| 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: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? Barwell DEBUNKED |
23 Sep 2006 11:57:57 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12hc1ec3hdf6see@corp.supernews.com...
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12hb5dv7et8q6b0@corp.supernews.com...
Hello,
I have total contempt for you,
my reader.
That much we know, Barney.
*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
Not in all or even most religions.
A. God is said by theologians 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.
Most religions do not believe this Augustinian dogma.
C. Augustine claimed that god is sovereign over time and thus
must be outside and transcedent over time. To god, past,
present and future are all one thing to god who thus knows all
that existed, exists and will exists as time is an illusion
to god. Boethius a century later also stated this.
Luckily, Augustine doesn't get to define God. Again, the Augustinian view
is not true of all or even most religions. Barwell is arguing against
medievalism. Since god need not be omniscient in order to be the most
powerful being in the universe, most of the rest of the argument does not
follow.
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.
A concept denied by free will which is recognized by most religions. If
John Smith has free will, God cannot know precisely what Smith will do. If
God did know, Smith would not have free will.
I. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god.
But since most religions deny this, the argument fails.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
23 Sep 2006 11:16:34 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Hello,
I am Richard Hanson. I have total contempt for you,
my reader. Let me explain. I have been harrasing a
man names 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.
I don't care if you waste time with my crap. I have contempt
for you, you are merely a tool for me to harass Barwell.
What do I mean by this? I spew out any old crap off the top of
my head and spam, spanm, 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 precisous 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:
A. God is said by theologians to have created the Universe
and all in that Universe.
Not by all theologians.
Again, this is a misleading statement.
here is Barwells current essay.
*****************************************************
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.
My inital spammed statement is a distortion of an old essay
I will not stop 'critiquing' unfairly despite the fact it
was misleading the way I posted.
The old statement was about OEC gods, one of a series of essay.
I pretended it was not one of a series so I could distort Barwell's
claims. Barwell rewrite that essay to stop me from doing that,
so I simply spam the same old 'critique'. I pretend the
new essay was not written and post the old distortions because
I think you are too stupid to notice.
I will not be corrected because this is not about debate or
issues, it is about lies, distortions, games and harssment.
I have contempt for you and by posting old debunked lies,
I show might contempt for my readers.
***** you, now back to harassing Barwell.
Richard Hanson
--
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 Confesses |
23 Sep 2006 11:58:43 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12hb5dv7et8q6b0@corp.supernews.com...
Hello,
I have total contempt for you,
my reader.
That much we know, Barney.
*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
Not in all or even most religions.
A. God is said by theologians 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.
Most religions do not believe this Augustinian dogma.
C. Augustine claimed that god is sovereign over time and thus
must be outside and transcedent over time. To god, past,
present and future are all one thing to god who thus knows all
that existed, exists and will exists as time is an illusion
to god. Boethius a century later also stated this.
Luckily, Augustine doesn't get to define God. Again, the Augustinian view
is not true of all or even most religions. Barwell is arguing against
medievalism. Since god need not be omniscient in order to be the most
powerful being in the universe, most of the rest of the argument does not
follow.
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.
A concept denied by free will which is recognized by most religions. If
John Smith has free will, God cannot know precisely what Smith will do. If
God did know, Smith would not have free will.
I. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god.
But since most religions deny this, the argument fails.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
23 Sep 2006 11:12:55 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Hello,
I am Richard Hanson. AKA Gandalf Grey.
I have utter and abject contempt for people on the net
who bother with my posts. Let me explain that to you.
I have been harassing a man named William C. Barwell.
Barwell posts a lot of excellent essays on strong Atheism
And I cannot stand it that he is smarter than me and
I can't do this. I have taken it on myself then to harass
him to stop debate on these issues of strong Atheism.
I thus pretend to criticize his essays on these subjects,
but it is meant really to harassment, not criticism.
What do I mean by this? I spew out any old crap off the top
of my head, a mix of balderdash, strawmen, nonsense, bad logic,
and distortions. And then I spam, spam, spam Barwell with it
anytime he posts. I am trying t kill any threads Barwell
starts on subjects of strong atheism, because I am a peevish,
malicious, mentally deranged fool.
When I post my malicious lies and errors he attempts to
correct me, but I will never correct a error because it
is not a matter of facts and issues, it is harassment pure
and simple.
I do not care if you waste precious time with my errors,
my mistakes, my malicious strawmen, out and out lies and
stupidities.
Here is a good example of what I mean:
Gandalf "Liar " Grey
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.
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.
These OEC gods which is explicitly what Barwell is discussing are
all explicitly omniscient by definition. This is drawn from
revealed sources, bible, quran, vedas and more. They explicity
do foresee the future. God onow the future and by doing so all
allows prophecy.
Explcit in Bible and Quran et al.
I Hanson, know this but this is a designed
attacked meant to derail debate, not debate issues.
I know I am wrong, explcitly but I refuse to correct my spams I
throw at Barwell anytime he posts because it is my goal to
derail debate on issues with lies, strawmen, and *****,
*****, *****.
You see, I have utter contempt for reasoned debate.
And anybody wasting time reading my error filled crap.
This is harrasment, not discussion of issues.
And that is why I will not correct my errors when
Barwell points them out.
***** everyboy.
This isn't about facts and issue and truth.
It is about harass Barwell, only.
Will I correct my error pointed out above? Like hell!
I will just spam it again and again and again, to show
you my contempt for you, the sucker wasting time reading
my error filled crap.
Gandalf "Liar" Grey.
--
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 |
23 Sep 2006 11:58:14 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12hb5dv7et8q6b0@corp.supernews.com...
Hello,
I have total contempt for you,
my reader.
That much we know, Barney.
*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
Not in all or even most religions.
A. God is said by theologians 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.
Most religions do not believe this Augustinian dogma.
C. Augustine claimed that god is sovereign over time and thus
must be outside and transcedent over time. To god, past,
present and future are all one thing to god who thus knows all
that existed, exists and will exists as time is an illusion
to god. Boethius a century later also stated this.
Luckily, Augustine doesn't get to define God. Again, the Augustinian view
is not true of all or even most religions. Barwell is arguing against
medievalism. Since god need not be omniscient in order to be the most
powerful being in the universe, most of the rest of the argument does not
follow.
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.
A concept denied by free will which is recognized by most religions. If
John Smith has free will, God cannot know precisely what Smith will do. If
God did know, Smith would not have free will.
I. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god.
But since most religions deny this, the argument fails.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? Gandy shits himslef again. |
23 Sep 2006 11:29:26 PM |
|
|
Hello,
I am Richard Hanson. AKA Gandalf Grey.
I have utter and abject contempt for people on the net
who bother with my posts. Let me explain that to you.
I have been harassing a man named William C. Barwell.
Barwell posts a lot of excellent essays on strong Atheism
that are rather good, and I hate him for being smarter
than me.
I thus pretend to criticize his essays on these subjects,
but it is meant really to harassment, not criticism.
What do I mean by this? I spew out any old crap off the top
of my head, a mix of balderdash, strawmen, nonsense, bad logic,
and distortions. And I 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 sit back and laugh at it all.
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.
Its is about harassment, not debate
Here is a prime example of what I mean:
On the other hand, if your claiming that literally....." .....OEC gods
are claimed to be creators of all, all knowing via revelation," then all
you're saying is that the gods that are in the class of gods that are
claimed to be 'omni-everything' [to use your pre-confabulated term], are
in fact claimed to be all knowing. And since 'all-knowingness' is
already a part of your 'omni-everything class,' the only thing you're
telling us is that the gods that are claimed to be omni-everything are
claimed to be omni-everything.
See, what Barwell wrote is that OEC gods are explicitly
creator gods, which they are. All OEC gods are explicitly
creator gods as per Bible, Vedas, Quran et al.
Being stupid, I cannot read his essays, remember them and get this
right. And if somebody points out I am a dolt and wrong, I just
plain don't give a crap, as facts are not what I am about.
Am I wrong? Well, I don't don't give a ***** and I will not
be correcting any of my stupid errors. I have contempt for
you my reader.
In the Bible, (Genesis!) Quran and Vedas, these gods are
explicitly said to create all. I don't give a crap about the facts.
Yes, my stuid crack that saying the gods are omni-everything means they are
merely omni-everything IS brain damaged and senseless.
But hey, I don't care.
Its not about logic and reasoned debate, it is about harassing
Barwelll everytime he posts no matter how stupid I am.
There, you understand where I am coming from.
Now get lost.
I have comtempt for those who read me.
What, correct my errors? Get screwed!
Richard Hanson, hateful and senile net bully.
--
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 Confesses |
23 Sep 2006 11:59:06 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12hb5dv7et8q6b0@corp.supernews.com...
Hello,
I have total contempt for you,
my reader.
That much we know, Barney.
*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
Not in all or even most religions.
A. God is said by theologians 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.
Most religions do not believe this Augustinian dogma.
C. Augustine claimed that god is sovereign over time and thus
must be outside and transcedent over time. To god, past,
present and future are all one thing to god who thus knows all
that existed, exists and will exists as time is an illusion
to god. Boethius a century later also stated this.
Luckily, Augustine doesn't get to define God. Again, the Augustinian view
is not true of all or even most religions. Barwell is arguing against
medievalism. Since god need not be omniscient in order to be the most
powerful being in the universe, most of the rest of the argument does not
follow.
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.
A concept denied by free will which is recognized by most religions. If
John Smith has free will, God cannot know precisely what Smith will do. If
God did know, Smith would not have free will.
I. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god.
But since most religions deny this, the argument fails.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
23 Sep 2006 11:10:20 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 transcendent 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 realized that time had a
beginning, and in fact inherently came to be with space. Therefore 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
sovereignty 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?Sub
ject=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 ,transcendent to
time is old and well established and hardly
"debunked" as Hanson utterly wrongly
and arrogantly declares.
Its very much alive and well and as derived from
simple logic, as long as bible and Quran are still
considered revelation and sources of truth, a god
transcendent 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 consequences for the concept of an
omnipotent and creator god.
Hanson refuses to think, double check his claims
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
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
23 Sep 2006 11:13:35 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 transcendent 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 realized that time had a
beginning, and in fact inherently came to be with space. Therefore 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
sovereignty 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?Sub
ject=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 ,transcendent to
time is old and well established and hardly
"debunked" as Hanson utterly wrongly
and arrogantly declares.
Its very much alive and well and as derived from
simple logic, as long as bible and Quran are still
considered revelation and sources of truth, a god
transcendent 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 consequences for the concept of an
omnipotent and creator god.
Hanson refuses to think, double check his claims
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
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? Gandy displays extreme stupidity. |
23 Sep 2006 01:48:02 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Define revelation. In most modern religions, revelation is considered to
be an ongoing aspect of the church. It's not confined to the OT
prophets.
See? You are a moronnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!
Revelation. Revelation of the Bible, Quran, vedas and many, many more.
Why would a moron like you say someting stupid like thus?
To PROVE you are a moron.
All else you post is of this low grade, no-think, quality.
You lose. As usual. Its all you can do.
Lose.
Play games. Make truely stupid rhetorical comments.
Define revelation.
Drooly! Drooly! Drool!
Yes make a stupid crack and sit there scowling red faced as you drool.
Revelation, stupid.
4.3 people believe in religions whose dogmas are derived from alleged
revelations found in sacred books.
Gandy: "Drooollllllll!"
All the rest of your drooling criticisms are of this low,
failed quality.
And not only Christian have revealed books, or even prophets.
Bahis, Unification church and others have their revealed books of
revelation and OEC gods too.
You can't think worth *****, can you?
You just spray *****. and when I correct you, you are too
stupid to drop a failed and deeply stupid claim.
because, you are just stupid, senile, intellectually feeble minded.
--
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 |
23 Sep 2006 01:55:03 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h9cbf5lp2d812@corp.supernews.com...
I am now rewriting my Omnigenesis essay and sharpening it up rather
considerably.
Possible Translation: You mean this time it will actually be logically
valid?
Simplified, some what less confusing, still basically the same
truth
Well, since your original argument was fundamentally flawed and NOT true,
you're probably still in the intellectual bog you began in.
you are mentally incapable of understanding.
Yadda, yadda.
You are a totally ignorant, unthinking fool.
Cough up the argument, save the taunts for your S&M friends.
Again, OEC gods are claimed to be creators of all, all knowing
via revelation.
Define revelation. In most modern religions, revelation is considered to be
an ongoing aspect of the church. It's not confined to the OT prophets.
This logically creates omnigenesis and that creates
metaphysical nihilism.
How does revelation imply creation? If I tell Fred what I plan on doing
next Tuesday and I don't tell Sally, I can be said to have revealed
something to Fred. Fred might even decide to call himself the prophet of
Gandalf. That doesn't mean I created the universe.
On the other hand, if your claiming that literally....." .....OEC gods are
claimed to be creators of all, all knowing via revelation," then all you're
saying is that the gods that are in the class of gods that are claimed to be
'omni-everything' [to use your pre-confabulated term], are in fact claimed
to be all knowing. And since 'all-knowingness' is already a part of your
'omni-everything class,' the only thing you're telling us is that the gods
that are claimed to be omni-everything are claimed to be omni-everything.
Redundant as well as being a strawman, since it's already been demonstrated
to you that
1. Modern religions do not all claim that God is omnipotent and omniscient
and neither did the original Hebrew texts state that God was omnipotent and
omniscient without internal contradiction.
2. Not all modern religions believe in revelation through holy texts
3. Not all modern religions believe that revelation is closed.
4. Not all modern religions believe that revelation is open.
Which leads us to wonder why or how revelation has anything to do with
anything.
-----
DOES GOD EXIST? STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - NO.
1. OMNIGENESIS, DETERMINISM, FREE WILL, METAPHYSICAL
CHAOS AND THEOLOGICAL NIHILISM.
4.3 billion people believe in religions that have a god
that is claimed to have created all, and is omniscient
and omnipotent.
Which leaves a whole lot of people who don't believe that but still believe
in a god. Which leaves your original claim that 'god is easy to disprove'
totally without support.
Omni-everything creator class gods (OEC).
After OEC god religions, non-theistic religions like
Buddhism are the largest religions. Non-OEC gods are also
easily shown impossible
Apparently they aren't "easily shown impossible". Out of the piles of horse
manure you've served up to the group, you haven't come up with a single
argument that has succeeded in doing that so far. I doubt that there are
many people here who will have forgotten that the best you could do on that
subject was to offer a personal opinion that Non-OEC gods 'weren't very
important." Quite a proof.
, but these are not very numerous
nor important religions.
And true to form, there you go again. Two problems with the comment.
1. YOU don't get to decide what's important.
2. Commenting that a particular god of a particular belief or group of
beliefs is not 'important' is not PROOF that they cannot exist. Cheap
brush-offs don't equal valid conclusions.
You've stated:
Non-OEC gods are also
easily shown impossible
So prove it right here, right now. I think most of the readers are tired of
watching the BillyBob version of The Rehashed Theological Arguments on Revue
show. The recognizably logical parts of any of your articles aren't yours.
They're antique arguments that worked better before you started skewing
them. YOU, on the other hand, have shown NOTHING that's new, and NOTHING
that's shown that Non-omnipotent gods are "impossible."
You can pull your pseudo arguments out of the trash, you can re-edit them,
you can reword them, or even put sequins on them and they're still going to
be garbage, Barwell. They still don't prove that no god can possibly exist,
which is what YOU claimed you could do. Everything from then to now has
been you tapdancing around your original fraudulent claim that you could
disprove the existence of any possible god. All the sheer tonnage of your
piles of crap has been an effort on your part to avoid the truth that you
don't have one damned clue as to how to disprove the existence of any
possible god. All your manure and the only thing you have to show for it is
'well, if god exists, god isn't very important.'
Omni - all, genesis - creation.
Omnigenesis = creation of all.
No it doesn't. It means "all creation"
Here I shall coin a word for further discussion.
Translation: Here you shall mutilate some words to try to disguise the fact
that you've got no game.
Omnigenesis means creation of all, to the smallest
physical detail. If god is in any way omniscient,
and creator of all, then he in fact creates all,
omnigenesis, to the smallest detail, all of creation
to the smallest quantum level material, to the smallest
Planck quantum distance, Planck quantum time, dimensions,
fields, everything, all of it.
Sorry, but you flop right here, as usual. If the Big Bang were the creator
of all, there is no logical necessity that the Big Bang would have to
manufacture everything in the universe down to the smallest detail. There
is no valid logic that necessitates that a first cause must create
everything in detail.
The rest of your argument is fatally flawed by your first and fatal mistake.
In short, it's the same garbage argument, propped up with more sophistry.
If you've got an argument that disproves the existence of any god, cough it
up, Barney. The majority of readers here have read better disproofs of the
orthodox god of Xianity than anything you could possibly come up with. If
you've got something new, trot it out or take a hike.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
22 Sep 2006 11:01:57 PM |
|
|
DOES GOD EXIST? STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - NO.
1. OMNIGENESIS, DETERMINISM, FREE WILL, METAPHYSICAL
CHAOS AND THEOLOGICAL NIHILISM.
4.3 billion people believe in religions that have a god
that is claimed to have created all, and is omniscient
and omnipotent. Omni-everything creator class gods (OEC).
After OEC god religions, non-theistic religions like
Buddhism are the largest religions. Non-OEC gods are also
easily shown impossible, but these are not very numerous
nor important religions. This essay disproves the OEC
class gods that make up the largest number of today's
important religions and represent the vast bulk of
religious believers.
Omni - all, genesis - creation.
Omnigenesis = creation of all.
Here I shall coin a word for further discussion.
Omnigenesis means creation of all, to the smallest
physical detail. If god is in any way omniscient,
and creator of all, then he in fact creates all,
omnigenesis, to the smallest detail, all of creation
to the smallest quantum level material, to the smallest
Planck quantum distance, Planck quantum time, dimensions,
fields, everything, all of it. All that is, was, and
shall be and can be. All physics we know of and much
physics we do not as yet understand. And this god creates,
at higher levels, emergent qualities arising from these
basics that create our physical world and us. This god
than, creates us, our actions, our consciousness, feelings,
nature, mental inclinations and surrounding environment.
One man may be created a lawyer in California, another
an illiterate peasant in Bangladesh. One man may be good,
another an evil psychopath. Omnigenesis means god creates
all these things all men's actions, and existence to the
smallest details. All we are and all we do to the smallest
detail possible is created knowingly, and purposefully to
the smallest possible degree by God.
Omnigenesis, if true, removes all possibility of free will.
2. THE OMNISCIENT, CREATOR GOD
The claims that that god of Bible, Vedas, or Quran is
omniscient, and creator of all means these gods are
essentially driven to omnigenesis, creation of all.
Free will is impossible with a god that creates all
and is omniscient. OEC class god are claimed to be
creator of all and omniscient. That includes knowing
the full future which is important to religious claims
(Christian and Quran especially) of revelation and
prophecy of future events.
God at the start of creation must look at what his
considered creation will create and decide, "Do I allow
this or that to happen?"
"Do I make John Smith 13 billion years into the future
a man who is evil and damned or good and saved to life
eternal in heaven?" All acts Smith does are decided by god.
"Do I allow Smith at 10:23 June 24, 1999 commit rape-murder
or not?"
God must look at that future and say yes, or no and then
create the world that will generate that future he has
personally and purposefully decided on. All acts of all
sentient beings are decided on and created in the smallest
possible detail, knowing, and purposefully by this omniscient
creator God from the beginning of creation.
3. OMNIGENESIS DESTROYS FREE WILL AND COMPATIBALISM.
This destroys compatibilism, the doctrine god creates
all but we have free will, and even though god knows what
we do in the future, he does not interfere with our free
will to choose what we do. Many people hold this doctrine is
incoherent and impossible, that knowing what we do destroys
free will, the future is set.
In Christian theology, compatibilism has been the Roman
Catholic Church's dogmatic stance, which came out of
St Augustine's writings on free will. (1) Augustine
attempted to harmonize god's foreknowledge and our free will.
Opposing this are Calvinist claims of double predestination.
Calvinism claims man had free will and lost it with original sin.
But omnigenesis makes these arguments moot. We can
have no sort of free will at all if god creates all to
the smallest detail, and thus no sort of compatibilism
can be true. Hard incompatiblism, the claim that free
will is impossible if god foreknows the future is closer
to the facts. God creates the future in all detail, not
just knows it. Compatibilism is now irrelevant and meaningless
as a dodge to explain way free will vs God's foreknowledge
of the future. God knows the future not because he is
mysteriously omniscient and all knowing, but because he
knowingly creates the Universe, all of it, to the tiniest
details. All is created after personal consideration and
personal approval of all details. If on June 24, 1999
John Smth does indeed commit murder-rape, God saw that the
Universe he considered creating would contain this act of
Smith's if he created this Universe, and he made a decision
to allow this rape and subsequent murder to occur.
That universe with this murder - rape was actualized
by god purposefuly and knowingly.
4. THERE ARE 3 ASPECTS OF CREATOR GODS
OMNIGENESIS FORCES US TO CONSIDER.
A. THE CLOCKMAKER GOD, FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE FUTURE
AND AN EXPLICITLY DETERMINATE UNIVERSE.
This is idea that god is omniscient, has foreknowledge
of the future because the universe is determinate.
That god somehow winds up the Universe and lets it go
and it goes on unfolding in a determinate manner, the
Deist god. The God of some natural theologies. The so
called clock maker God.
Laplace's demon is a thought experiment, a conceptual idea
invented by Pierre-Simon Laplace, the French Astronomer,
in 1820 (2)
Laplace's demon is said to be able to know the future
relying on the Universe's explicit determinism to calculate
the future. God has been theorized as just a sort of
Laplacian demon. This god created a determinate Universe and
knows the future since he can calculate the future state
of the Universe from a starting state due specifically
to the determinate quality of the Universe. Since this
god creates the initial state of the Universe, all futures
states unfold from that and god can control future states
by choosing the appropriate initial starting state
of the Universe. Thus we have omnigenesis. By controlling
the initial conditions of the Universe all is controlled
including future states.
Here, in a determinate Universe we can have no free
will, not even in principle.
A determinate, clock maker Universe that unwinds in a
determinate manner from a god created initial state
precludes all possibility of free will. All is determined.
Omnigenesis, all parts of a future Universe and all
our future acts are controlled by the god created
initial conditions of an explcitly determinate Universe.
B. GOD, OMNIPOTENCE AND TIME.
If god is omnipotent, he is beyond being affected by
mundane things. Time does not affect god, he created time
and God controls time, time does not control or affect
God. For God there is no past, present, future, just now.
This is God as explained by Augustine and Boethius. (3)
God out of time, transcendent to time, is a standard
theological claim because of these thinkers. If god were
controlled and subject to time, he could not be as claimed,
all powerful, omnipotent.
But again it's omnigenesis. God creates all. There
is no past, or future, all is one big now. Thus all is
created at once, now, in all its finest details. We are
back to omnigenesis as above.
We are driven there starting with claims god is
omnipotent and considering an omnipotent god who
created all and that god's relation to mundane time.
Omnipotence implies sovereignty over time which
drives us to total omni-genesis. Omnipotence and
omniscience both destroy and possibility of free will
in the very strongest manner possible.
C. OMNISCIENCE, GOD - CREATOR OF ALL, AND
OMNIGENESIS.
As seen above in 2. "The Omniscient, creator god",
a god that is simple said to be creator of all and
omniscient. No particular theory how he knows
all, is given, it is just claimed god is omniscient.
A God with no explicit theory as to how he knows all
still dooms free will in the strongest manner possible.
Just the fact this god is omniscience and creates all
is sufficient to create a states of universal omnigenesis.
D. Thus we have three theories of creation, omniscience
1. Deterministic, clock maker style Universe.
The theoretical deterministic prime mover's world.
2. Omnipotent god transcendent to time.
3. Omniscient - creator god.
All 3 theories lead to omnigenesis.
All 3 theories destroy any possible free will
totally in the strongest manner possible.
5. OMNIGENESIS AND METAPHYSICAL NIHILISM
A. God is alleged all good, totally good, omniscient,
creator of all. And the omni-everything creator
class of gods including the gods of Judaism, Islam,
Christianity and others have these attributes explicitly,
and also have other attributes.
B. These specific attributes are to be found in various
alleged revelations, Quran, Bible Vedas, et al. Proof
texts are used to make specific claims, god is merciful,
just, God loves us, God wants us to be saved and other
similar claims. Plus claims such as God created hell
and heaven, and that some men are to spend eternity in
eternal torment for their sins and acts.
C. God is just, merciful, he loves us and wants us to
be good and to be saved. God hates sin, evil and
punishes evil men for their acts, including eternal
damnation. And so on. Different religions may have
slightly different variations and emphasis on this
or that aspect of their god's abilities. Also involved
are more metaphysical considerations. God's perfection,
God as source of all morality, god's immutability.
But OMNIGENESIS destroys all of this. Since God
creates all to the smallest atom, act, and inclination,
there is no room for love or mercy. Why create one
man good, saved and to have eternal life in heaven,
and the next man evil, damned and tortured in eternal
torment in the flames of hell for all eternity for
acts that god decided, planned and created in all
their minute details to the lowliest quark?
Why that then, if god loves us all is just and merciful?
Since free will means nothing in the strongest manner
imaginable, a god that loves us would create us all
saved, and good and to have life eternal in heaven
if that god is as claimed merciful, just and loving
and omnibenevolent. Since we have no free will its
all one and the same. Thus we would expect a world
where all are good, and moral evil is never done by man
if in fact there was a god who creates all such that all
is decided by god to the finest details.
Heaven, hell, sin, salvation, damnation lose all
coherent sense and meaning. Where is love in
creating one man evil and allow him to torment many
innocent victims? How can that be loving, merciful or
just?
Theologians have created many half-baked excuses, suffering
creates character, evils allow second order goods to exist,
a kindness done to a fellow victim of a genocidal murderer
like Hilter perhaps.
That all dissolves into a meaningless, incoherent nihilism,
a bewildering meaninglessness far beyond the supposed
meaninglessness of a materialistic, Atheistic world
without god, which many theists assert is the logical
end point of Atheism.
Here god is creator of grotesquely meaningless chaos.
A world without any meaning, a surreal Hieronymus
Bosch world of demons and angels and the damned,
heavens and hells with lakes of molten sulfur and
fiery flames and unrelenting torture for men who
were only toys of a relentlessly mad, and meaningless
monster god who created them damned, for reasons unknown,
and unknowable, and irrational to nihilistic extremes.
6. SOULS
And supposedly this god creates souls, which somehow,
are attached to our physical bodies and minds and are
part of the heart of our very existence. Then again,
along with our bodies, our minds, our acts, our inclinations,
god must have created these souls. But he also must have
created them in relationship to our physical body and its
created acts, acts created by god to the smallest details.
It is the soul that allegedly is damned or saved and lives
for ever, or some such, but again, all acts of ours are
created by omnigenesis to the smallest quark so god either also
creates a corresponding soul, damned or saved in parallel.
Or maybe not, who can tell with such an incoherent chaotic,
senseless, irrational system?
The doctrine of souls, confusing enough as is, now becomes
impossible to explain in any fashion. It makes no sense
in a physical world that is determinate to the most
exacting omnigenesistic manner, how does a soul fit
into that world?
With omnigenesis all bets are off, all supposed knowledge
is impossible and incoherent to extremes.
7. CHAOS, NIHILISM, IRRATIONALITY, UNREALITY OF ALL
We achieve then total, absolute, furious metaphysical nihilism.
God is mad, and nothing in reality, or metaphysics or any possible
afterlife can be trusted. All supposed systems of metaphysics,
philosophy, religion, theology and reality are destroyed until
the rubble of it all is sucked into a chaotic surreal abyss of
irrational metaphysics undreamed of by thinking man. Theism
at bottom is nihilism so total it is obviously wrong in all its
particulars.
Good, evil, sin, salvation, damnation, sin, souls, heaven,
hell, love, mercy, justice, theodicy, teleology, ontology,
all makes no sense in the strongest terms. the class of
omni-everything, creator Gods destroys everything
with corrosive finality.
Theology, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, philosophy,
science, nothing makes the slightest sense in an omnigenesis
world, with a god that destroys all it touches if we claim
this personal, concious god is all knowing and creates all.
God then is perfect intellectual nihilism.
This is In the end, taken to their logical ends are all
theology religion, and omni-everything, creator god class
religion can possibly hope to achieve. Utter madness
and total incoherence. Compared to this atheistic
materialism is mankind's only rational hope.
Materialism must be true, the only truth possible. The Grand
Gods of Grand Theologies not only self destruct, but destroy
everything else with such incredible thoroughness and totality
that they cannot possibly be truth or reality. The class of
creator, omni-everything gods are impossible in the strongest
terms.
In the end, we have two stark and plain choices, sane
materialism, or total theological/metaphysical nihilism.
There is really then, only one choice to which we are driven
by logic and rationality.
God as creator of all, and omni-everything is impossible.
(1) Augustine (CE 388-395) De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio
(2) Pierre-Simon Laplace - "Essai Philosophique sur
les Probabilites" 1820.
(3) St. Augustine "Confessions" Book XI
(4) Boethius "Consolations of Philosophy" Book V
(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: Is Atheism viable? Barwell DEBUNKED |
22 Sep 2006 11:04:21 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h9ces11t2c579@corp.supernews.com...
I am now rewriting my Omnigenesis essay and sharpening it up rather
considerably.
Possible Translation: You mean this time it will actually be logically
valid?
Simplified, some what less confusing, still basically the same
truth
Well, since your original argument was fundamentally flawed and NOT true,
you're probably still in the intellectual bog you began in.
you are mentally incapable of understanding.
Yadda, yadda.
You are a totally ignorant, unthinking fool.
Cough up the argument, save the taunts for your S&M friends.
Again, OEC gods are claimed to be creators of all, all knowing
via revelation.
Define revelation. In most modern religions, revelation is considered to be
an ongoing aspect of the church. It's not confined to the OT prophets.
This logically creates omnigenesis and that creates
metaphysical nihilism.
How does revelation imply creation? If I tell Fred what I plan on doing
next Tuesday and I don't tell Sally, I can be said to have revealed
something to Fred. Fred might even decide to call himself the prophet of
Gandalf. That doesn't mean I created the universe.
On the other hand, if your claiming that literally....." .....OEC gods are
claimed to be creators of all, all knowing via revelation," then all you're
saying is that the gods that are in the class of gods that are claimed to be
'omni-everything' [to use your pre-confabulated term], are in fact claimed
to be all knowing. And since 'all-knowingness' is already a part of your
'omni-everything class,' the only thing you're telling us is that the gods
that are claimed to be omni-everything are claimed to be omni-everything.
Redundant as well as being a strawman, since it's already been demonstrated
to you that
1. Modern religions do not all claim that God is omnipotent and omniscient
and neither did the original Hebrew texts state that God was omnipotent and
omniscient without internal contradiction.
2. Not all modern religions believe in revelation through holy texts
3. Not all modern religions believe that revelation is closed.
4. Not all modern religions believe that revelation is open.
Which leads us to wonder why or how revelation has anything to do with
anything.
-----
DOES GOD EXIST? STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - NO.
1. OMNIGENESIS, DETERMINISM, FREE WILL, METAPHYSICAL
CHAOS AND THEOLOGICAL NIHILISM.
4.3 billion people believe in religions that have a god
that is claimed to have created all, and is omniscient
and omnipotent.
Which leaves a whole lot of people who don't believe that but still believe
in a god. Which leaves your original claim that 'god is easy to disprove'
totally without support.
Omni-everything creator class gods (OEC).
After OEC god religions, non-theistic religions like
Buddhism are the largest religions. Non-OEC gods are also
easily shown impossible
Apparently they aren't "easily shown impossible". Out of the piles of horse
manure you've served up to the group, you haven't come up with a single
argument that has succeeded in doing that so far. I doubt that there are
many people here who will have forgotten that the best you could do on that
subject was to offer a personal opinion that Non-OEC gods 'weren't very
important." Quite a proof.
, but these are not very numerous
nor important religions.
And true to form, there you go again. Two problems with the comment.
1. YOU don't get to decide what's important.
2. Commenting that a particular god of a particular belief or group of
beliefs is not 'important' is not PROOF that they cannot exist. Cheap
brush-offs don't equal valid conclusions.
You've stated:
Non-OEC gods are also
easily shown impossible
So prove it right here, right now. I think most of the readers are tired of
watching the BillyBob version of The Rehashed Theological Arguments on Revue
show. The recognizably logical parts of any of your articles aren't yours.
They're antique arguments that worked better before you started skewing
them. YOU, on the other hand, have shown NOTHING that's new, and NOTHING
that's shown that Non-omnipotent gods are "impossible."
You can pull your pseudo arguments out of the trash, you can re-edit them,
you can reword them, or even put sequins on them and they're still going to
be garbage, Barwell. They still don't prove that no god can possibly exist,
which is what YOU claimed you could do. Everything from then to now has
been you tapdancing around your original fraudulent claim that you could
disprove the existence of any possible god. All the sheer tonnage of your
piles of crap has been an effort on your part to avoid the truth that you
don't have one damned clue as to how to disprove the existence of any
possible god. All your manure and the only thing you have to show for it is
'well, if god exists, god isn't very important.'
Omni - all, genesis - creation.
Omnigenesis = creation of all.
No it doesn't. It means "all creation"
Here I shall coin a word for further discussion.
Translation: Here you shall mutilate some words to try to disguise the fact
that you've got no game.
Omnigenesis means creation of all, to the smallest
physical detail. If god is in any way omniscient,
and creator of all, then he in fact creates all,
omnigenesis, to the smallest detail, all of creation
to the smallest quantum level material, to the smallest
Planck quantum distance, Planck quantum time, dimensions,
fields, everything, all of it.
Sorry, but you flop right here, as usual. If the Big Bang were the creator
of all, there is no logical necessity that the Big Bang would have to
manufacture everything in the universe down to the smallest detail. There
is no valid logic that necessitates that a first cause must create
everything in detail.
The rest of your argument is fatally flawed by your first and fatal mistake.
In short, it's the same garbage argument, propped up with more sophistry.
If you've got an argument that disproves the existence of any god, cough it
up, Barney. The majority of readers here have read better disproofs of the
orthodox god of Xianity than anything you could possibly come up with. If
you've got something new, trot it out or take a hike.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
23 Sep 2006 02:05:07 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
How does revelation imply creation? If I tell Fred what I plan on doing
next Tuesday and I don't tell Sally, I can be said to have revealed
something to Fred. Fred might even decide to call himself the prophet of
Gandalf. That doesn't mean I created the universe.
All revealed books, Quran, vedas, bible, explicitly claim
god created the world.
Why do yiou spam, spam, spam, spam, this ***** as if it means anything
other than yoDOES GOD EXIST? STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - NO.
1. OMNIGENESIS, DETERMINISM, FREE WILL, METAPHYSICAL
CHAOS AND THEOLOGICAL NIHILISM.
4.3 billion people believe in religions that have a god
that is claimed to have created all, and is omniscient
and omnipotent. Omni-everything creator class gods (OEC).
After OEC god religions, non-theistic religions like
Buddhism are the largest religions. Non-OEC gods are also
easily shown impossible, but these are not very numerous
nor important religions. This essay disproves the OEC
class gods that make up the largest number of today's
important religions and represent the vast bulk of
religious believers.
Omni - all, genesis - creation.
Omnigenesis = creation of all.
Here I shall coin a word for further discussion.
Omnigenesis means creation of all, to the smallest
physical detail. If god is in any way omniscient,
and creator of all, then he in fact creates all,
omnigenesis, to the smallest detail, all of creation
to the smallest quantum level material, to the smallest
Planck quantum distance, Planck quantum time, dimensions,
fields, everything, all of it. All that is, was, and
shall be and can be. All physics we know of and much
physics we do not as yet understand. And this god creates,
at higher levels, emergent qualities arising from these
basics that create our physical world and us. This god
than, creates us, our actions, our consciousness, feelings,
nature, mental inclinations and surrounding environment.
One man may be created a lawyer in California, another
an illiterate peasant in Bangladesh. One man may be good,
another an evil psychopath. Omnigenesis means god creates
all these things all men's actions, and existence to the
smallest details. All we are and all we do to the smallest
detail possible is created knowingly, and purposefully to
the smallest possible degree by God.
Omnigenesis, if true, removes all possibility of free will.
2. THE OMNISCIENT, CREATOR GOD
The claims that that god of Bible, Vedas, or Quran is
omniscient, and creator of all means these gods are
essentially driven to omnigenesis, creation of all.
Free will is impossible with a god that creates all
and is omniscient. OEC class god are claimed to be
creator of all and omniscient. That includes knowing
the full future which is important to religious claims
(Christian and Quran especially) of revelation and
prophecy of future events.
God at the start of creation must look at what his
considered creation will create and decide, "Do I allow
this or that to happen?"
"Do I make John Smith 13 billion years into the future
a man who is evil and damned or good and saved to life
eternal in heaven?" All acts Smith does are decided by god.
"Do I allow Smith at 10:23 June 24, 1999 commit rape-murder
or not?"
God must look at that future and say yes, or no and then
create the world that will generate that future he has
personally and purposefully decided on. All acts of all
sentient beings are decided on and created in the smallest
possible detail, knowing, and purposefully by this omniscient
creator God from the beginning of creation.
3. OMNIGENESIS DESTROYS FREE WILL AND COMPATIBALISM.
This destroys compatibilism, the doctrine god creates
all but we have free will, and even though god knows what
we do in the future, he does not interfere with our free
will to choose what we do. Many people hold this doctrine is
incoherent and impossible, that knowing what we do destroys
free will, the future is set.
In Christian theology, compatibilism has been the Roman
Catholic Church's dogmatic stance, which came out of
St Augustine's writings on free will. (1) Augustine
attempted to harmonize god's foreknowledge and our free will.
Opposing this are Calvinist claims of double predestination.
Calvinism claims man had free will and lost it with original sin.
But omnigenesis makes these arguments moot. We can
have no sort of free will at all if god creates all to
the smallest detail, and thus no sort of compatibilism
can be true. Hard incompatiblism, the claim that free
will is impossible if god foreknows the future is closer
to the facts. God creates the future in all detail, not
just knows it. Compatibilism is now irrelevant and meaningless
as a dodge to explain way free will vs God's foreknowledge
of the future. God knows the future not because he is
mysteriously omniscient and all knowing, but because he
knowingly creates the Universe, all of it, to the tiniest
details. All is created after personal consideration and
personal approval of all details. If on June 24, 1999
John Smth does indeed commit murder-rape, God saw that the
Universe he considered creating would contain this act of
Smith's if he created this Universe, and he made a decision
to allow this rape and subsequent murder to occur.
That universe with this murder - rape was actualized
by god purposefuly and knowingly.
4. THERE ARE 3 ASPECTS OF CREATOR GODS
OMNIGENESIS FORCES US TO CONSIDER.
A. THE CLOCKMAKER GOD, FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE FUTURE
AND AN EXPLICITLY DETERMINATE UNIVERSE.
This is idea that god is omniscient, has foreknowledge
of the future because the universe is determinate.
That god somehow winds up the Universe and lets it go
and it goes on unfolding in a determinate manner, the
Deist god. The God of some natural theologies. The so
called clock maker God.
Laplace's demon is a thought experiment, a conceptual idea
invented by Pierre-Simon Laplace, the French Astronomer,
in 1820 (2)
Laplace's demon is said to be able to know the future
relying on the Universe's explicit determinism to calculate
the future. God has been theorized as just a sort of
Laplacian demon. This god created a determinate Universe and
knows the future since he can calculate the future state
of the Universe from a starting state due specifically
to the determinate quality of the Universe. Since this
god creates the initial state of the Universe, all futures
states unfold from that and god can control future states
by choosing the appropriate initial starting state
of the Universe. Thus we have omnigenesis. By controlling
the initial conditions of the Universe all is controlled
including future states.
Here, in a determinate Universe we can have no free
will, not even in principle.
A determinate, clock maker Universe that unwinds in a
determinate manner from a god created initial state
precludes all possibility of free will. All is determined.
Omnigenesis, all parts of a future Universe and all
our future acts are controlled by the god created
initial conditions of an explcitly determinate Universe.
B. GOD, OMNIPOTENCE AND TIME.
If god is omnipotent, he is beyond being affected by
mundane things. Time does not affect god, he created time
and God controls time, time does not control or affect
God. For God there is no past, present, future, just now.
This is God as explained by Augustine and Boethius. (3)
God out of time, transcendent to time, is a standard
theological claim because of these thinkers. If god were
controlled and subject to time, he could not be as claimed,
all powerful, omnipotent.
But again it's omnigenesis. God creates all. There
is no past, or future, all is one big now. Thus all is
created at once, now, in all its finest details. We are
back to omnigenesis as above.
We are driven there starting with claims god is
omnipotent and considering an omnipotent god who
created all and that god's relation to mundane time.
Omnipotence implies sovereignty over time which
drives us to total omni-genesis. Omnipotence and
omniscience both destroy and possibility of free will
in the very strongest manner possible.
C. OMNISCIENCE, GOD - CREATOR OF ALL, AND
OMNIGENESIS.
As seen above in 2. "The Omniscient, creator god",
a god that is simple said to be creator of all and
omniscient. No particular theory how he knows
all, is given, it is just claimed god is omniscient.
A God with no explicit theory as to how he knows all
still dooms free will in the strongest manner possible.
Just the fact this god is omniscience and creates all
is sufficient to create a states of universal omnigenesis.
D. Thus we have three theories of creation, omniscience
1. Deterministic, clock maker style Universe.
The theoretical deterministic prime mover's world.
2. Omnipotent god transcendent to time.
3. Omniscient - creator god.
All 3 theories lead to omnigenesis.
All 3 theories destroy any possible free will
totally in the strongest manner possible.
5. OMNIGENESIS AND METAPHYSICAL NIHILISM
A. God is alleged all good, totally good, omniscient,
creator of all. And the omni-everything creator
class of gods including the gods of Judaism, Islam,
Christianity and others have these attributes explicitly,
and also have other attributes.
B. These specific attributes are to be found in various
alleged revelations, Quran, Bible Vedas, et al. Proof
texts are used to make specific claims, god is merciful,
just, God loves us, God wants us to be saved and other
similar claims. Plus claims such as God created hell
and heaven, and that some men are to spend eternity in
eternal torment for their sins and acts.
C. God is just, merciful, he loves us and wants us to
be good and to be saved. God hates sin, evil and
punishes evil men for their acts, including eternal
damnation. And so on. Different religions may have
slightly different variations and emphasis on this
or that aspect of their god's abilities. Also involved
are more metaphysical considerations. God's perfection,
God as source of all morality, god's immutability.
But OMNIGENESIS destroys all of this. Since God
creates all to the smallest atom, act, and inclination,
there is no room for love or mercy. Why create one
man good, saved and to have eternal life in heaven,
and the next man evil, damned and tortured in eternal
torment in the flames of hell for all eternity for
acts that god decided, planned and created in all
their minute details to the lowliest quark?
Why that then, if god loves us all is just and merciful?
Since free will means nothing in the strongest manner
imaginable, a god that loves us would create us all
saved, and good and to have life eternal in heaven
if that god is as claimed merciful, just and loving
and omnibenevolent. Since we have no free will its
all one and the same. Thus we would expect a world
where all are good, and moral evil is never done by man
if in fact there was a god who creates all such that all
is decided by god to the finest details.
Heaven, hell, sin, salvation, damnation lose all
coherent sense and meaning. Where is love in
creating one man evil and allow him to torment many
innocent victims? How can that be loving, merciful or
just?
Theologians have created many half-baked excuses, suffering
creates character, evils allow second order goods to exist,
a kindness done to a fellow victim of a genocidal murderer
like Hilter perhaps.
That all dissolves into a meaningless, incoherent nihilism,
a bewildering meaninglessness far beyond the supposed
meaninglessness of a materialistic, Atheistic world
without god, which many theists assert is the logical
end point of Atheism.
Here god is creator of grotesquely meaningless chaos.
A world without any meaning, a surreal Hieronymus
Bosch world of demons and angels and the damned,
heavens and hells with lakes of molten sulfur and
fiery flames and unrelenting torture for men who
were only toys of a relentlessly mad, and meaningless
monster god who created them damned, for reasons unknown,
and unknowable, and irrational to nihilistic extremes.
6. SOULS
And supposedly this god creates souls, which somehow,
are attached to our physical bodies and minds and are
part of the heart of our very existence. Then again,
along with our bodies, our minds, our acts, our inclinations,
god must have created these souls. But he also must have
created them in relationship to our physical body and its
created acts, acts created by god to the smallest details.
It is the soul that allegedly is damned or saved and lives
for ever, or some such, but again, all acts of ours are
created by omnigenesis to the smallest quark so god either also
creates a corresponding soul, damned or saved in parallel.
Or maybe not, who can tell with such an incoherent chaotic,
senseless, irrational system?
The doctrine of souls, confusing enough as is, now becomes
impossible to explain in any fashion. It makes no sense
in a physical world that is determinate to the most
exacting omnigenesistic manner, how does a soul fit
into that world?
With omnigenesis all bets are off, all supposed knowledge
is impossible and incoherent to extremes.
7. CHAOS, NIHILISM, IRRATIONALITY, UNREALITY OF ALL
We achieve then total, absolute, furious metaphysical nihilism.
God is mad, and nothing in reality, or metaphysics or any possible
afterlife can be trusted. All supposed systems of metaphysics,
philosophy, religion, theology and reality are destroyed until
the rubble of it all is sucked into a chaotic surreal abyss of
irrational metaphysics undreamed of by thinking man. Theism
at bottom is nihilism so total it is obviously wrong in all its
particulars.
Good, evil, sin, salvation, damnation, sin, souls, heaven,
hell, love, mercy, justice, theodicy, teleology, ontology,
all makes no sense in the strongest terms. the class of
omni-everything, creator Gods destroys everything
with corrosive finality.
Theology, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, philosophy,
science, nothing makes the slightest sense in an omnigenesis
world, with a god that destroys all it touches if we claim
this personal, concious god is all knowing and creates all.
God then is perfect intellectual nihilism.
This is In the end, taken to their logical ends are all
theology religion, and omni-everything, creator god class
religion can possibly hope to achieve. Utter madness
and total incoherence. Compared to this atheistic
materialism is mankind's only rational hope.
Materialism must be true, the only truth possible. The Grand
Gods of Grand Theologies not only self destruct, but destroy
everything else with such incredible thoroughness and totality
that they cannot possibly be truth or reality. The class of
creator, omni-everything gods are impossible in the strongest
terms.
In the end, we have two stark and plain choices, sane
materialism, or total theological/metaphysical nihilism.
There is really then, only one choice to which we are driven
by logic and rationality.
God as creator of all, and omni-everything is impossible.
(1) Augustine (CE 388-395) De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio
(2) Pierre-Simon Laplace - "Essai Philosophique sur
les Probabilites" 1820.
(3) St. Augustine "Confessions" Book XI
(4) Boethius "Consolations of Philosophy" Book V
(End)u are the biggest idiot on the net?
When did I imply that "revelation imply creation" (sic)?
I do not, I point out creation is explicit in revealed books.
You have to be going senile to post stuopidty like this.
All your 'criticisms" are of this low, stupid, brain damaged quality.
I win, you lose since you cannot post a true criticism worth a damn,
only huge sprays of brain damaged garbage of the low quality as
shown above. Yi are makicious and deeply stupid.
And you will not be corrected, I have commented on this several times and
you just crap it out again with no change to your errors.
You just don't care.
You are going senile.
-----------
--
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 |
23 Sep 2006 04:31:53 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h9cbf5lp2d812@corp.supernews.com...
I am now rewriting my Omnigenesis essay and sharpening it up rather
considerably.
Possible Translation: You mean this time it will actually be logically
valid?
Simplified, some what less confusing, still basically the same
truth
Well, since your original argument was fundamentally flawed and NOT true,
you're probably still in the intellectual bog you began in.
you are mentally incapable of understanding.
Yadda, yadda.
You are a totally ignorant, unthinking fool.
Cough up the argument, save the taunts for your S&M friends.
Again, OEC gods are claimed to be creators of all, all knowing
via revelation.
Define revelation. In most modern religions, revelation is considered to be
an ongoing aspect of the church. It's not confined to the OT prophets.
This logically creates omnigenesis and that creates
metaphysical nihilism.
How does revelation imply creation? If I tell Fred what I plan on doing
next Tuesday and I don't tell Sally, I can be said to have revealed
something to Fred. Fred might even decide to call himself the prophet of
Gandalf. That doesn't mean I created the universe.
On the other hand, if your claiming that literally....." .....OEC gods are
claimed to be creators of all, all knowing via revelation," then all you're
saying is that the gods that are in the class of gods that are claimed to be
'omni-everything' [to use your pre-confabulated term], are in fact claimed
to be all knowing. And since 'all-knowingness' is already a part of your
'omni-everything class,' the only thing you're telling us is that the gods
that are claimed to be omni-everything are claimed to be omni-everything.
Redundant as well as being a strawman, since it's already been demonstrated
to you that
1. Modern religions do not all claim that God is omnipotent and omniscient
and neither did the original Hebrew texts state that God was omnipotent and
omniscient without internal contradiction.
2. Not all modern religions believe in revelation through holy texts
3. Not all modern religions believe that revelation is closed.
4. Not all modern religions believe that revelation is open.
Which leads us to wonder why or how revelation has anything to do with
anything.
-----
DOES GOD EXIST? STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - NO.
1. OMNIGENESIS, DETERMINISM, FREE WILL, METAPHYSICAL
CHAOS AND THEOLOGICAL NIHILISM.
4.3 billion people believe in religions that have a god
that is claimed to have created all, and is omniscient
and omnipotent.
Which leaves a whole lot of people who don't believe that but still believe
in a god. Which leaves your original claim that 'god is easy to disprove'
totally without support.
Omni-everything creator class gods (OEC).
After OEC god religions, non-theistic religions like
Buddhism are the largest religions. Non-OEC gods are also
easily shown impossible
Apparently they aren't "easily shown impossible". Out of the piles of horse
manure you've served up to the group, you haven't come up with a single
argument that has succeeded in doing that so far. I doubt that there are
many people here who will have forgotten that the best you could do on that
subject was to offer a personal opinion that Non-OEC gods 'weren't very
important." Quite a proof.
, but these are not very numerous
nor important religions.
And true to form, there you go again. Two problems with the comment.
1. YOU don't get to decide what's important.
2. Commenting that a particular god of a particular belief or group of
beliefs is not 'important' is not PROOF that they cannot exist. Cheap
brush-offs don't equal valid conclusions.
You've stated:
Non-OEC gods are also
easily shown impossible
So prove it right here, right now. I think most of the readers are tired of
watching the BillyBob version of The Rehashed Theological Arguments on Revue
show. The recognizably logical parts of any of your articles aren't yours.
They're antique arguments that worked better before you started skewing
them. YOU, on the other hand, have shown NOTHING that's new, and NOTHING
that's shown that Non-omnipotent gods are "impossible."
You can pull your pseudo arguments out of the trash, you can re-edit them,
you can reword them, or even put sequins on them and they're still going to
be garbage, Barwell. They still don't prove that no god can possibly exist,
which is what YOU claimed you could do. Everything from then to now has
been you tapdancing around your original fraudulent claim that you could
disprove the existence of any possible god. All the sheer tonnage of your
piles of crap has been an effort on your part to avoid the truth that you
don't have one damned clue as to how to disprove the existence of any
possible god. All your manure and the only thing you have to show for it is
'well, if god exists, god isn't very important.'
Omni - all, genesis - creation.
Omnigenesis = creation of all.
No it doesn't. It means "all creation"
Here I shall coin a word for further discussion.
Translation: Here you shall mutilate some words to try to disguise the fact
that you've got no game.
Omnigenesis means creation of all, to the smallest
physical detail. If god is in any way omniscient,
and creator of all, then he in fact creates all,
omnigenesis, to the smallest detail, all of creation
to the smallest quantum level material, to the smallest
Planck quantum distance, Planck quantum time, dimensions,
fields, everything, all of it.
Sorry, but you flop right here, as usual. If the Big Bang were the creator
of all, there is no logical necessity that the Big Bang would have to
manufacture everything in the universe down to the smallest detail. There
is no valid logic that necessitates that a first cause must create
everything in detail.
The rest of your argument is fatally flawed by your first and fatal mistake.
In short, it's the same garbage argument, propped up with more sophistry.
If you've got an argument that disproves the existence of any god, cough it
up, Barney. The majority of readers here have read better disproofs of the
orthodox god of Xianity than anything you could possibly come up with. If
you've got something new, trot it out or take a hike.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? Barwell DEBUNKED |
23 Sep 2006 09:38:03 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h9cbf5lp2d812@corp.supernews.com...
I am now rewriting my Omnigenesis essay and sharpening it up rather
considerably.
Possible Translation: You mean this time it will actually be logically
valid?
Simplified, some what less confusing, still basically the same
truth
Well, since your original argument was fundamentally flawed and NOT true,
you're probably still in the intellectual bog you began in.
you are mentally incapable of understanding.
Yadda, yadda.
You are a totally ignorant, unthinking fool.
Cough up the argument, save the taunts for your S&M friends.
Again, OEC gods are claimed to be creators of all, all knowing
via revelation.
Define revelation. In most modern religions, revelation is considered to be
an ongoing aspect of the church. It's not confined to the OT prophets.
This logically creates omnigenesis and that creates
metaphysical nihilism.
How does revelation imply creation? If I tell Fred what I plan on doing
next Tuesday and I don't tell Sally, I can be said to have revealed
something to Fred. Fred might even decide to call himself the prophet of
Gandalf. That doesn't mean I created the universe.
On the other hand, if your claiming that literally....." .....OEC gods are
claimed to be creators of all, all knowing via revelation," then all you're
saying is that the gods that are in the class of gods that are claimed to be
'omni-everything' [to use your pre-confabulated term], are in fact claimed
to be all knowing. And since 'all-knowingness' is already a part of your
'omni-everything class,' the only thing you're telling us is that the gods
that are claimed to be omni-everything are claimed to be omni-everything.
Redundant as well as being a strawman, since it's already been demonstrated
to you that
1. Modern religions do not all claim that God is omnipotent and omniscient
and neither did the original Hebrew texts state that God was omnipotent and
omniscient without internal contradiction.
2. Not all modern religions believe in revelation through holy texts
3. Not all modern religions believe that revelation is closed.
4. Not all modern religions believe that revelation is open.
Which leads us to wonder why or how revelation has an | | | | |
