| 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 08:51:13 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? Barwell DEBUNKED |
23 Sep 2006 03:47:44 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
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.
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, 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:
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.
Here is Barwell's 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.
Obviously, the gods of Bible, Quran and Vedas are EXPLICITLY
omniscient.
Why would I post an old canned spam that ignores Barwell's real claims
and essays rewrirtten to end my malicious distortions and lies?
Because I have contempt for you and don't think you are smart enough to
notice I am a liar who is harassing Barwell with crap I refuse to correct
despite repeat corrections by Barwell.
I have contempt for you and the very issue of reasoned debate.
I have contempt for the concept of making a vast error and correcting
myself when called on it because I don't think you deserve rational,and
intellectually honest discussion of issues.
I am a net bully plain and simple.
I have a long history of that.
Gandalf Grey, net bully and contempous net kook.
--
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? Barwell DEBUNKED |
23 Sep 2006 03:04:24 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.
For having something good I cannot hope to match.
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.
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:
I posted this.
*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
But not in all.
This is an old, old essay Barwell fixed so I cannot mislead you.
Here is the 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.
Barwell rewrote this, because with a maliciouis smirk, I
purposefully slanted my 'criticism' to be misleading.
Despite his correcting me on that poiint repeatedly, I
maliciously refused to stop spamming the same old lies over and over.
Even after Barwell has rewriten the essay to prevent me from
lying about what he wrote, I spam the OLD lies again and again.
This is not about debate, but malicious harassment.
I have contempt for you, who makes a mistake of wasting time with me.
Not a single thing I post in the hundreds of spammed critiques is true, or
reasonable, and I meant it to be that way.
Despite Barwell's repeat attempts to correct me, I refuse
to be corrected, again, it is about harassment, not about
issues, or logic or facts or reasonable discussion.
I don't care about any of that and have contempt for all
whose time I waste with this lying crap.
I am a malicious, hateful, net bully and don't forget that.
Will I ever correct an error I make about Barwell?
No. It is not an error but a malicious lie and I know it
and I don't care if its an old essay I distorted and
twisted and lies about about that has long been replaced.
I just don't care,because that is teh sort of small minded
hater I am.
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: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? Barwell DEBUNKED |
23 Sep 2006 03:14:07 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 DEBUNKED |
23 Sep 2006 08:51:04 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? Barwell DEBUNKED |
23 Sep 2006 04:10:42 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:
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.
I Hanson know this but thgis 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 whem 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 08:51:29 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? Barwell DEBUNKED |
23 Sep 2006 04:11:05 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 08:51:35 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? Barwell DEBUNKED |
22 Sep 2006 10:57:40 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Simplified, some what less confusing, still basically the same
truth
Well, since your ori
IS THERE A GOD? - No.
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - PART 3
1. MORE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of
the Universe or not? Is 2 + 2 = 4 something god
set as part of the nature of the Universe or is
that outside and beyond god?
Can god change 2 + 2 to 5?
2. IF GOD DID IN FACT MAKE THE RULES, LAWS, AND
LOGIC OF THE UNIVERSE.
A. If god did in fact make the rules and laws and
logic of the Universe, God could also change
them as needed.
B. A god that creates the rules, laws and logic
of the world he creates could simply make a
world where man has free will yet freely
chooses only to do moral good. Since such a
god creates the rules of the Universe, he
could change them in name of omnibenevolence,
free will is perserved and evil is banished.
Evil no longer needs to exist to allow for
free will.
C. If a god could do this and fails to, evil
exists solely and only because of god's
failure to use his omnipotence to change
the rules and laws and logic of the Universe
to give man free will and a nature incapable
of doing evil.
D. If a god can do this and fails to, that god is
not omnibenevolent as claimed, a contradiction
in definitions of god as omnibenevolent and
omnipotent.
E. God in fact since he is essentially the
creator and sustaining cause of all evil
that was, is, and shall be is omni-malevolent.
3. IF GOD DOES NOT MAKE THE LAWS, RULES AND
LOGIC OF THE UNIVERSE - THE SECOND HORN
OF THE DILEMMA.
A. If god does not make the rules, the laws, the
very logic of the Universe, then we have the
problem of what these things are and where
they come from.
B. If these laws and rules and logic limit god,
then god is obviously not omnipotent as
claimed.
C. And thus god is not as claimed, the greatest
thing that can be imagined. Obviously laws
and rules and logic that limit the most
powerful being in the Universe are greater
still because they do in fact limit such
a being.
D. If such laws and rules and logic outside and
beyond god do exist, and are thus greater
than god, god is not the greatest thing
imaginable and all ontological 'proofs' that
are based on that basic claim fail.
E. Such rules and laws and logic must exist
outside of god's control and must have always
been outside his control. If there were ever
in god's control, god cannot have reduced his
power to abandon omnipotence voluntarily.
Omnipotence is an inherent ability. It would
be like abandoning a sense of taste or touch.
This observation forstalls attempts at
apologisms claiming god abandoned any
abilities.
F. And if god could indeed abandon omnipotence,
he must avoid that. After all, he is also
omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolence dictates he
must at all times do the good thing, never an
evil thing. Abandoning omnipotence such that
he could no longer create a world where man
has free will, and a nature incapable of evil
is to allow evil to exist. To abandon
omnipotence is to embrace the proposition
evil is to be allowed to flourish. So any
claims god might have for some greater good
abandoned omnipotence freely are not possible.
G. If god is said to be omnipotent, if he at
anytime gave up any abilities he can no
longer said to be omnipotent, if he actually
gave up any abilities. A contradiction with
the claim god has all powers and abilities.
H. Since god must have had maximum power and
abilities and cannot have at any time
voluntarily relinquished any powers or
abilities, at least in the name of banishing
evil the fact that there are laws and rules
and logic of a universe outside and beyond
god, they are truly beyond and outside god,
and always were.
I. Since such laws and rules and laws are outside
god, and always were so, and are properties of
the Universe, the Universe is likewise outside
and beyond god, with its laws and rules and
logic.
J. Since the Universe and its laws and rules and
logic are outside and beyond god, god is not
as, creator of the Universe, of all. A
contradiction again of the claim god created
all.
K. Since the Universe no longer relies on god for
its purported existence, nor on god for the
existence of its laws and rules and logic,
god is no longer a necessary being. If there
are things that have necessary existence, it
would have to be the Universe as whole, or
possibly its laws, its rules or its logic,
or a subset of these rules or laws or the
underlying causes of these things, if any.
None were created by god or can be modified
by god.
L. If these laws and rules and logic could be
modified by god, then the rules and laws
and logic of the Universe would have been
modified to end existence of evil, and must
have modified this if god is actually
omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
M. God then is not omnipotent, or not
omnibenevolent, or is neither, or
does not exist.
4. POSSIBLE DODGES - LOGIC IS PART OF GOD
A. One possible dodge is to say logic is part
of god. An attribute.
B. God is said to be a necessary being, he
must exist, and is necessary for all other
things to exist, all other things rely on god
to create and sustain them, they are
contingent.
C. A house is contingent, it is made of lumber
and bricks and roofing tiles et al. Those
things must exist for the house to exist and
precede the house.
D. God is said to have attributes, intelligence,
personality, all powers and abilities,
foreknowledge, omnipotence, and on and on.
E. But then god cannot be necessary, we must
account for these attributes god is
contingent on.
F. Thus we have an ad hocism in theology,
simplicity. God is said to be simple, that
all these alledged attributes are single, part
of a large, whole attribute. This ad hoc
dodge is created to pretend god is not
contingent as a house is contingent on
its materials. And theology claims it
does not have to account for these attributes
much as we ask for an account of where the
House's bricks and lumber come from.
G. God is said to be simple, not made of parts,
physically or metaphysically, he is a whole,
indivisible.
H. If somehow god is said to be the source of
logic, theology must account how that
somehow becomes the laws and rules and logic
of a Universe god is transcendent to.
I. Since god is also intelligent, and all
powerful, and since all these attributes are a
single simple attribute, then the Universe
should not only have logic, it should also be
intelligent and all powerful, merciful, just
et al.
J. Thus ad hoc claims god is somehow logic
itself and the ad hoc claim god is simple, not
made of parts, metaphysically or physically
create an impossible and contradictory and
incoherent set of claims.
5. MORE PROBLEMS WITH SIMPLICITY
A. What is logic, is it one thing or many?
Is 2 + 2 = 4 a different logic than E=MC**2?
Is Physics something god creates? What
about morality, it that a sort of logic?
B. If physics is something god does, why do
we have massive earthquakes that kill many,
or is that somehow, part of god's nature
and out of his control? If so, god is then
not omnipotent, this doctrine of simplicity
contradicts the claim god is all powerful.
C. How does theology plan to investigate these
issues or is simplicity simply an ad hocism
that theology has no intention of following
up on? Its claims create a tremendous
amount of issues.
Another essay will be written dealing in greater
detail with the issue of simplicity and its
implications.
6. THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF
THE ABOVE EXAMINATION OF GOD
A. Thus the idea god is omnipotent,
omnibenevolent, and creator of all, clash again
and mutually self-destruct over the issue of
evil's existence.
This raises serious questions on the nature
of the Universe that cannot be as Grand
Theology claims it is. The class of
omni-everything, creator gods cannot exist as
asserted.
A. We have shown god cannot have created the
Universe.
B. We have shown god does not create the laws,
rules and laws of that Universe.
C. That god is thus not omnipotent as these laws
limit him.
D. That god is not the greatest imaginable thing.
E. That ontological proofs of god's existence
based on claims god is the greatest thing
imaginable are failed arguments.
F. That god cannot be a necessary being, as
claimed.
G. That any possible claims god might for some
reason abandon or limit any abilities cannot
be true in any attempt to avoid this line of
inquiry. Nor can that approach derail logical
examination of consequences of Grand
Theology's overarching claims to god's
attributes or nature.
The fact that god is allegedly omnibenevolent and
evil exists, demonstrates god cannot make the
rules of the world. 2 + 2 = 4 because that is
the nature of the Universe, not something god
created. Because if god did create the rules and
laws and logic of the Universe, and was omnibenevolent,
we should have no signs of evil, especially moral
evil of man, Satan, demons and devils.
But if one admits to that, Many other important
claims collapse, many other arguments about god
and his attributes and nature no longer are
viable. Some of these claims, god's creation
of the Universe are among the oldest and most
basic of theology.
Ontological proofs started with Anselm in the
10th century, all of these now must be abandoned.
The necessary being argument, long a rhetorical
argument is now finally dead.
Free will defenses against the problem of evil
opened up a line of attack here that is powerful
and very final.
**************************************************
--
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? Barwell DEBUNKED |
22 Sep 2006 11:02:19 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h9c6qndb2tp8a@corp.supernews.com...
IS THERE A GOD? - No.
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - PART 3
BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DEBUNKED ARGUMENT
DEAR READER:
THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED FOR YOUR READING SAFETY
1. MORE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of
the Universe or not?
Why? What does that have to do with the necessary existence of God?
THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF THE
ABOVE EXAMINATION OF GOD
Thus the idea god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent,
and creator of all, clash again and mutually
self-destruct over the issue of evil's existance.
Of course they don't.
1.None of these attributes are necessary to the existence of God.
2.Only Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence clash over the issue of evil's
existence.
3.Nowhere have you shown anything else.
This raises serious questions on the nature of the
Universe that cannot be as Grand Theology claims
it is.
That may be but you haven't shown it to be true.
The class of omni-everything, creator
gods cannot exist as asserted.
Unproven as I've already demonstrated in dozens of posts.
A. We have shown god cannot have created the
Universe.
No you haven't. And once again, you're pulling the same dishonest trick
you've pulled from the first. You make claims which you don't prove, then
you go on to compound your error by pretending your original claim has
proved more than you initially said it would.
1. You make fallacious claims.
2. You make no attempt to prove them.
3. When criticized you insist that you have proved them.
4. You go on to insist that they prove more than you claimed they would
prove.
5. When the criticism gets too strong, you backpedal your claims and revise
your comments to pretend that they now are more narrow.
6. You then trot out the original debunked arguments.
7. And you then go on to insist that these arguments, once again, prove more
than you said they would.
As we have seen, in this second attempt of yours after having your initial
argument debunked by myself and others, you said your 'new argument does not
aim at all gods but only particular gods. Yet here in your summary, you
start right out MAKING A UNIVERSAL CLAIM concerning the existence of god.
So once again, you've lied, and your subsequent arguments are essentially
the same arguments that have already been debunked.
You're a scam artist, Barwell. You have no argument. You never had an
argument, just a bunch of assertions that you pasted off the web. I doubt
that you have any intention of writing a book; that too was all part of the
scam. All you've ever had is a cloud of rhetoric that you pretend is
scientific and logical.
At this point, there's one conclusion about you that covers all the facts.
I believe you're a stalking horse placed here intentionally by the right to
play the part of a cardboard cutout scientist as the right conceives of
them.
Certainly your argument has done more damage to humanism, rationality and
science than many an argument coming from the religious right. Your
portrayal of an intellectual is a comedy pastiche of all the bigotry and
stupidity that is the very antithesis of real science.
But even as a stalking-horse for the right wing, you've done a poor job.
You're too 1-dimensional and take offense too easily to be believable as a
real scientist, your logic is simply too sophomoric to believe that you have
any knowledge of logic beyond what you've been coached on, and your tendency
to simply repost your fallacies is far more like the technique of the right
wing than the predictable response of any real scholar.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
22 Sep 2006 10:58:11 PM |
|
|
IS GOD POSSIBLE? - NO.
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - PART 4
1. THE RULES AND LAWS AND LOGIC OF THE UNIVERSE
A. In part three, we saw that the Universe's rules
and laws and logic cannot have been created by
god. These things are exist beyond him and
outside his control, even god must obey them.
2 + 2 = 4 for god as well as us.
B. But what are these rules, these laws, this
logic?
2. The CLASS OF OMNI-EVERYTHING, CREATOR GODS
IS USELESS.
A. Bluntly, Grand Theology cannot help us here.
These questions, "What is the nature of the
Universe?" were abandoned centuries ago as it
was merely assumed god explained that. The
fact is, as was shown in part three, its almost
trivial to show that the omni-everything god
cannot account for either the creation of the
Universe or the Universe's attributes, its laws
and logic.
B. God as a class of omni-everything, creator gods
cannot exist as having created all as claimed.
C. Obviously, the fact that god is still referred
to as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
shows that most of theology has failed to consider
the facts and to reason rationally about the
facts. Theology does not see and has not seen its
methodology is failed. That it has given us
obviously wrong ideas. It has nothing thus to
offer us on the real and meaningful questions
asked above.
D. Such questions will be answered, if answered at
all, by physics, by science. Why are there three
spatial dimensions, not more or less? Why are
there 4 forces? Why does time seem to move only
forward? What is the real nature of matter, of
energy? Why does 2 + 2 = 4? Grand theology is
singularly unsuited to answering these questions.
And the class of omni-everything creator gods
cannot explain anything. That is a failed idea.
E. We do see rules and laws of the universe by
careful observation. The rules of physics,
chemistry, biology, cosmology, derived by
observation, and contradicting many theological
dogmas based on a class of omni0-everything gods.
F. Theology based on the class of omni-everything
gods has for millenia, when theorizing about the
natural world had a perfect record, always wrong.
Obviously that idea is an abject failure.
3. CAN A GOD EVEN EXIST?
We see that things that have complexity and think
and act and reason are made of matter, and obey
the known laws of physics and biology.
Can a god or deity for being that can think, and
reason exist apart of matter and energy and
dimensions and the laws and rules of the Universe?
The only rules and laws we can observe do not
allow for that. The fact that the claims made
for a class of omni-everything creator gods
contradict each other fatally dooms these gods
anyway. Since they cannot exist as claimed,
obviously physics and the rules, laws and logic
of the Universe have nothing to do with such
entities. And there is nothing outside of these
laws, rules and logic of the Univeerse, obviously
physical, to sustain something we can prove cannot
exist.
4. WHAT IS SUPERNATURAL?
A. Before Thales and the Ionian philosophers,
there was no real concept of natural and
supernatural. These earliest Greek philosophers
dispensed with the idea of gods and considered
the way the world works without regards to
dieties. They adopted the word phusis to their
investigations, a word used roughly to mean
nature, a word that gave us our word physics.
B.Later philosophers explicitly introduced the
idea of god as foundation of nature, starting with
Xenophanes, as distinct from water or air as
claimed cause of the Universe, or later atomists
with their atom theories of materialsm.
C. Here we find the first dividing lines between
the natural world and the supernatural. After
Galileo, when science as we know it was well
created, this gap between the natural and
supernatural became obvious.
D. As science became successful, and needed
nothing supernatural to explain anything, god
became to seem superfluous. God was banished as
an explanation from more and more disciplines
and became the god of the gaps, only capable of
existing as an explanation where science had not
yet moved in and shown how the Universe works
without need for gods or deities in that gap.
E. Now the Universe is regarded as a largely
natural place, with no supernatural aspect to it
by science. The Universe is natural and
supernatural has no real definition. It can only
be defined parasitically, the supernatural is what
the natural world is not.
F. But how do you define natural? Natural is that
which needs no supernatural to explain its
workings.
G. The problem for supernaturalists is they have
no facts, no real theories, just assertions. The
claims they make, heaven exists, there is a god,
we have souls, are unproven and they have no
programs for proving any assertions they make,
which sets them apart from science.
It is this lack of a research program, a method
of proving any assertions, lack of ability to show
any claimed fact really exists, that sets
theology apart from science.
H. Nor can they base such claims on the existence
of a supernatural realm,because that realm not
only seems to be absent, but cannot be proven to
exist. Its hard to even define except in
opposition to the natural realm we see around us.
And as the Grand God class is now dead as a
possible explanation, there is no need for
supernaturalism to be a foundation for
something that cannot exist as proven on other
grounds.
-----------------------------------------------
--
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 11:02:44 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h9c7notrjkfa8@corp.supernews.com...
IS GOD POSSIBLE? - NO.
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - PART 4
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DEBUNKED ARGUMENT
ATTENTION!
THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED FOR YOUR READING SAFETY.
1. THE RULES AND LAWS AND LOGIC OF THE UNIVERSE
A. In part three, we saw that the Universe's rules
and laws and logic cannot have been created by
god.
No we didn't. At least nothing you wrote demonstrated the necessity of such
a conclusion.
B. But what are these rules, these laws, this
logic?
2. The CLASS OF OMNI-EVERYTHING, CREATOR GODS
IS USELESS.
We've already gone through this and seen that everything you have to say
about your self-created, self-serving 'class' of gods is either a fallacy of
composition or a biased sample and so invalid. It also falls prey to
Russell's paradox.
B. God as a class of omni-everything, creator gods
cannot exist as having created all as claimed.
Since you're nearly the only one making such a claim, it hardly matters.
C. Obviously, the fact that god is still referred
to as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
shows that most of theology has failed to consider
the facts and to reason rationally about the
facts.
Since the above attributes do not represent "most of theology" again, all we
have here is your fallacy of composition.
Theology does not see and has not seen its
methodology is failed.
Which theology?
E. We do see rules and laws of the universe by
careful observation.
What is the difference between rules and laws? We do not see "rules and
laws" of the universe at all. We see the results of some of the laws of the
universe whether we're careful or not.
The rules of physics,
chemistry, biology, cosmology, derived by
observation,
Are not the rules of the universe. I should think you'd know that at least.
3. CAN A GOD EVEN EXIST?
We see that things that have complexity and think
and act and reason are made of matter, and obey
the known laws of physics and biology.
And that implies what? That we see all beings?
Can a god or deity for being that can think, and
reason exist apart of matter and energy and
dimensions and the laws and rules of the Universe?
Does one have to?
The only rules and laws we can observe do not
allow for that.
Unsupported assertion.
1. There's excellent, nearly self-evident reason to believe that we do not
see universal laws at all.
2. There's no reason to believe that the laws that govern what we do see are
the only possible laws.
3. There's no logically neccessary reason that we see everything that is
governed by actual laws or that we ever will see everything governed by
actual physical laws.
4. There's no logical reason that the local physical laws governing what we
do see could not under any circumstances have been caused or created by a
god.
The fact that the claims made
for a class of omni-everything creator gods
contradict each other fatally dooms these gods
anyway.
You mean the claims you choose fatally contradict the strawman you've set up
to destroy.
Since they cannot exist as claimed,
obviously physics and the rules, laws and logic
of the Universe have nothing to do with such
entities. And there is nothing outside of these
laws, rules and logic of the Univeerse, obviously
physical, to sustain something we can prove cannot
exist.
1. You haven't proved god cannot exist. Again you dishonestly sneak your
universal assertion of god into the smaller argument.
2. There's nothing to prove that we know everything that can and does exist
and every reason to believe that we do not know everything that can and does
exist.
4. WHAT IS SUPERNATURAL?
A. Before Thales and the Ionian philosophers,
there was no real concept of natural and
supernatural.
That we know of historically. It's quite likely that the concept itself was
well known before the fragmentary remains of pre-socratic philosophers.
These earliest Greek philosophers
dispensed with the idea of gods
So they thought. You assume too much as usual.
and considered
the way the world works without regards to
dieties. They adopted the word phusis to their
investigations, a word used roughly to mean
nature, a word that gave us our word physics.
B.Later philosophers explicitly introduced the
idea of god as foundation of nature, starting with
Xenophanes, as distinct from water or air as
claimed cause of the Universe, or later atomists
with their atom theories of materialsm.
C. Here we find the first dividing lines between
the natural world and the supernatural. After
Galileo, when science as we know it was well
created, this gap between the natural and
supernatural became obvious.
It was obvious long before that time. The apostle Paul was having problems
with Greek skeptics long before this.
[skip rest of Weekly Reader summary]
F. But how do you define natural? Natural is that
which needs no supernatural to explain its
workings.
Hardly. Again, you substitute rhetoric for reality. Science attempts to
explain nature in terms of nature. Nature is what there is. Nature is
whatever is.
G. The problem for supernaturalists is they have
no facts, no real theories, just assertions. The
claims they make, heaven exists, there is a god,
we have souls, are unproven and they have no
programs for proving any assertions they make,
which sets them apart from science.
Only a moron is unaware of the difference between science and religion. The
difference between the two does not help your claim.
H. Nor can they base such claims on the existence
of a supernatural realm,because that realm not
only seems to be absent, but cannot be proven to
exist.
Nor can science prove that it does not exist.
That was the truth you pretended to be able to disprove.
You've failed, Barwell.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? Gandys stupidity on display |
23 Sep 2006 02:11:34 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
A. In part three, we saw that the Universe's rules
and laws and logic cannot have been created by
god.
No we didn't. At least nothing you wrote demonstrated the necessity of
such a conclusion.
Yes, I did YOU are too stupid to understand the argument.
IS THERE A GOD? - No.
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - PART 3
1. MORE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of
the Universe or not? Is 2 + 2 = 4 something god
set as part of the nature of the Universe or is
that outside and beyond god?
Can god change 2 + 2 to 5?
2. IF GOD DID IN FACT MAKE THE RULES, LAWS, AND
LOGIC OF THE UNIVERSE.
A. If god did in fact make the rules and laws and
logic of the Universe, God could also change
them as needed.
B. A god that creates the rules, laws and logic
of the world he creates could simply make a
world where man has free will yet freely
chooses only to do moral good. Since such a
god creates the rules of the Universe, he
could change them in name of omnibenevolence,
free will is perserved and evil is banished.
Evil no longer needs to exist to allow for
free will.
C. If a god could do this and fails to, evil
exists solely and only because of god's
failure to use his omnipotence to change
the rules and laws and logic of the Universe
to give man free will and a nature incapable
of doing evil.
D. If a god can do this and fails to, that god is
not omnibenevolent as claimed, a contradiction
in definitions of god as omnibenevolent and
omnipotent.
E. God in fact since he is essentially the
creator and sustaining cause of all evil
that was, is, and shall be is omni-malevolent.
3. IF GOD DOES NOT MAKE THE LAWS, RULES AND
LOGIC OF THE UNIVERSE - THE SECOND HORN
OF THE DILEMMA.
A. If god does not make the rules, the laws, the
very logic of the Universe, then we have the
problem of what these things are and where
they come from.
B. If these laws and rules and logic limit god,
then god is obviously not omnipotent as
claimed.
C. And thus god is not as claimed, the greatest
thing that can be imagined. Obviously laws
and rules and logic that limit the most
powerful being in the Universe are greater
still because they do in fact limit such
a being.
D. If such laws and rules and logic outside and
beyond god do exist, and are thus greater
than god, god is not the greatest thing
imaginable and all ontological 'proofs' that
are based on that basic claim fail.
E. Such rules and laws and logic must exist
outside of god's control and must have always
been outside his control. If there were ever
in god's control, god cannot have reduced his
power to abandon omnipotence voluntarily.
Omnipotence is an inherent ability. It would
be like abandoning a sense of taste or touch.
This observation forstalls attempts at
apologisms claiming god abandoned any
abilities.
F. And if god could indeed abandon omnipotence,
he must avoid that. After all, he is also
omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolence dictates he
must at all times do the good thing, never an
evil thing. Abandoning omnipotence such that
he could no longer create a world where man
has free will, and a nature incapable of evil
is to allow evil to exist. To abandon
omnipotence is to embrace the proposition
evil is to be allowed to flourish. So any
claims god might have for some greater good
abandoned omnipotence freely are not possible.
G. If god is said to be omnipotent, if he at
anytime gave up any abilities he can no
longer said to be omnipotent, if he actually
gave up any abilities. A contradiction with
the claim god has all powers and abilities.
H. Since god must have had maximum power and
abilities and cannot have at any time
voluntarily relinquished any powers or
abilities, at least in the name of banishing
evil the fact that there are laws and rules
and logic of a universe outside and beyond
god, they are truly beyond and outside god,
and always were.
I. Since such laws and rules and laws are outside
god, and always were so, and are properties of
the Universe, the Universe is likewise outside
and beyond god, with its laws and rules and
logic.
J. Since the Universe and its laws and rules and
logic are outside and beyond god, god is not
as, creator of the Universe, of all. A
contradiction again of the claim god created
all.
K. Since the Universe no longer relies on god for
its purported existence, nor on god for the
existence of its laws and rules and logic,
god is no longer a necessary being. If there
are things that have necessary existence, it
would have to be the Universe as whole, or
possibly its laws, its rules or its logic,
or a subset of these rules or laws or the
underlying causes of these things, if any.
None were created by god or can be modified
by god.
L. If these laws and rules and logic could be
modified by god, then the rules and laws
and logic of the Universe would have been
modified to end existence of evil, and must
have modified this if god is actually
omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
M. God then is not omnipotent, or not
omnibenevolent, or is neither, or
does not exist.
4. POSSIBLE DODGES - LOGIC IS PART OF GOD
A. One possible dodge is to say logic is part
of god. An attribute.
B. God is said to be a necessary being, he
must exist, and is necessary for all other
things to exist, all other things rely on god
to create and sustain them, they are
contingent.
C. A house is contingent, it is made of lumber
and bricks and roofing tiles et al. Those
things must exist for the house to exist and
precede the house.
D. God is said to have attributes, intelligence,
personality, all powers and abilities,
foreknowledge, omnipotence, and on and on.
E. But then god cannot be necessary, we must
account for these attributes god is
contingent on.
F. Thus we have an ad hocism in theology,
simplicity. God is said to be simple, that
all these alledged attributes are single, part
of a large, whole attribute. This ad hoc
dodge is created to pretend god is not
contingent as a house is contingent on
its materials. And theology claims it
does not have to account for these attributes
much as we ask for an account of where the
House's bricks and lumber come from.
G. God is said to be simple, not made of parts,
physically or metaphysically, he is a whole,
indivisible.
H. If somehow god is said to be the source of
logic, theology must account how that
somehow becomes the laws and rules and logic
of a Universe god is transcendent to.
I. Since god is also intelligent, and all
powerful, and since all these attributes are a
single simple attribute, then the Universe
should not only have logic, it should also be
intelligent and all powerful, merciful, just
et al.
J. Thus ad hoc claims god is somehow logic
itself and the ad hoc claim god is simple, not
made of parts, metaphysically or physically
create an impossible and contradictory and
incoherent set of claims.
5. MORE PROBLEMS WITH SIMPLICITY
A. What is logic, is it one thing or many?
Is 2 + 2 = 4 a different logic than E=MC**2?
Is Physics something god creates? What
about morality, it that a sort of logic?
B. If physics is something god does, why do
we have massive earthquakes that kill many,
or is that somehow, part of god's nature
and out of his control? If so, god is then
not omnipotent, this doctrine of simplicity
contradicts the claim god is all powerful.
C. How does theology plan to investigate these
issues or is simplicity simply an ad hocism
that theology has no intention of following
up on? Its claims create a tremendous
amount of issues.
Another essay will be written dealing in greater
detail with the issue of simplicity and its
implications.
6. THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF
THE ABOVE EXAMINATION OF GOD
A. Thus the idea god is omnipotent,
omnibenevolent, and creator of all, clash again
and mutually self-destruct over the issue of
evil's existence.
This raises serious questions on the nature
of the Universe that cannot be as Grand
Theology claims it is. The class of
omni-everything, creator gods cannot exist as
asserted.
A. We have shown god cannot have created the
Universe.
B. We have shown god does not create the laws,
rules and laws of that Universe.
C. That god is thus not omnipotent as these laws
limit him.
D. That god is not the greatest imaginable thing.
E. That ontological proofs of god's existence
based on claims god is the greatest thing
imaginable are failed arguments.
F. That god cannot be a necessary being, as
claimed.
G. That any possible claims god might for some
reason abandon or limit any abilities cannot
be true in any attempt to avoid this line of
inquiry. Nor can that approach derail logical
examination of consequences of Grand
Theology's overarching claims to god's
attributes or nature.
The fact that god is allegedly omnibenevolent and
evil exists, demonstrates god cannot make the
rules of the world. 2 + 2 = 4 because that is
the nature of the Universe, not something god
created. Because if god did create the rules and
laws and logic of the Universe, and was omnibenevolent,
we should have no signs of evil, especially moral
evil of man, Satan, demons and devils.
But if one admits to that, Many other important
claims collapse, many other arguments about god
and his attributes and nature no longer are
viable. Some of these claims, god's creation
of the Universe are among the oldest and most
basic of theology.
Ontological proofs started with Anselm in the
10th century, all of these now must be abandoned.
The necessary being argument, long a rhetorical
argument is now finally dead.
Free will defenses against the problem of evil
opened up a line of attack here that is powerful
and very final.
**************************************************
--
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? Barwell's stupidity on display |
23 Sep 2006 04:36:07 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12hb1oba8vp6oaf@corp.supernews.com...
IS THERE A GOD? - No.
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - PART 3
BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DEBUNKED ARGUMENT
DEAR READER:
THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED FOR YOUR READING SAFETY
1. MORE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of
the Universe or not?
Why? What does that have to do with the necessary existence of God?
THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF THE
ABOVE EXAMINATION OF GOD
Thus the idea god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent,
and creator of all, clash again and mutually
self-destruct over the issue of evil's existance.
Of course they don't.
1.None of these attributes are necessary to the existence of God.
2.Only Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence clash over the issue of evil's
existence.
3.Nowhere have you shown anything else.
This raises serious questions on the nature of the
Universe that cannot be as Grand Theology claims
it is.
That may be but you haven't shown it to be true.
The class of omni-everything, creator
gods cannot exist as asserted.
Unproven as I've already demonstrated in dozens of posts.
A. We have shown god cannot have created the
Universe.
No you haven't. And once again, you're pulling the same dishonest trick
you've pulled from the first. You make claims which you don't prove, then
you go on to compound your error by pretending your original claim has
proved more than you initially said it would.
1. You make fallacious claims.
2. You make no attempt to prove them.
3. When criticized you insist that you have proved them.
4. You go on to insist that they prove more than you claimed they would
prove.
5. When the criticism gets too strong, you backpedal your claims and revise
your comments to pretend that they now are more narrow.
6. You then trot out the original debunked arguments.
7. And you then go on to insist that these arguments, once again, prove more
than you said they would.
As we have seen, in this second attempt of yours after having your initial
argument debunked by myself and others, you said your 'new argument does not
aim at all gods but only particular gods. Yet here in your summary, you
start right out MAKING A UNIVERSAL CLAIM concerning the existence of god.
So once again, you've lied, and your subsequent arguments are essentially
the same arguments that have already been debunked.
You're a scam artist, Barwell. You have no argument. You never had an
argument, just a bunch of assertions that you pasted off the web. I doubt
that you have any intention of writing a book; that too was all part of the
scam. All you've ever had is a cloud of rhetoric that you pretend is
scientific and logical.
At this point, there's one conclusion about you that covers all the facts.
I believe you're a stalking horse placed here intentionally by the right to
play the part of a cardboard cutout scientist as the right conceives of
them.
Certainly your argument has done more damage to humanism, rationality and
science than many an argument coming from the religious right. Your
portrayal of an intellectual is a comedy pastiche of all the bigotry and
stupidity that is the very antithesis of real science.
But even as a stalking-horse for the right wing, you've done a poor job.
You're too 1-dimensional and take offense too easily to be believable as a
real scientist, your logic is simply too sophomoric to believe that you have
any knowledge of logic beyond what you've been coached on, and your tendency
to simply repost your fallacies is far more like the technique of the right
wing than the predictable response of any real scholar.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? Barwell Debunked |
23 Sep 2006 09:45:29 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12hb1oba8vp6oaf@corp.supernews.com...
IS THERE A GOD? - No.
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - PART 3
BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DEBUNKED ARGUMENT
DEAR READER:
THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED FOR YOUR READING SAFETY
1. MORE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of
the Universe or not?
Why? What does that have to do with the necessary existence of God?
THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF THE
ABOVE EXAMINATION OF GOD
Thus the idea god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent,
and creator of all, clash again and mutually
self-destruct over the issue of evil's existance.
Of course they don't.
1.None of these attributes are necessary to the existence of God.
2.Only Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence clash over the issue of evil's
existence.
3.Nowhere have you shown anything else.
This raises serious questions on the nature of the
Universe that cannot be as Grand Theology claims
it is.
That may be but you haven't shown it to be true.
The class of omni-everything, creator
gods cannot exist as asserted.
Unproven as I've already demonstrated in dozens of posts.
A. We have shown god cannot have created the
Universe.
No you haven't. And once again, you're pulling the same dishonest trick
you've pulled from the first. You make claims which you don't prove, then
you go on to compound your error by pretending your original claim has
proved more than you initially said it would.
1. You make fallacious claims.
2. You make no attempt to prove them.
3. When criticized you insist that you have proved them.
4. You go on to insist that they prove more than you claimed they would
prove.
5. When the criticism gets too strong, you backpedal your claims and revise
your comments to pretend that they now are more narrow.
6. You then trot out the original debunked arguments.
7. And you then go on to insist that these arguments, once again, prove more
than you said they would.
As we have seen, in this second attempt of yours after having your initial
argument debunked by myself and others, you said your 'new argument does not
aim at all gods but only particular gods. Yet here in your summary, you
start right out MAKING A UNIVERSAL CLAIM concerning the existence of god.
So once again, you've lied, and your subsequent arguments are essentially
the same arguments that have already been debunked.
You're a scam artist, Barwell. You have no argument. You never had an
argument, just a bunch of assertions that you pasted off the web. I doubt
that you have any intention of writing a book; that too was all part of the
scam. All you've ever had is a cloud of rhetoric that you pretend is
scientific and logical.
At this point, there's one conclusion about you that covers all the facts.
I believe you're a stalking horse placed here intentionally by the right to
play the part of a cardboard cutout scientist as the right conceives of
them.
Certainly your argument has done more damage to humanism, rationality and
science than many an argument coming from the religious right. Your
portrayal of an intellectual is a comedy pastiche of all the bigotry and
stupidity that is the very antithesis of real science.
But even as a stalking-horse for the right wing, you've done a poor job.
You're too 1-dimensional and take offense too easily to be believable as a
real scientist, your logic is simply too sophomoric to believe that you have
any knowledge of logic beyond what you've been coached on, and your tendency
to simply repost your fallacies is far more like the technique of the right
wing than the predictable response of any real scholar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
23 Sep 2006 11:50:17 PM |
|
|
Web Images Groups News Froogle Maps more »
Advanced Groups Search
Preferences
alt.society.liberalism > The Gandalf Grey Usenet Abuse FAQ, Version 1.1:
Fixed font - Proportional font
From: Publius - view profile
Date: Sat, Nov 1 2003 11:25 pm
Email: "Publius" <t...@federalist.papers>
Groups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,
alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew, alt.politics.bush,
alt.politics.liberalism, alt.society.liberalism, talk.politics.misc
Not yet rated
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
The Gandalf Grey Usenet Abuse FAQ, Version 1.1:
Notice: The source for all information contained in the FAQ is derived from
"Grey's" history of posting as found in Google Groups, and as such is in
the
public domain.
Revisions:
Ver 1.0: Original FAQ
Ver 1.1: Minor text changes and inclusion of additional cited material and.
Examples of Grey's reprisal and debating tactics included.
**WHO IS GANDALF GREY AND WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT HIM?
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfg...@infectedmail.com> is a major abuser of the
Usenet system.
Grey illegally reposts some 8000 copyrighted print/web articles per year
into at least 9 political newsgroups. On an annual basis, Grey dumps over
80 megabytes of copyrighted traffic into Usenet. Using these actions, Grey
is attempting to drown opposing voices by "jamming" the newsgroups with a
massive amount of illegally reprinted copyrighted material that supports
his
political views.
It is this behavior, and ONLY this behavior, that qualifies Grey for
notoriety. His other posts, and the content of articles whose copyright
protection he has violated is irrelevant to this FAQ, which is solely
devoted to his behavior and not his politics.
**WHAT IS GREY'S POSTING HISTORY?
Grey's abuse of Usenet has been an on-going event since at least March of
1995 under a series of identities. "Grey" is only his latest handle or
identity when posting in political groups. This current identity dates
from
November 1996 when he dropped his previous public persona
(RH) in an attempt to "go underground."
His notice of identity change is dated from 11/28/1996. It reads in part:
Quote:
From: (RH)
Subject: !GOODBYE?
Date: 1996/11/28
Message-ID: <329f18e5.355...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
references: <329DE53D.1...@globaldialog.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Netcom
x-netcom-date: Thu Nov 28 5:32:22 PM CST 1996
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups:
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.newt-ging
rich,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.dear.whitehouse,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.pol
itics.usa.conservatives,talk.politics.misc
[snip]
I want to thank all the many lurkers who have written me letters of
support for my endeavors. To those liberal and progressive posters
who choose to remain, I wish luck and wit and the patience necessary
to deal with the mentally ill. To those lunatics who favored me with
their attention, don't think I've stopped watching you or that you can
ever really be free of me. I'm as close to you as your guilty
consciences, as inevitable as your worst nightmares.
RH
End Quote
The "RH" stands for Richard Hanson (sometimes spelled by others as Hansen).
Richard Hanson is Gandalf Grey's name in real life.
It should be noted that Hanson did not entirely abandon the use of his
"area51" identity for Usenet Posting. He continued to use this identity to
post on non-political news groups until at least 1998, if not later.
However, Hanson has used "Gandalf Grey" for political messages since 1996.
Neither "area51" nor any previous identity has been used to post in the
political newsgroups since 11/1998, as far as this author can determine.
**WHAT WERE GREY'S PREVIOUS ONLINE IDENTITIES?
He adopted and began to use the handle of (RH) at the
end of July, 1996 and used this for approximately 6 months before
abandoning
it for the current "Gandalf Grey" in political posts.
Prior to using his "area51" persona, Hanson used the handle
"R...@zetetic.org". He used this handle for about 2 weeks, until this
identity was linked to the handle he was using for the previous year:
"(Hanson)."
Hanson began posting political messages on or about March 2, 1995 using
"(Hanson)." An early article establishes his liberal
credentials and his point of view:
Quote:
From: (Richard Hanson)
[snip]
Subject: Re: !ATTENTION LIMBICILES!
Date: 2 Mar 1995 19:12:59 GMT
[snip]
Message-ID: <3j55br$...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
[snip]
I agree with virtually everything you've said here. The only problem
is, I think a lot of the reactionary CNs [conservanazis] are too
stupid
to recognize the sarcasm of your posting.
The problem is that for many years we've all realized that there was a
sizeable rightest minority in America. And I think we've all sat at
enough dinner tables with the "silent majority" to hear the kind of
sniveling bigotries that make it all too clear what the conservatives
actually "stand" for. The only thing that made the conservative
postion tolerable was that most of these people kept their mouths
shut,
realizing that most people would at least pay lip service to the
fundamental principles of democracy.
[snip]
But unfortunatetly, so is fear, and hatred of what is feared, and thus
was created the conservative movement. The saddest thing about this
fundamental struggle is that, although I have seen quite a few
misguided
liberal leaders in my day, I've never met one that I would call
intentionally evil. I can't say the same for the conservatives. Oh
sure, most conservatives are just plain moronic. But their
leaders--there's something amazingly evil about rich powerful men
getting more rich and more powerful by feeding on the fears and
hatreds
of the terminally idiotic. Every time I listen to a Limbough or a
Buckley, I shudder at the real evil in America. These men would and
will snuff out their followers in an instant, and their only real
vision
of America is a dark world where they and only they rule.
The victory of conservativeism will not spell the end of liberalism so
much as it will sound the death knell for democracy itself.
Regards,
RH
End quote
As will be shown later, his devotion to his cause has directly led to the
objectionable behavior that continues to this day.
Prior to 1995, most of Hanson's posts were aimed at other groups. He was a
prominent poster in the StarTrek news group alt.tv.star-trek.voyager, for
example.
**WHY IS WHAT HE DOES HE DO HERE IN THE NEWSGROUPS SO OBJECTIONABLE?
On March 2, 1995, Hanson wrote:
Quote:
Now with demagogues like the newt and Rush "Limbo" commandeering the
airwaves, the sheep have decided that being conservative is *in.*
Now,
it's okay to mouth almost any conservative obscenity, because, after
all--didn't Rush say it was okay to be a bigoted ratbastard? Didn't
Newt say that liberals are baaaaad? Oh yes, the sheep have definitely
gotten out of the dip to voice their now fashionable creed. Social
concern is baaaaad! Clinton is baaaaad! Hillary has a brain and can
actually speak in words of more than one syllable--that's baaaaad!
Endquote
[see: Message-ID: <3j55br$...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> above]
With this declaration and his expressed view that Conservatives are "evil,"
Hanson begins a campaign to counter what he perceives to be "conservative
obscenity" being posted on the Internet by those "ratbastard" conservative
"sheep."
Editor Paul McCloskey wrote in 1993:
"Consider this: My $1000 PC is now a personal broadcasting station
that reaches more people than the CBS affiliate in Washington D.C. I
can get more local viewers with a single e-mail posting to the
Internet than Sally Jessy Raphael can get in a single sweeps month
.... (Hey Washington Post! POOF! You're a newsletter!)"
[Paul McCloskey, Forward to "The Internet for Dummies," IDG Books
Worldwide,
Inc., San Mateo, CA, 1993]
Expressing a point of view in the marketplace of ideas is not an unworthy
activity. Hanson certainly has a right to express his opinions. The
Internet
is an unprecedented medium to allow full and free discourse in a market
place of ideas that hasn't been seen since classical times, and he has
every
right to use this medium to advance his point of view.
However, *HOW* Hanson sends his message is the issue of this FAQ. Hanson
clearly abuses the medium in promoting his message.
The focus of Hanson's original attention was newsgrou | | | | | |
