| 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: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
19 Sep 2006 07:22:30 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:I_CdnTwkPtgS8JLYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@giganews.com:
Subject: Is Atheism viable?
Does the pope ***** in the woods?
--
Doc Smartass
The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of
words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people
who must use the words. - Philip K. *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
20 Sep 2006 11:54:50 AM |
|
|
"Doc Smartass" <gekido@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9843C520279A7askifyouwantit@216.77.188.18...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:I_CdnTwkPtgS8JLYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@giganews.com:
Subject: Is Atheism viable?
Does the pope ***** in the woods?
Is a bear Catholic? ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
20 Sep 2006 07:34:57 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in news:4nd9reF9rntsU1
@individual.net:
"Doc Smartass" <gekido@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9843C520279A7askifyouwantit@216.77.188.18...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:I_CdnTwkPtgS8JLYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@giganews.com:
Subject: Is Atheism viable?
Does the pope ***** in the woods?
Is a bear Catholic? ;)
Only the ones in black. Pandas are all nuns.
--
Doc Smartass
The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of
words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people
who must use the words. - Philip K. *****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
19 Sep 2006 04:12:11 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
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.
Strong Atheism is proving god cannot exist.
*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
There are a number of major religions today, Judaism,
Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam, that together represent
the large majority of religious believers on earth today.
These basic religions represent the religious beliefs
of about 4.3 billion people.
These religions derive their beliefs about god from
what is claimed to be revelation. These relevations are to
be found in religious books, the Bible, Torah, Vedas and
similar books, and the Quran.
The gods of these religions are similar enough we may
regard them for practical purposes as a class of gods, the
class of of omni-everything creator gods.
These gods are claimed dogmatically to have a number of
charateristics. These as a class are creators of all, all
good (omnibenevolent), and all knowing (omniscient). They
are also omnipotent, and also merciful, loving and other
secondary characteristics. Here in this essay when God is
used, by that is meant this class of god and specific gods
of that class of omni-everything gods.
A. God is claimed to to have created the Universe and all
in that Universe.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all that is in
the Universe and he knows the future state of the Universe
and the state of all its contents as he contemplates creating
the Universe.
C. St. Augustine claimed that god is omnipotent, all powerful, and
thus is sovereign over time and that god must therefore be
transcedent over time and outside being affected by time. To
god, past, present and future are all one thing to god who thus
knows all that existed, exists and will exist, as time
cannot affect god. Boethius a century later also stated this.
D. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in
this universe because he is omniscient, all knowing.
E. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, in
the distant future, God will know whether John Smith is
to be good or evil.
F. If God knows that the Universe created in its present state will
have a John Smith, then god must then contemplate the future state
of Smith and decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith or if
god will create the Universe in another manner that will have
a good Smith who is saved in preference to a Smith who is evil
and damned.
G. Thus, Smith will be good or evil only because of a specific
personal and willful choice made solely by god who must make
a choice faced with the knowledge of the future. God must
implement his choice of what the future Smith will be, good
or evil. If God sees that Smith will commit rape on June 27,
1999, god must decide if he will allow that act to exist in
the future or not.
H. Since this all happens as god contemplates creation of the
Universe, Smith has no say in whether he is to be good or evil
as he does not exist yet and cannot influence god's choice.
I. If Smith is evil, then his evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god. In fact all moral evil done by creations of god
are done only because of personal and willful creations of
god, allowing specific acts of evil acts to be done, by direct
and personal decision of god.
J. Smith's acts to the smallest degree, all of them, from the greatest
to the smallest are personally contemplated and created by god
to the smallest physical degree. All acts to the last quark God's
specific and personal doing. And all men and women's acts
similarly are forseen and either allowed or not allowed by
god, personally and purposefully to the smallest degree.
K. Thus man can have no free will even in principle.
L. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient, creator god,
it is solely and only because god allows evil acts by
his personal choice.
M. If god creates all at once, because God is out of time and
transcedent to time, again, god creates all, each physical
part of us to the last degree through space and time, the last
atom which makes up all of us, and all our acts through all
space and time. God, purposefully designing all he creates,
creates all our acts and thoughts to the smallest possible
degree. We have no say as to what God decides to create
and what God actually does create, and creates all at once.
Since he creates all at once and is all knowing, he knows all
he plans to create before he creates it.
N. In a universe where god is omnipotent and thus transcedent in
regards to time, man can have no free will.
O. If all moral evil exists solely because of personal choices of god,
god then is not as defined, omnibenevolent. Nor merciful,
just, or similar good qualities.
P. Man and any other sentient being in such a Universe cannot
have any free will, not even in principle. A Universe with
a god that creates all, and knows all precludes free will for
all beings god creates in the strongest possible manner.
Q. A god that is all knowing, omniscient, and/or omnipotent makes
free will impossible.
R. This is precisely because knowing all and faced with
what will be, god at all times must make a personal choice
to actually create what he is contemplating creating with
full knowledge and acceptance of what his creation will
entail, or he must change his creation to conform to his
wishes for the type of world he wants. Thus free will is
impossible, only god's will can be expressed in a
Universe where god is creator of all and omniscient
or omnipotent. God sand only god really acts.
S. God is defined as all good, omnibenevolent. But if
God creates all and is omniscient or omnipotent, all
evil is God's doing personally and purposefully.
T. This is a contradiction, an all good, omnibenevolent
god cannot be the author of all moral evil.
U. A god that is creator of all, omniscient, and/or omnipotent
and omnibenevolent thus cannot exist.
V. Thus the entire class of omni-everything, creator gods is
impossible, as a class and these sorts of gods, individually.
***********************************************************
--
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
19 Sep 2006 04:19:11 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h0nair6g71a74@corp.supernews.com...
J Young wrote:
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.
Strong Atheism is proving god cannot exist.
Then you need to be on life support.
*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
But not in all.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
Not by all religions.
A. God is said by theologians to have created the Universe
and all in that Universe.
Not by all theologians.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all that is in
the Universe and he knows the future state of the Universe
and the state of all its contents as he contemplates creating
the Universe.
This is not a characteristic of all theologies.
C. Augustine claimed that god is sovereign over time and thus
must be outside and transcedent over time.
Augustine is dead and long debunked. What is novel about this?
D. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in it
because he is omniscient, all knowing.
Except that god is not necessarily omniscient.
E. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, in
the distant future, God will know whether John Smith is
to be good or evil.
Only if god is omniscient and THEN only if that omniscience extends to
impossible knowledge of a future that hasn't happened yet. Nearly all
philosophers and theologians understand that this is a logical
impossibility.
The rest of your argument fails due to this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
20 Sep 2006 02:55:49 PM |
|
|
*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
There are a number of major religions today, Judaism,
Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam, that together represent
the large majority of religious believers on earth today.
These basic religions represent the religious beliefs
of about 4.3 billion people.
These religions derive their beliefs about god from
what is claimed to be revelation. These relevations are to
be found in religious books, the Bible, Torah, Vedas and
similar books, and the Quran.
The gods of these religions are similar enough we may
regard them for practical purposes as a class of gods, the
class of of omni-everything creator gods.
These gods are claimed dogmatically to have a number of
charateristics. These as a class are creators of all, all
good (omnibenevolent), and all knowing (omniscient). They
are also omnipotent, and also merciful, loving and other
secondary characteristics. Here in this essay when God is
used, by that is meant this class of god and specific gods
of that class of omni-everything gods.
A. God is claimed to to have created the Universe and all
in that Universe.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all that is in
the Universe and he knows the future state of the Universe
and the state of all its contents as he contemplates creating
the Universe.
C. St. Augustine claimed that god is omnipotent, all powerful, and
thus is sovereign over time and that god must therefore be
transcedent over time and outside being affected by time. To
god, past, present and future are all one thing to god who thus
knows all that existed, exists and will exist, as time
cannot affect god. Boethius a century later also stated this.
D. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in
this universe because he is omniscient, all knowing.
E. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, in
the distant future, God will know whether John Smith is
to be good or evil.
F. If God knows that the Universe created in its present state will
have a John Smith, then god must then contemplate the future state
of Smith and decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith or if
god will create the Universe in another manner that will have
a good Smith who is saved in preference to a Smith who is evil
and damned.
G. Thus, Smith will be good or evil only because of a specific
personal and willful choice made solely by god who must make
a choice faced with the knowledge of the future. God must
implement his choice of what the future Smith will be, good
or evil. If God sees that Smith will commit rape on June 27,
1999, god must decide if he will allow that act to exist in
the future or not.
H. Since this all happens as god contemplates creation of the
Universe, Smith has no say in whether he is to be good or evil
as he does not exist yet and cannot influence god's choice.
I. If Smith is evil, then his evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god. In fact all moral evil done by creations of god
are done only because of personal and willful creations of
god, allowing specific acts of evil acts to be done, by direct
and personal decision of god.
J. Smith's acts to the smallest degree, all of them, from the greatest
to the smallest are personally contemplated and created by god
to the smallest physical degree. All acts to the last quark God's
specific and personal doing. And all men and women's acts
similarly are forseen and either allowed or not allowed by
god, personally and purposefully to the smallest degree.
K. Thus man can have no free will even in principle.
L. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient, creator god,
it is solely and only because god allows evil acts by
his personal choice.
M. If god creates all at once, because God is out of time and
transcedent to time, again, god creates all, each physical
part of us to the last degree through space and time, the last
atom which makes up all of us, and all our acts through all
space and time. God, purposefully designing all he creates,
creates all our acts and thoughts to the smallest possible
degree. We have no say as to what God decides to create
and what God actually does create, and creates all at once.
Since he creates all at once and is all knowing, he knows all
he plans to create before he creates it.
N. In a universe where god is omnipotent and thus transcedent in
regards to time, man can have no free will.
O. If all moral evil exists solely because of personal choices of god,
god then is not as defined, omnibenevolent. Nor merciful,
just, or similar good qualities.
P. Man and any other sentient being in such a Universe cannot
have any free will, not even in principle. A Universe with
a god that creates all, and knows all precludes free will for
all beings god creates in the strongest possible manner.
Q. A god that is all knowing, omniscient, and/or omnipotent makes
free will impossible.
R. This is precisely because knowing all and faced with
what will be, god at all times must make a personal choice
to actually create what he is contemplating creating with
full knowledge and acceptance of what his creation will
entail, or he must change his creation to conform to his
wishes for the type of world he wants. Thus free will is
impossible, only god's will can be expressed in a
Universe where god is creator of all and omniscient
or omnipotent. God sand only god really acts.
S. God is defined as all good, omnibenevolent. But if
God creates all and is omniscient or omnipotent, all
evil is God's doing personally and purposefully.
T. This is a contradiction, an all good, omnibenevolent
god cannot be the author of all moral evil.
U. A god that is creator of all, omniscient, and/or omnipotent
and omnibenevolent thus cannot exist.
V. Thus the entire class of omni-everything, creator gods is
impossible, as a class and these sorts of gods, individually.
***********************************************************
--
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable?: Debunked Barwell Spam |
20 Sep 2006 03:02:55 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h377c3p0o0763@corp.supernews.com...
*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
But not in all.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
Not by all religions.
A. God is said by theologians to have created the Universe
and all in that Universe.
Not by all theologians.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all that is in
the Universe and he knows the future state of the Universe
and the state of all its contents as he contemplates creating
the Universe.
This is not a characteristic of all theologies.
C. Augustine claimed that god is sovereign over time and thus
must be outside and transcedent over time.
Augustine is dead and long debunked. What is novel about this?
D. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in it
because he is omniscient, all knowing.
Except that god is not necessarily omniscient.
E. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, in
the distant future, God will know whether John Smith is
to be good or evil.
Only if god is omniscient and THEN only if that omniscience extends to
impossible knowledge of a future that hasn't happened yet. Nearly all
philosophers and theologians understand that this is a logical
impossibility.
The rest of your argument fails due to this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable?: Debunked Barwell Spam |
20 Sep 2006 06:09:39 PM |
|
|
*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
There are a number of major religions today, Judaism,
Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam, that together represent
the large majority of religious believers on earth today.
These basic religions represent the religious beliefs
of about 4.3 billion people.
These religions derive their beliefs about god from
what is claimed to be revelation. These relevations are to
be found in religious books, the Bible, Torah, Vedas and
similar books, and the Quran.
The gods of these religions are similar enough we may
regard them for practical purposes as a class of gods, the
class of of omni-everything creator gods.
These gods are claimed dogmatically to have a number of
charateristics. These as a class are creators of all, all
good (omnibenevolent), and all knowing (omniscient). They
are also omnipotent, and also merciful, loving and other
secondary characteristics. Here in this essay when God is
used, by that is meant this class of god and specific gods
of that class of omni-everything gods.
A. God is claimed to to have created the Universe and all
in that Universe.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all that is in
the Universe and he knows the future state of the Universe
and the state of all its contents as he contemplates creating
the Universe.
C. St. Augustine claimed that god is omnipotent, all powerful, and
thus is sovereign over time and that god must therefore be
transcedent over time and outside being affected by time. To
god, past, present and future are all one thing to god who thus
knows all that existed, exists and will exist, as time
cannot affect god. Boethius a century later also stated this.
D. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in
this universe because he is omniscient, all knowing.
E. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, in
the distant future, God will know whether John Smith is
to be good or evil.
F. If God knows that the Universe created in its present state will
have a John Smith, then god must then contemplate the future state
of Smith and decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith or if
god will create the Universe in another manner that will have
a good Smith who is saved in preference to a Smith who is evil
and damned.
G. Thus, Smith will be good or evil only because of a specific
personal and willful choice made solely by god who must make
a choice faced with the knowledge of the future. God must
implement his choice of what the future Smith will be, good
or evil. If God sees that Smith will commit rape on June 27,
1999, god must decide if he will allow that act to exist in
the future or not.
H. Since this all happens as god contemplates creation of the
Universe, Smith has no say in whether he is to be good or evil
as he does not exist yet and cannot influence god's choice.
I. If Smith is evil, then his evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god. In fact all moral evil done by creations of god
are done only because of personal and willful creations of
god, allowing specific acts of evil acts to be done, by direct
and personal decision of god.
J. Smith's acts to the smallest degree, all of them, from the greatest
to the smallest are personally contemplated and created by god
to the smallest physical degree. All acts to the last quark God's
specific and personal doing. And all men and women's acts
similarly are forseen and either allowed or not allowed by
god, personally and purposefully to the smallest degree.
K. Thus man can have no free will even in principle.
L. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient, creator god,
it is solely and only because god allows evil acts by
his personal choice.
M. If god creates all at once, because God is out of time and
transcedent to time, again, god creates all, each physical
part of us to the last degree through space and time, the last
atom which makes up all of us, and all our acts through all
space and time. God, purposefully designing all he creates,
creates all our acts and thoughts to the smallest possible
degree. We have no say as to what God decides to create
and what God actually does create, and creates all at once.
Since he creates all at once and is all knowing, he knows all
he plans to create before he creates it.
N. In a universe where god is omnipotent and thus transcedent in
regards to time, man can have no free will.
O. If all moral evil exists solely because of personal choices of god,
god then is not as defined, omnibenevolent. Nor merciful,
just, or similar good qualities.
P. Man and any other sentient being in such a Universe cannot
have any free will, not even in principle. A Universe with
a god that creates all, and knows all precludes free will for
all beings god creates in the strongest possible manner.
Q. A god that is all knowing, omniscient, and/or omnipotent makes
free will impossible.
R. This is precisely because knowing all and faced with
what will be, god at all times must make a personal choice
to actually create what he is contemplating creating with
full knowledge and acceptance of what his creation will
entail, or he must change his creation to conform to his
wishes for the type of world he wants. Thus free will is
impossible, only god's will can be expressed in a
Universe where god is creator of all and omniscient
or omnipotent. God sand only god really acts.
S. God is defined as all good, omnibenevolent. But if
God creates all and is omniscient or omnipotent, all
evil is God's doing personally and purposefully.
T. This is a contradiction, an all good, omnibenevolent
god cannot be the author of all moral evil.
U. A god that is creator of all, omniscient, and/or omnipotent
and omnibenevolent thus cannot exist.
V. Thus the entire class of omni-everything, creator gods is
impossible, as a class and these sorts of gods, individually.
***********************************************************
--
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable?: Debunked Barwell Spam |
20 Sep 2006 06:20:07 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h3iir2asrcpa6@corp.supernews.com...
*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
But not in all.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
Not by all religions.
A. God is said by theologians to have created the Universe
and all in that Universe.
Not by all theologians.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all that is in
the Universe and he knows the future state of the Universe
and the state of all its contents as he contemplates creating
the Universe.
This is not a characteristic of all theologies.
C. Augustine claimed that god is sovereign over time and thus
must be outside and transcedent over time.
Augustine is dead and long debunked. What is novel about this?
D. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in it
because he is omniscient, all knowing.
Except that god is not necessarily omniscient.
E. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, in
the distant future, God will know whether John Smith is
to be good or evil.
Only if god is omniscient and THEN only if that omniscience extends to
impossible knowledge of a future that hasn't happened yet. Nearly all
philosophers and theologians understand that this is a logical
impossibility.
The rest of your argument fails due to this.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable?: |
20 Sep 2006 06:10:23 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?: Debunked Barwell Spam |
20 Sep 2006 06:19:34 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h3ik7m8ft5ud6@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: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
21 Sep 2006 12:37:28 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:55:49 -0500, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
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.
Buggered it up there, if you have got that fact wrong it sort of
demolishes the rest of your arguments.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
19 Sep 2006 11:04:55 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: DEBUNKED Barwell Spam |
20 Sep 2006 01:00:05 AM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h1fgep7g5cn7c@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? |
19 Sep 2006 11:04:29 PM |
|
|
IS THERE A GOD? - No.
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - PART 3
1. MORE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of
the Universe or not? Is 2 + 2 = 4 something god
set as part of the nature of the Universe or is
that outside and beyond god?
Can god change 2 + 2 to 5?
2. IF GOD DID IN FACT MAKE THE RULES, LAWS, AND
LOGIC OF THE UNIVERSE.
A. If god did in fact make the rules and laws and
logic of the Universe, God could also change
them as needed.
B. A god that creates the rules, laws and logic
of the world he creates could simply make a
world where man has free will yet freely
chooses only to do moral good. Since such a
god creates the rules of the Universe, he
could change them in name of omnibenevolence,
free will is perserved and evil is banished.
Evil no longer needs to exist to allow for
free will.
C. If a god could do this and fails to, evil
exists solely and only because of god's
failure to use his omnipotence to change
the rules and laws and logic of the Universe
to give man free will and a nature incapable
of doing evil.
D. If a god can do this and fails to, that god is
not omnibenevolent as claimed, a contradiction
in definitions of god as omnibenevolent and
omnipotent.
E. God in fact since he is essentially the
creator and sustaining cause of all evil
that was, is, and shall be is omni-malevolent.
3. IF GOD DOES NOT MAKE THE LAWS, RULES AND
LOGIC OF THE UNIVERSE - THE SECOND HORN
OF THE DILEMMA.
A. If god does not make the rules, the laws, the
very logic of the Universe, then we have the
problem of what these things are and where
they come from.
B. If these laws and rules and logic limit god,
then god is obviously not omnipotent as
claimed.
C. And thus god is not as claimed, the greatest
thing that can be imagined. Obviously laws
and rules and logic that limit the most
powerful being in the Universe are greater
still because they do in fact limit such
a being.
D. If such laws and rules and logic outside and
beyond god do exist, and are thus greater
than god, god is not the greatest thing
imaginable and all ontological 'proofs' that
are based on that basic claim fail.
E. Such rules and laws and logic must exist
outside of god's control and must have always
been outside his control. If there were ever
in god's control, god cannot have reduced his
power to abandon omnipotence voluntarily.
Omnipotence is an inherent ability. It would
be like abandoning a sense of taste or touch.
This observation forstalls attempts at
apologisms claiming god abandoned any
abilities.
F. And if god could indeed abandon omnipotence,
he must avoid that. After all, he is also
omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolence dictates he
must at all times do the good thing, never an
evil thing. Abandoning omnipotence such that
he could no longer create a world where man
has free will, and a nature incapable of evil
is to allow evil to exist. To abandon
omnipotence is to embrace the proposition
evil is to be allowed to flourish. So any
claims god might have for some greater good
abandoned omnipotence freely are not possible.
G. If god is said to be omnipotent, if he at
anytime gave up any abilities he can no
longer said to be omnipotent, if he actually
gave up any abilities. A contradiction with
the claim god has all powers and abilities.
H. Since god must have had maximum power and
abilities and cannot have at any time
voluntarily relinquished any powers or
abilities, at least in the name of banishing
evil the fact that there are laws and rules
and logic of a universe outside and beyond
god, they are truly beyond and outside god,
and always were.
I. Since such laws and rules and laws are outside
god, and always were so, and are properties of
the Universe, the Universe is likewise outside
and beyond god, with its laws and rules and
logic.
J. Since the Universe and its laws and rules and
logic are outside and beyond god, god is not
as, creator of the Universe, of all. A
contradiction again of the claim god created
all.
K. Since the Universe no longer relies on god for
its purported existence, nor on god for the
existence of its laws and rules and logic,
god is no longer a necessary being. If there
are things that have necessary existence, it
would have to be the Universe as whole, or
possibly its laws, its rules or its logic,
or a subset of these rules or laws or the
underlying causes of these things, if any.
None were created by god or can be modified
by god.
L. If these laws and rules and logic could be
modified by god, then the rules and laws
and logic of the Universe would have been
modified to end existence of evil, and must
have modified this if god is actually
omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
M. God then is not omnipotent, or not
omnibenevolent, or is neither, or
does not exist.
4. POSSIBLE DODGES - LOGIC IS PART OF GOD
A. One possible dodge is to say logic is part
of god. An attribute.
B. God is said to be a necessary being, he
must exist, and is necessary for all other
things to exist, all other things rely on god
to create and sustain them, they are
contingent.
C. A house is contingent, it is made of lumber
and bricks and roofing tiles et al. Those
things must exist for the house to exist and
precede the house.
D. God is said to have attributes, intelligence,
personality, all powers and abilities,
foreknowledge, omnipotence, and on and on.
E. But then god cannot be necessary, we must
account for these attributes god is
contingent on.
F. Thus we have an ad hocism in theology,
simplicity. God is said to be simple, that
all these alledged attributes are single, part
of a large, whole attribute. This ad hoc
dodge is created to pretend god is not
contingent as a house is contingent on
its materials. And theology claims it
does not have to account for these attributes
much as we ask for an account of where the
House's bricks and lumber come from.
G. God is said to be simple, not made of parts,
physically or metaphysically, he is a whole,
indivisible.
H. If somehow god is said to be the source of
logic, theology must account how that
somehow becomes the laws and rules and logic
of a Universe god is transcendent to.
I. Since god is also intelligent, and all
powerful, and since all these attributes are a
single simple attribute, then the Universe
should not only have logic, it should also be
intelligent and all powerful, merciful, just
et al.
J. Thus ad hoc claims god is somehow logic
itself and the ad hoc claim god is simple, not
made of parts, metaphysically or physically
create an impossible and contradictory and
incoherent set of claims.
5. MORE PROBLEMS WITH SIMPLICITY
A. What is logic, is it one thing or many?
Is 2 + 2 = 4 a different logic than E=MC**2?
Is Physics something god creates? What
about morality, it that a sort of logic?
B. If physics is something god does, why do
we have massive earthquakes that kill many,
or is that somehow, part of god's nature
and out of his control? If so, god is then
not omnipotent, this doctrine of simplicity
contradicts the claim god is all powerful.
C. How does theology plan to investigate these
issues or is simplicity simply an ad hocism
that theology has no intention of following
up on? Its claims create a tremendous
amount of issues.
Another essay will be written dealing in greater
detail with the issue of simplicity and its
implications.
6. THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF
THE ABOVE EXAMINATION OF GOD
A. Thus the idea god is omnipotent,
omnibenevolent, and creator of all, clash again
and mutually self-destruct over the issue of
evil's existence.
This raises serious questions on the nature
of the Universe that cannot be as Grand
Theology claims it is. The class of
omni-everything, creator gods cannot exist as
asserted.
A. We have shown god cannot have created the
Universe.
B. We have shown god does not create the laws,
rules and laws of that Universe.
C. That god is thus not omnipotent as these laws
limit him.
D. That god is not the greatest imaginable thing.
E. That ontological proofs of god's existence
based on claims god is the greatest thing
imaginable are failed arguments.
F. That god cannot be a necessary being, as
claimed.
G. That any possible claims god might for some
reason abandon or limit any abilities cannot
be true in any attempt to avoid this line of
inquiry. Nor can that approach derail logical
examination of consequences of Grand
Theology's overarching claims to god's
attributes or nature.
The fact that god is allegedly omnibenevolent and
evil exists, demonstrates god cannot make the
rules of the world. 2 + 2 = 4 because that is
the nature of the Universe, not something god
created. Because if god did create the rules and
laws and logic of the Universe, and was omnibenevolent,
we should have no signs of evil, especially moral
evil of man, Satan, demons and devils.
But if one admits to that, Many other important
claims collapse, many other arguments about god
and his attributes and nature no longer are
viable. Some of these claims, god's creation
of the Universe are among the oldest and most
basic of theology.
Ontological proofs started with Anselm in the
10th century, all of these now must be abandoned.
The necessary being argument, long a rhetorical
argument is now finally dead.
Free will defenses against the problem of evil
opened up a line of attack here that is powerful
and very final.
**************************************************
--
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: DEBUNKED Barwell Spam |
20 Sep 2006 01:00:51 AM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h1ffleat32t74@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? |
20 Sep 2006 02:56:48 PM |
|
|
IS THERE A GOD? NO.
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER PART 2
THE CLASS OF OMNI-EVERTHING CREATOR GODS
DISPROVEN.
1. OMNIPOTENCE AND OMNISCIENCE
A. Omnipotence is a special sort of attribute, of
all god's alledged attributes the most
important, because from that attribute you
can derive others attributes, including
omniscience. If one says for purposes of
argument god is omnipotent, one is also
implying god is also omniscient.
B. If god is omnipotent, god must also
specifically have omniscience because if
he does not have omniscience, one
cannot claim omnipotence as an attribute.
C. Thus if god is omnipotent, and created all,
free will is impossible because creation
and omniscience rule out free will as was
shown in part 1. In this world god supposedly
created, evil exists. So god must not be
omnibenevolent as claimed as all evil is
created by god if man cannot have free will.
Omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence
cannot co-exist as dogmatic claims. A class
of gods that is said to have these is
impossible
D. Omnipotence and omnibenevolence are thus
mutually exclusive in a world that does in
fact have evil in it. Because omniscience
must exist as part of omnipotence and
omniscience and creatorhood cannot coexist
with free will, omnipotence is also not
compatible with creatorhood and
omnibenevolence. One cannot finesse this
all by ignoring omniscience or abandoning
omniscience if one tries to retain
attribute of omnipotence.
E. One can only dispose of omniscience by also
explicitly abandoning omnipotence. If god is
defined as being omnibenevolent then a god
that is also allegedly also creator of all
must be evil a direct contradiction. Since god
is defined as omniscient and omnibenevolent and
omnipotent, by major religions, a god that is
supposedly all three is obviously impossible.
Since omnipotence implies omniscience,
which cannot exist with omnibenevolence,
an omnipotent god is impossible.
F. Omnipotence drives us relentlessly to the
claims god nmust be omniscient and thus to
the conclusion god cannot be anything but the
source of all evil and thus is evil. Thus
generating internal contradictions to claimed
attributes of the class of omni-everything
gods.
G. Omnipotence and omnibenevolence then, cannot
coexist together. A class of gods claiming
to be both is impossible.
2. CREATORHOOD OF GOD
F. One may be tempted then to abandon the idea god
created all. But that creates some very strong
logical problems also.
G. If god is omnipotent, he can create all. Or
modify any other creation he does not himself
create. No other being or process may create
something god could not modify, because of the
power of his omnipotence.
H. So if for purposes of argument, we claim the
Universe was not created by god, he could,
being omnipotent, change that creation for
his own purposes, that of creating good due
to his attribute of omnibenevolence.
We are back to the problem of evil again, he
could change creation such that no evil John
Smiths can exist.
I. If not he then is sole and only cause for
existence of all evil.
If god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent he
still must modify any creations he did not
himself create to destroy evil, if he can
do so. So claiming god did not create all
does not save the concept of an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent god. It cannot avoid the
problem of evil.
J. Omniscience means we cannot dodge the problem
of evil by stating god did not create the
Universe even if one wished to, nor by limiting
his creatorhood, for example saying god did not
create the original material of the Universe,
but used it as a building material.
J. Thus to get rid of the creator problem, we must
explicitly abandon it all and totally. Only by
doing so could one get around the problem of
creatorhood and omniscience. But if we say god
cannot either create the Universe or modify it
as he finds it, we drop omniscience also,
explicitly. God then turns out not to be
creator of all nor omnipotent as a priori
defined, a contradiction disproving that
a priori defined omni-everything creator god.
K. If evil exists because god could change the
Universe he did not create, and he fails to do
so, then all evil exists solely because
of knowing and personal choices god makes.
L. God being omnipotent cannot be controlled by
any other process or other entities. He may
modify any works or creations made by them.
M. If god cannot change creations of others, or
the pre-existing materials of the Universe,
omnipotence in not an attribute of god as
claimed a priori.
M. Omnipotence and creatorhood thus are entangled
in a manner that makes it hard to abandon the
doctrine god created all and if one does, one
must likewise abandon claims of omnipotence.
3. PRE-EXISTING MATTER AND A PRE-EXISTING
UNIVERSE.
A. The Greek writer Hesiod in his Theogony, starts
with a Universe that is a chaotic void. This
void, through the mysterious property of
emanation, created the Earth | | | | | |
