can create all. Or
modify any other creation he does not himself
create. No other being or process may create
something god could not modify, because of the
power of his omnipotence.
H. So if for purposes of argument, we claim the
Universe was not created by god, he could,
being omnipotent, change that creation for
his own purposes, that of creating good due
to his attribute of omnibenevolence.
We are back to the problem of evil again, he
could change creation such that no evil John
Smiths can exist.
I. If not he then is sole and only cause for
existence of all evil.
If god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent he
still must modify any creations he did not
himself create to destroy evil, if he can
do so. So claiming god did not create all
does not save the concept of an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent god. It cannot avoid the
problem of evil.
J. Omniscience means we cannot dodge the problem
of evil by stating god did not create the
Universe even if one wished to, nor by limiting
his creatorhood, for example saying god did not
create the original material of the Universe,
but used it as a building material.
J. Thus to get rid of the creator problem, we must
explicitly abandon it all and totally. Only by
doing so could one get around the problem of
creatorhood and omniscience. But if we say god
cannot either create the Universe or modify it
as he finds it, we drop omniscience also,
explicitly. God then turns out not to be
creator of all nor omnipotent as a priori
defined, a contradiction disproving that
a priori defined omni-everything creator god.
K. If evil exists because god could change the
Universe he did not create, and he fails to do
so, then all evil exists solely because
of knowing and personal choices god makes.
L. God being omnipotent cannot be controlled by
any other process or other entities. He may
modify any works or creations made by them.
M. If god cannot change creations of others, or
the pre-existing materials of the Universe,
omnipotence in not an attribute of god as
claimed a priori.
M. Omnipotence and creatorhood thus are entangled
in a manner that makes it hard to abandon the
doctrine god created all and if one does, one
must likewise abandon claims of omnipotence.
3. PRE-EXISTING MATTER AND A PRE-EXISTING
UNIVERSE.
A. The Greek writer Hesiod in his Theogony, starts
with a Universe that is a chaotic void. This
void, through the mysterious property of
emanation, created the Earth and then from the
Earth, first generation of gods, the Titans, who
in their turn created the Olympians gods who
eventually displace the Titans as rulers of the
world.
B. Likewise, some theologians see Genesis as
representing god creating the world out of a
similar void, a primordial sea god did not
himself create, but used as raw material for
his creations. God's existence is not explained.
C. This idea god did not create all still would
not absolve an omnipotent god from responsibility
for evil. The biblical god if he did not create
the Universe and its component materials used them
as he pleased. If that god is omnipotent, then he
bears all responsibility for the world he did
create out of pre-existing material. Whether
this god is said to be eternal or like Hesiod's
Titans was somehow emanated from the chaos of
the void does not materially change any arguments
involving omnipotence, omniscience or
omnibenevolence, if god is said to have these
attributes.
4. God is allegedly all powerful, omnipotent.
Thus there is nothing more powerful than god. No
entity can create anything god cannot change or
modify. Thus any claims that possibly something
exists that may account for evil that was not
god's creation is impossible. God remains then
responsible for all and the problem of evil
cannot be solved by saying there are things that
outside of god, create evil.
5. Thus a few various possible dodges:
A. Omnipotence and omniscience and omnibenevolence
thoroughly contradict each other.
B. Dropping omnibenevolence or omniscience
destroys claimed omnipotence
C. Dropping the claim god created all does not
solve the problem of evil.
D. Limiting god's creatorship does not solve the
problems of evil.
F. If we say god is omnipotent but did not create
all, he still may modify what he did not
create and thus the problem of evil still
remains.
G. Since he is all powerful, there is no power
that can create anything god cannot modify
to account for evil not from god or outside
his control.
Omnipotence and omnibenevolence are not
compatible and cannot be saved by simple dodges.
************************************************
--

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: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible 22 Sep 2006 12:12:55 AM
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h6gachlb67777@corp.supernews.com...


IS THERE A GOD? NO.
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER PART 2

THE CLASS OF OMNI-EVERTHING CREATOR GODS
DISPROVEN.


1. OMNIPOTENCE AND OMNISCIENCE

A. Omnipotence is a special sort of attribute, of
all god's alledged attributes the most
important, because from that attribute you
can derive others attributes, including
omniscience.

You can but most religions don't.
Most religions do not define omnipotence in the special fashion that the
church adopted due to the special combination of poor biblical scholarship
and hellenistic philosophy.
So above you have a special case applying only to some judeo-christian
traditions and not to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc, etc.
So your argument does not apply to your essay's title at all.

If one says for purposes of
argument god is omnipotent, one is also
implying god is also omniscient.

Not necessarily.


B. If god is omnipotent, god must also
specifically have omniscience because if
he does not have omniscience, one
cannot claim omnipotence as an attribute.

Sure one can. Only one special case of omnipotence cannot be claimed.


C. Thus if god is omnipotent, and created all,
free will is impossible because creation
and omniscience rule out free will as was
shown in part 1.

That was not shown in part 1. Part 1 showed you had a flawed arguement.


D. Omnipotence and omnibenevolence are thus
mutually exclusive in a world that does in
fact have evil in it.

You haven't shown that to be true.

E. One can only dispose of omniscience by also
explicitly abandoning omnipotence.

Again, you haven't demonstrated that.


F. Omnipotence drives us relentlessly to the
claims god nmust be omniscient and thus to
the conclusion god cannot be anything but the
source of all evil and thus is evil.

Omnipotence doesn't "drive us" so much as your flawed definition of it
drives you, hence your conclusions don't follow.

2. CREATORHOOD OF GOD

F. One may be tempted then to abandon the idea god
created all. But that creates some very strong
logical problems also.

None you've demonstrated.


G. If god is omnipotent, he can create all.

non sequitur.


J. Omniscience means we cannot dodge the problem
of evil by stating god did not create the
Universe even if one wished to

strawman argument. Not every theodicy makes such a claim.


J. Thus to get rid of the creator problem, we must
explicitly abandon it all and totally.

non-sequitur. You haven't shown this at all.

3. PRE-EXISTING MATTER AND A PRE-EXISTING
UNIVERSE.

A. The Greek writer Hesiod in his Theogony, starts
with a Universe that is a chaotic void. This
void, through the mysterious property of
emanation, created the Earth and then from the
Earth, first generation of gods, the Titans, who
in their turn created the Olympians gods who
eventually displace the Titans as rulers of the
world.

B. Likewise, some theologians see Genesis as
representing god creating the world out of a
similar void, a primordial sea god did not
himself create, but used as raw material for
his creations. God's existence is not explained.

So?


C. This idea god did not create all still would
not absolve an omnipotent god from responsibility
for evil.

But you've made no sensible argument concerning that in the first place, so
it hardly matters even if it is necessarily true. And you haven't shown
that.


4. God is allegedly all powerful, omnipotent.

Only in a few traditions.


5. Thus a few various possible dodges:

Even your dodges are strawman.

Omnipotence and omnibenevolence are not
compatible and cannot be saved by simple dodges.

Neither can you fatuous arguments.
.
User: "wcb"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible 22 Sep 2006 08:17:32 PM
*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD

There are a number of major religions today, Judaism,
Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam, that together represent
the large majority of religious believers on earth today.
These basic religions represent the religious beliefs
of about 4.3 billion people.
These religions derive their beliefs about god from
what is claimed to be revelation. These relevations are to
be found in religious books, the Bible, Torah, Vedas and
similar books, and the Quran.
The gods of these religions are similar enough we may
regard them for practical purposes as a class of gods, the
class of of omni-everything creator gods.
These gods are claimed dogmatically to have a number of
charateristics. These as a class are creators of all, all
good (omnibenevolent), and all knowing (omniscient). They
are also omnipotent, and also merciful, loving and other
secondary characteristics. Here in this essay when God is
used, by that is meant this class of god and specific gods
of that class of omni-everything gods.

A. God is claimed to to have created the Universe and all
in that Universe.
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.
C. St. Augustine claimed that god is omnipotent, all powerful, and
thus is sovereign over time and that god must therefore be
transcedent over time and outside being affected by time. To
god, past, present and future are all one thing to god who thus
knows all that existed, exists and will exist, as time
cannot affect god. Boethius a century later also stated 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
this universe because he is omniscient, all knowing.
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.
F. If God knows that the Universe created in its present state will
have a John Smith, then god must then contemplate the future state
of Smith and decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith or if
god will create the Universe in another manner that will have
a good Smith who is saved in preference to a Smith who is evil
and damned.
G. Thus, Smith will be good or evil only because of a specific
personal and willful choice made solely by god who must make
a choice faced with the knowledge of the future. God must
implement his choice of what the future Smith will be, good
or evil. If God sees that Smith will commit rape on June 27,
1999, god must decide if he will allow that act to exist in
the future or not.
H. Since this all happens as god contemplates creation of the
Universe, Smith has no say in whether he is to be good or evil
as he does not exist yet and cannot influence god's choice.
I. If Smith is evil, then his evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god. In fact all moral evil done by creations of god
are done only because of personal and willful creations of
god, allowing specific acts of evil acts to be done, by direct
and personal decision of god.
J. Smith's acts to the smallest degree, all of them, from the greatest
to the smallest are personally contemplated and created by god
to the smallest physical degree. All acts to the last quark God's
specific and personal doing. And all men and women's acts
similarly are forseen and either allowed or not allowed by
god, personally and purposefully to the smallest degree.
K. Thus man can have no free will even in principle.
L. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient, creator god,
it is solely and only because god allows evil acts by
his personal choice.
M. If god creates all at once, because God is out of time and
transcedent to time, again, god creates all, each physical
part of us to the last degree through space and time, the last
atom which makes up all of us, and all our acts through all
space and time. God, purposefully designing all he creates,
creates all our acts and thoughts to the smallest possible
degree. We have no say as to what God decides to create
and what God actually does create, and creates all at once.
Since he creates all at once and is all knowing, he knows all
he plans to create before he creates it.
N. In a universe where god is omnipotent and thus transcedent in
regards to time, man can have no free will.
O. If all moral evil exists solely because of personal choices of god,
god then is not as defined, omnibenevolent. Nor merciful,
just, or similar good qualities.
P. 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.
Q. A god that is all knowing, omniscient, and/or omnipotent makes
free will impossible.
R. This is precisely because knowing all and faced with
what will be, god at all times must make a personal choice
to actually create what he is contemplating creating with
full knowledge and acceptance of what his creation will
entail, or he must change his creation to conform to his
wishes for the type of world he wants. Thus free will is
impossible, only god's will can be expressed in a
Universe where god is creator of all and omniscient
or omnipotent. God sand only god really acts.
S. God is defined as all good, omnibenevolent. But if
God creates all and is omniscient or omnipotent, all
evil is God's doing personally and purposefully.
T. This is a contradiction, an all good, omnibenevolent
god cannot be the author of all moral evil.
U. A god that is creator of all, omniscient, and/or omnipotent
and omnibenevolent thus cannot exist.
V. Thus the entire class of omni-everything, creator gods is
impossible, as a class and these sorts of gods, individually.



***********************************************************

--

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: Is Atheism viable? Barwell DEBUNKED 22 Sep 2006 08:44:41 PM
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h92qt3vj0ph91@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: "Malcolm"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? Barwell DEBUNKED 23 Sep 2006 02:38:59 AM
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message

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?

St Augustine lived in the fifth century. People have been discussing his
ideas ever since, and some of them have been found to be wanting. However
the idea that God is outside of time isn't one of them. In fact it is only
in the twentieth century that it was realised that time had a beginning,
and in fact inherently came to be with space. Therfore there was no period
before the universe began, and anything outside of the universe is therefore
necessarily outside of time. St Augustine was right.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.
User: "Gandalf Grey"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? Barwell DEBUNKED 23 Sep 2006 12:16:37 PM
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:6sidnayuJu5S1YjYnZ2dnUVZ8tadnZ2d@bt.com...

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message

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?

St Augustine lived in the fifth century. People have been discussing his
ideas ever since, and some of them have been found to be wanting. However
the idea that God is outside of time isn't one of them.

Again, what is novel about a an Augustinian argument? Barwell insists he
has new insight, that he has found things that other atheistic arguments
have missed. Where is this novelty he pretends to bring to the discussion?
.
User: "wcb"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? Barwell DEBUNKED 23 Sep 2006 06:19:11 PM
Gandalf Grey wrote:


Again, what is novel about a an Augustinian argument?  Barwell insists he
has new insight, that he has found things that other atheistic arguments
have missed.  Where is this novelty he pretends to bring to the
discussion?


I guess you are indeed stupid.
Omnigenesis.
God if he is outside of time, and creates all, creates
all at once if full and total detail, making free will
impossible to extremes.
Incoherence and metaphysical nihilism follows naturally.
You cannot and have not debunked this and are not capable
of doing so. This is because you are intellectually incapable
of more than slinging out irrelevancies.
You lack ability to get to the heart if a subject, you are
incapable of understanding that concept.
This cannot be debunked because given the assertions
of Christain/Islam, this is logically unavoidable.
The claim of Auguistine (and Boethius) is that, god if he
is omnipotent must be sovereign over time.
this is a logical deduction. Not an assertion.
You dont understand that sort ofthing.
If god is indeed to be said to be omnipotent,
this logically must be true.
All teh rest follows logically which is where
you, Hanson, fail.
You are logic dyslexic and utterly incapable
of logic or rational thought.
If god creates all and is outsdie time in oine big now, all is created at
once to teh smallest physical detail.
Here you stop thinking.
You can't think.

Where is this novelty he pretends to bring to the
discussion?

All of this. Omnigenesis, creation of all at once in the
big now and impossibility thus of free will.
Can you find anybody else that stated what I have here?
And it seems to drive you crazy, I am creative and you
cannot be so. You just can't hack it, can you
Revelation, bible and quran >
God is omnipotent, all powerful >
Augustine, Boethius, if so,
God must be transcedent and sovereign over time
else god would not be as claimed omnipotent.>
Thus there is no past or future with God
All is now with god >
Thus god creates all >
But since all is now with God, God must create all
at once >
All physical creation to the smallest quark in time and place.>
Thus free will is impossible since all parts of our being,
physically, are create at once to the smallest parts.
The logic flows from simple claims.
You can't handle logic of course.
This is new. With me, new. I may not have been
first to say this, but I have never found anybody
else who did.
Neither can you.
Everytime I post something new you go crazy and attack me
again and again. You can't stop. You can't do anthing
like it yourself and it won't get off my back and not hamper my efforts.
I bring forth new ideas in profusion and you seem determined to kill that,
halt that, attack that and drive me of AA and put an end to these
efforts on my part.
What do you give us? Errors and stupidities.
Process science is foundation of modern science.
Surrrrrre.
Augustine is old and debunked.
Wrong.
I do it right and it drives you to malicious hate
and venial harassment. You get corrected again and
again but refuse to drop your lies and attacks and
repost then despite being debunked again and again.
Go away. If you cannot be a thought provoking
thinker, and you cannot, at least do not harass
those of us who can and are trying.
You cannot debunk this.
And yet you will not stop reposting old
nonsense debunked
and again.
You are a sick man.
http://www.josh.org/apologetics/prev_quest.asp?Subject=Nature%20of%20God
To accept that God exists outside the framework of time and space as we
know it renders any question of what came before Him irrelevant. These
questions might be legitimate if God is subject to our constraints of
perception, which He is not. The Bible teaches that God is not bound by
time or space, and that He simply has not chosen to reveal to us all that
took place before He created the universe.
People are still peddling Augustine and Boethius and never noticing teh
logical conclusion.
I did.
You can't evern when it is expalined to you in detail
1000 times.
Just shut the hell up and go away.
If you can't reason, leave those of us that can and can
get the facts right (something else yiu never do)
alone to be creative and explore this without you
trying aggressivly to hobble all efforts to reason
and drive it off the net.
What the hell did I do to deserve an aggressively
mentally ill ***** monkey like you on my back everytime
I try to post something new and creative?
I'd like to DEVELOP žis further, not fight an evil
craphead like YOU every damned post again and again and again!
An aggressive fool utterly incapable of correcting your
errors or even understanding you made many.
You have never debunked anything in your life.
--

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: "Malcolm"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? Barwell DEBUNKED 24 Sep 2006 02:19:02 AM
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message

Gandalf Grey wrote:


Again, what is novel about a an Augustinian argument? Barwell insists he
has new insight, that he has found things that other atheistic arguments
have missed. Where is this novelty he pretends to bring to the
discussion?


I guess you are indeed stupid.

Omnigenesis.

God if he is outside of time, and creates all, creates
all at once if full and total detail, making free will
impossible to extremes.
Incoherence and metaphysical nihilism follows naturally.

You cannot and have not debunked this and are not capable
of doing so. This is because you are intellectually incapable
of more than slinging out irrelevancies.

What I call the "Deism" argument.
If you want to argue against Christianity, you need to read the creed.
There you will see
"Of one being, co-eternal with the Father, begotten not created, through Him
all things were made".
You've got to adjust your anti-Deism argument to meet this doctrine.
Read my book, 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted) avialable online for a
bargain price. The same arguments keep cropping up.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.

User: "Dana"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? Barwell DEBUNKED 23 Sep 2006 08:20:34 PM
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12hbg8v4lnu2kc2@corp.supernews.com...

Omnigenesis.

God if he is outside of time, and creates all, creates
all at once if full and total detail, making free will
impossible to extremes.

Hogwash, by creating all, he also creates free will.
And since he is outside of time, free will is a natural result of his being
outside of time.
Being he is all seeing, God knows the choices his creatures make, after they
are made, since God is outside of time there is no way for God to know which
choice will be made until after it is made as God sees all.
.

User: "Gandalf Grey"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? Barwell DEBUNKED 23 Sep 2006 09:34:25 PM
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12hbg8v4lnu2kc2@corp.supernews.com...

I guess

Because you don't know.

Omnigenesis.

Which means "origin of all"


God if he is outside of time, and creates all, creates
all at once if full and total detail,

There is no logical necessity for god to create all in complete detail.
That's nothing but an unsupported assertion on your part.
.
User: "wcb"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? Barwell DEBUNKED 24 Sep 2006 12:23:53 AM
Hello,
I am Richard Hanson. I have total contempt for you,
my reader. Let me explain. I have been harassing a
man named William C. Barwell. Barwell posts a lot of
essays on strong Atheism that are rather good, and I
hate him for being smarter than me.
I thus pretend to critique his essays on these subjects,
but it is harassment, not criticism.
What do I mean by this? I spew out any old crap off the top of
my head and spam, spam, spam Barwell with it anytime he posts.
He corrects my errors. Or I should say, he tries.
I will not be corrected, because this is not about debate,
it is about harassment. Malicious harassment.
I do not care if you waste precious time with my errors,
my mistakes, my malicious strawmen, out and out lies and
stupidities. I never will be corrected, I just spam away.
Here is a good example of what I mean:

1. MORE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD

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

Hanson:
Why?  What does that have to do with the necessary existence of God?
See? I don't even let the argument develop, I just rant.

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 existence.

Hanson:
"Of course they don't."
Of course they do, but being an ***** with an agenda, harassment,
I will never admit even though it is in fact an old concept that
people have been using for years. I have contempt for you reader.
I thing you are too stupid to notice that.
Hanson:
"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."
Of course here I am lying as I always do. I don't give a a crap.
Never did, never will.
All religions claim god have these attributes. I will insult
your intelligence reader, because I think you are too stupid
to remember that. It is not a matter of what is "necessary".
That is a strawman, the issue is, what do the religions of
4.3 billion people claim.
I think you are so stupid you won't think of that.
I have contempt for you and Barwell.
Barwell has indeed shown that and corrected my lies a
hundred times. I sneer and refuse to be corrected because
this is about harassing Barwell, not about rational debate,
which I don't give a crap about. I can't handle that anyway.

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

Hanson:
That may be but you haven't shown it to be true.
Well, Barwell has but again, this is about harassment, not truth.

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

Unproven as I've already demonstrated in dozens of posts.
Actually, Barwell has, his Omnigenesis is dead on, but being a
hateful senile net harasser kook,I will be the last to admit it.

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.
Actually Barwell has, again, read the Omnigenesis essay.
I can't write good stuff like that and it drives me insane
so I harass Barwell, because I am mentally unbalanced.
Here I just ranted bull doo doo, I didn't show any facts wrong, I
didn't mention facts, I posted hand wave doo doo.
Read Barwell and see the real facts.
I am just a jerk.
HANSON
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.

This is of course a lie. Barwell proves everything he says with
relentless logic.
He starts with bible and Quran et al, take the proof texts, shows
this is what these religions of 4.3 billions believe and shows it is
impossible with simple logic.
I Richard Hanson, lie about it all because I am an envious fraud.
Id like to be thought of as a truly great intellect but I am going
senile and can't match Barwell, hell, I can't match a hamster at thinking.
Damn I hate Barwell. So I am going to harass him, because I am a jerk.



--

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: Barwell's Net Forgery: A *Homage* 24 Sep 2006 01:04:26 PM
A *Homage*
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12hc5kct4poht52@corp.supernews.com...
Hello,
I am William Barwell. I have total contempt for you,
my readers, in fact everything that is not me.
Let me explain.
Once upon a time, I was stupid enough to announce that I could easily come
up with an argument that proves that no god of any kind can possibly exist.
Since I really have no idea what I'm talking about, I turned to google, like
I usually do, and tried to boilerplate a bunch of essays together than would
make it look like I knew something about all this without my having any
actual knowledge at all. So, I assembled a bunch of academic-sounding
***** arguments that were really nothing but old arguments against
orthodox christian notions of god. Then I said that these arguments were
'new and improved' and that these arguments actually proved that NO god
could exist, and I bragged about how I was brilliant and had discovered
things that no one else had discovered and was going to write a book and so
on.
Well, wouldn't you just know it. A couple of people on the group saw right
through my *****. One of them, Gandalf Grey, started to post detailed
critiques of my garbage arguments. Grey actually dissected my arguments
rather than swallowing them whole. Grey, along with some others, raised
criticisms and actually expected me to defend my claims.
Now you should know at this point that I'm suffering from what all my
psychologists call "malignant narcissism." When I'm not on my meds [which
make it hard for me to use the keyboard and lead to the nearly incoherent
typo-filled screeds I sometimes post]
.....err? What was I saying?
Anyway, I'm a narcissist and I have this phony illusion of myself as a
philosopher king who all you idiots out there ought to bow down to. I've
actually said this online. I have nothing but contempt for the
"shitmonkeys" "idiots" and "morons" who post to AA....except for the two or
three people who willingly bow down to me and drink my Kool Aid. Well, this
Gandalf Grey and some others refused to bow down. They expected me to
explain my claims. They expected me to be able to support my own arguments.
Well, they had to go!
I started out spamming my arguments dozens of times a day while threatening
that I was going to spam them if I didn't get my way [that's a trick I
picked up from the fundamentalist posters], but that didn't work. I posted
long really obscene personal attacks against Grey and others and that didn't
work. I posted a phony "FAQ" about Gandalf Grey that I stole [I steal
everything I post] from a known right wing net-troll who's right next to
being prosecuted on criminal charges for criminal stalking, and that didn't
work. I even took to drawing obscene pictures [actually I stole them too]
and posting them on the net and even that didn't work.
So now, I'm forced to pretend I'm Gandalf Grey and posting forged "letters"
from him to the net.
I never once stopped to think that spamming this kind of garbage to the net
is going to lose me what's left of the group. I never stopped to think that
auto-spam is going to lead to even more people killfiling me for good. I
never once stopped to think that a supposed genius like myself wouldn't be
the kind of person that would call his opponents "shitmonkeys" and threaten
to destroy Usenet.
I'm basically an idiot and the spam you see coming from me is nothing more
than evidence that I am in fact the marginal troll that Grey said I am.
.





User: "wcb"

Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? Barwell DEBUNKED 23 Sep 2006 05:32:24 PM
Malcolm wrote:

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message

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?

St Augustine lived in the fifth century. People have been discussing his
ideas ever since, and some of them have been found to be wanting. However
the idea that God is outside of time isn't one of them. In fact it is
only in the twentieth century that it was realised that time had a
beginning, and in fact inherently came to be with space. Therfore there
was no period before the universe began, and anything outside of the
universe is therefore necessarily outside of time. St Augustine was
right.


It was not just Augustine, Boethius also wrote god is outside of time.
And if you take the Biblical/Quranic claims of gods omnipotence
seriously, as Augustine points out, god must be sovereign over
time. If not, he is limited, that is not omnipotent, which is a
biblical/quranic dogma.
This is a case of simple logic. Claims (omnipotence) drive
other claims (God's soveriegnty over time)
This has never been "debunked" as far as the churches are concerned.
Boethius and Augustine are still very much read.
The logic is still there. I have seen people make these
claims god is outside of time hundreds of time on AA over a decade.
It is and has long been a dogma in the RCC.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm
A. ETERNITY
By saying that God is eternal we mean that in essence, life, and action He
is altogether beyond temporal limits and relations. He has neither
beginning, nor end, nor duration by way of sequence or succession of
moments. There is no past or future for God -- but only an eternal
present. If we say that He was or that He acted, or that He will be or
will act, we mean in strictness that He is or that He acts; and this truth
is well expressed by Christ when He says (John 8:58 -- A.V.): "Before
Abraham was, I am." Eternity, therefore, as predicated of God, does not
mean indefinite duration in time -- a meaning in which the term is
sometimes used in other connections -- but it means the total exclusion of
the finiteness which time implies. We are obliged to use negative language
in describing it, but in itself eternity is a positive perfection, and as
such may be best defined in the words of Boethius as being "interminabilis
vitae tota simul et perfecta possessio," i.e. possession in full entirety
and perfection of life without beginning, end, or succession.
Popular apologists like Josh McDowell state authoritatively god is outside
time and space.
http://www.josh.org/apologetics/prev_quest.asp?Subject=Nature%20of%20God
To accept that God exists outside the framework of time and space as we
know it renders any question of what came before Him irrelevant. These
questions might be legitimate if God is subject to our constraints of
perception, which He is not. The Bible teaches that God is not bound by
time or space, and that He simply has not chosen to reveal to us all that
took place before He created the universe.
Richard Hanson here shows his ignorance offacts and inability to do his
homework. Or logic for that matter.
This question of god outside of ,transcedent to time is old and well
establihed and hardly "debunked" as Hanson utterly wrongly
and arrogantly declares.
Its very much alive and well and as drived from simple logic, as long as
bible and Quran are still considered revelation and sources of truth, a
god transcdent to time will be around as a logically derived deduction for
years to come.
The fact is, that claim coupled with creation of all has dire
concequences for the concept of an omnipotent and creator god.
Hanson refuses to think, double check his claisms before posting, or
withdraw them once posted and debunked.
He doesn't care. So not much point in wasting time on him.
--

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
.







  Page 3 of 13

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

7
 

8
 

9
 

10
  </

11