| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Khubla" |
| Date: |
30 Jan 2006 08:46:52 AM |
| Object: |
Life is too short to argue with Theist |
There is a lot of discussion about the best tack to use when engaging a
theist with no consensus on the subject. My question to fellow atheist is
this: What basis do you propose using since religious belief is not based on
Logic, Reason, Evidence, or Proof? Using conventional rational arguments
will not get past a mime-set brain and is shrugged off through indifference
with years of hearing the same reasoning. Like opium, faith is a mind
nummer. Indeed most fundaments are taught not to read or listen to
anti-apostolic persons for fear their sole will "burn in Hell". Persons
like this will spend more time considering the pro and cons of the purchase
of a particular car then they do about the validity of their religious
beliefs. Unless the person has not been indoconerated to the point of
irrational thinking, trying to show a "lost mind" the light is a waste of
time. Just be thankful that "for the want of reason there go I".
Khubla
..
.
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Life is too short to argue with Theist |
30 Jan 2006 11:05:31 AM |
|
|
"Khubla" <khubla@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:8O2dnfuPNa1Lu0PeRVn-gg@adelphia.com...
There is a lot of discussion about the best tack to use when engaging a
theist with no consensus on the subject. My question to fellow atheist is
this: What basis do you propose using since religious belief is not based
on Logic, Reason, Evidence, or Proof? Using conventional rational
arguments will not get past a mime-set brain and is shrugged off through
indifference with years of hearing the same reasoning. Like opium, faith
is a mind nummer. Indeed most fundaments are taught not to read or listen
to anti-apostolic persons for fear their sole will "burn in Hell".
Persons like this will spend more time considering the pro and cons of the
purchase of a particular car then they do about the validity of their
religious beliefs. Unless the person has not been indoconerated to the
point of irrational thinking, trying to show a "lost mind" the light is a
waste of time. Just be thankful that "for the want of reason there go I".
Khubla
Unfortunately I think you are right.
I had a good friend ( an intelligent engineer ) that lost his son, who was
scheduled to take over his business.
The son died alone chocking on a piece of food. Immediately after the event,
he told me he could not believe
that any god would allow or cause such a terrible thing to occur and
appeared to lose his religious faith. A year
later he became even more religious and substantially increased his church
activities. He now concludes that his
god just wanted to call his son to heaven earlier than normal because he was
such a good Christian. Go figure!
I believe each new younger generation will produce a percentage that are
rationalists. That learn the irrational basis
of their parents religious beliefs.
This percentage is likely to increase with each new generation. It took many
centuries for the
world to progress from paganism and multiple god beliefs to monotheism. It
will probably take
many generations for rational views of life and death to overcome irrational
religious beliefs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Life is too short to argue with Theist |
30 Jan 2006 05:52:09 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:05:31 -0500, "Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Unfortunately I think you are right.
Nah, he's not even close.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Life is too short to argue with Theist |
31 Jan 2006 08:00:37 PM |
|
|
Khubla wrote:
There is a lot of discussion about the best tack to use when engaging a
theist with no consensus on the subject. My question to fellow atheist
is this: What basis do you propose using since religious belief is not
based on
Logic, Reason, Evidence, or Proof?
I just keep pounding on 'em showing that their idea of god is in fact not
possible and that facts and logic destroy that concept easily.
Of course, all secondary claism hanging off their idea of god are
then doomed.
Almost twice a week these fools seem to wander into AA
blaring "Prove god does not exist, Atheist!"
So I do. Most go scurring off again with their tails
between their little legs.
I can only hope for a few teh experience is not repeated and
that I have given them an answer not easily forgotten.
And that for a few, may well, with time blossom into a whole new
realization, religion is wrong.
Using conventional rational
arguments will not get past a mime-set brain and is shrugged off
through indifference with years of hearing the same reasoning. Like
opium, faith is a mind
nummer. Indeed most fundaments are taught not to read or listen to
anti-apostolic persons for fear their sole will "burn in Hell".
Persons like this will spend more time considering the pro and cons of
the purchase of a particular car then they do about the validity of
their religious
beliefs. Unless the person has not been indoconerated to the point of
irrational thinking, trying to show a "lost mind" the light is a waste
of
time. Just be thankful that "for the want of reason there go I".
You will get the retards like Lorr and Duke and Roger Pearson.
You aim your arguments at the thinking people because the thinking
lurkers will get it.
A week ago the New York Times had an article on tests of people
using MRI brain scans. Many people tested showed that reading
an article on politics, that their brains actually shut down and
stop working on reading news putting their candidiate in a unfavorable
light.
And so it will be with Duke and Lorr and Person and that
sort of person. Its true, they ARE brain damaged.
So you use them to hone arguments because they stick around, and
when somebody who still thinks wanders in, you can deal
with them with polished arguments.
That is what I do.
You can get good enough to slap the taste out of the
mouths of the Dukes and Pearsons, they CAN'T argue,
not really, they don't have anything.
What should not be done is merely cursing them, that
is what they live for, when they egg one on to that low
level, they have made you one of them and they want
to do that. Give 'em a good argument and then cuss them.
Roger Pearson lives to get somebody frustrated enough
to do that. Not that that wins HIM any arguments.
Pearson never answers me and never sticks around,
I ain't no fun. Duke just repeats himself without
much enthusiasm. Lorr just snips and runs.
He has nothing. Must be fun.
The rest run. Bugger off. Scarper. This tells
me I rang their bell. Most run off to forget it and
give up atheist baiting forever more. A few will
realize they are wrong, over time.
You take what you can get.
---------------------------------------------------
This explains these loonies. Read this and start
thinking how to use this knowledge.
Findings
A Shocker: Partisan Thought Is Unconscious
By BENEDICT CAREY
Published: January 24, 2006
Liberals and conservatives can become equally
bug-eyed and irrational when talking politics,
especially when they are on the defensive.
Using M.R.I. scanners, neuroscientists have now
tracked what happens in the politically partisan
brain when it tries to digest damning facts about
favored candidates or criticisms of them. The
process is almost entirely emotional and
unconscious, the researchers report, and there are
flares of activity in the brain's pleasure centers
when unwelcome information is being rejected.
"Everything we know about cognition suggests that,
when faced with a contradiction, we use the
rational regions of our brain to think about it,
but that was not the case here," said Dr. Drew
Westen, a psychologist at Emory and lead author of
the study, to be presented Saturday at meetings of
the Society for Personality and Social Psychology
in Palm Springs, Calif.
The results are the latest from brain imaging
studies that provide a neural explanation for
internal states, like infatuation or ambivalence,
and a graphic trace of the brain's activity.
In 2004, the researchers recruited 30 adult men
who described themselves as committed Republicans
or Democrats. The men, half of them supporters of
President Bush and the other half backers of
Senator John Kerry, earned $50 to sit in an M.R.I.
machine and consider several statements in quick
succession.
The first was a quote attributed to one of the two
candidates: either a remark by Mr. Bush in support
of Kenneth L. Lay, the former Enron chief, before
he was indicted, or a statement by Mr. Kerry that
Social Security should be overhauled. Moments
later, the participants read a remark that showed
the candidate reversing his position. The quotes
were doctored for maximum effect but presented as
factual.
The Republicans in the study judged Mr. Kerry as
harshly as the Democrats judged Mr. Bush. But each
group let its own candidate off the hook.
After the participants read the contradictory
comment, the researchers measured increased
activity in several areas of the brain. They
included a region involved in regulating negative
emotions and another called the cingulate, which
activates when the brain makes judgments about
forgiveness, among other things. Also, a spike
appeared in several areas known to be active when
people feel relieved or rewarded. The "cold
reasoning" regions of the cortex were relatively
quiet.
Researchers have long known that political
decisions are strongly influenced by unconscious
emotional reactions, a fact routinely exploited by
campaign consultants and advertisers. But the new
research suggests that for partisans, political
thinking is often predominantly emotional.
It is possible to override these biases, Dr.
Westen said, "but you have to engage in ruthless
self reflection, to say, 'All right, I know what I
want to believe, but I have to be honest.' "
He added, "It speaks to the character of the
discourse that this quality is rarely talked about
in politics."
--
It's all coming down! It's all coming down!
IT'S ALL COMING DOWN!
- Texas Chainsaw Massacre II
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Life is too short to argue with Theist |
30 Jan 2006 12:10:07 PM |
|
|
Khubla wrote:
What basis do you propose using since religious belief is not
based on Logic, Reason, Evidence, or Proof?
It depends on how far gone they are. If they're a ``Christmas and
Easter'' kind of Christian who's rational otherwise, use plain ol'
reason and evidence. They've probably never been exposed in
a serious way to atheism, and new-to-them arguments should
get considered on their merits. ``Hmmm...I never thought of it
that way,'' is the response you're looking for. Point out the
overwhelming lack of evidence for the mere existence of Jesus and
contrast it with the huge amounts of evidence for Julius Caesar.
Demonstrate the logical impossibility of omnipotence, omniscience,
etc.
If they've got a serious case of the Heebie-Jeesies, all you can
do is create cognitive dissonance. They're full of *****, and you
need to rub their noses in this *****.
The Problem of Evil is a good place to start. Is God willing to
prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able,
but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and
willing? Whence then is evil? When they come back with, ``free
will,'' point out that they've just admitted that their god is
impotent where it matters most--for whatever reason; that is, it
can't create humans who do no evil but who still retain free will,
and why he can't do that is irrelevant. When they get upset that
it's an unreasonable demand to make of God, draw them out (with
the Socratic method) to the point that they admit that their god
both has free will and never does evil, thus establishing that all
you're asking for is that their God (re-)make man in his own
image.
Then, of course, you want to get them to pull out their Bibles and
read, for example, God's reason for unleashing the Plagues, read
what he had Moses do to the Midianites, read what he had Joshua do
at Jericho, read where he has people eat each other's *****
(literally!), and the like. If they claim that the New Testament
invalidates the old, ask them what this does to Adam and Eve and
the Ten Commandments...and then move on to where Jesus tells the
parable about the king (representing God / Jesus) has all his
enemies slaughtered, where Jesus says the only way to love him is
to hate everybody else (explicitly including your immediate family
and yourself), where Jesus says that he'll have all non-believers
tortured for all eternity for the mere temerity to question the
evidence.
You might want to wrap up the session with that passage where it's
established that God pre-selects those who go to Heaven. Yank that
carrot out from under their feet, and you've deprived them of
their only reason for holding on to their imaginary blankie.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Life is too short to argue with Theist |
31 Jan 2006 08:21:59 PM |
|
|
Ben Goren wrote:
Khubla wrote:
What basis do you propose using since religious belief is not
based on Logic, Reason, Evidence, or Proof?
It depends on how far gone they are. If they're a ``Christmas and
Easter'' kind of Christian who's rational otherwise, use plain ol'
reason and evidence. They've probably never been exposed in
a serious way to atheism, and new-to-them arguments should
get considered on their merits. ``Hmmm...I never thought of it
that way,'' is the response you're looking for. Point out the
overwhelming lack of evidence for the mere existence of Jesus and
contrast it with the huge amounts of evidence for Julius Caesar.
Demonstrate the logical impossibility of omnipotence, omniscience,
etc.
If they've got a serious case of the Heebie-Jeesies, all you can
do is create cognitive dissonance. They're full of *****, and you
need to rub their noses in this *****.
The Problem of Evil is a good place to start. Is God willing to
prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able,
but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and
willing? Whence then is evil? When they come back with, ``free
will,'' point out that they've just admitted that their god is
impotent where it matters most--for whatever reason; that is, it
can't create humans who do no evil but who still retain free will,
and why he can't do that is irrelevant.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent he has a good nature
that cannot do evil.
Yet we do not let his inability to do evil count against
god's having free will.
If god is omnibenevolent, he must them likewise give us
a god like free will and a god like good nature like god,
incapable of moral evil.
Therefore there should be no evil.
Free will is there for not a good excuse for
existance of evil.
Or:
If god creates all,
and god is omniscient, all knowing,
God must decide all the future holds.
If in the far future a man named John Smith is
to exist, god will know that and if he is to be
good or evil. God knows ever act he will do.
And must decide, do I allow this Universe to have
that future end or change it so it is otherwise?
Do I allow an evil Smith who does evil things?
Only god gets to decide.
There can be no free will at all even in
principle.
Heads I win, tails I win.
I can show we have no free will even
in priciple, and I can show even if we do,
we should be incapable of doing no moral
evil if there is a god who is good.
Back now to the problem of evil.
Which by the way, was an argument of the
Philosopher Epicurus as found in the works
of Lactanius, a christian writer who tried
criticizing his argument.
When they get upset that
it's an unreasonable demand to make of God, draw them out (with
the Socratic method) to the point that they admit that their god
both has free will and never does evil, thus establishing that all
you're asking for is that their God (re-)make man in his own
image.
Then, of course, you want to get them to pull out their Bibles and
read, for example, God's reason for unleashing the Plagues, read
what he had Moses do to the Midianites, read what he had Joshua do
at Jericho, read where he has people eat each other's *****
(literally!), and the like. If they claim that the New Testament
invalidates the old, ask them what this does to Adam and Eve and
the Ten Commandments...and then move on to where Jesus tells the
parable about the king (representing God / Jesus) has all his
enemies slaughtered, where Jesus says the only way to love him is
to hate everybody else (explicitly including your immediate family
and yourself), where Jesus says that he'll have all non-believers
tortured for all eternity for the mere temerity to question the
evidence.
You might want to wrap up the session with that passage where it's
established that God pre-selects those who go to Heaven. Yank that
carrot out from under their feet, and you've deprived them of
their only reason for holding on to their imaginary blankie.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
--
It's all coming down! It's all coming down!
IT'S ALL COMING DOWN!
- Texas Chainsaw Massacre II
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Life is too short to argue with Theist |
30 Jan 2006 05:52:56 PM |
|
|
On 30 Jan 2006 10:10:07 -0800, "Ben Goren" <ben.goren@gmail.com> wrote:
Khubla wrote:
What basis do you propose using since religious belief is not
based on Logic, Reason, Evidence, or Proof?
It depends on how far gone they are. If they're a ``Christmas and
Easter'' kind of Christian who's rational otherwise, use plain ol'
reason and evidence.
Hey, I'll go for it. Lets use reason and evidence. You want to start?
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Life is too short to argue with Theist |
30 Jan 2006 06:55:12 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:kl9tt1h12nnc4ffbpts656q4tetluna43u@4ax.com...
On 30 Jan 2006 10:10:07 -0800, "Ben Goren" <ben.goren@gmail.com> wrote:
Khubla wrote:
What basis do you propose using since religious belief is not
based on Logic, Reason, Evidence, or Proof?
It depends on how far gone they are. If they're a ``Christmas and
Easter'' kind of Christian who's rational otherwise, use plain ol'
reason and evidence.
Hey, I'll go for it. Lets use reason and evidence. You want to start?
He said you can use reason and evidence on a "Christmas and Easter
Christian" who is otherwise rational.
You aren't -by your own admission - a "Christmas and Easter Christian", and
as the man implies, you are "too far gone"
Damn, duke - don't you pay any attention at all to what's said in here?
It was a simple enough statement.
Perhaps it's your reading comprehension that's at fault.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Life is too short to argue with Theist |
31 Jan 2006 05:42:50 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:55:12 -0000, "Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote:
It depends on how far gone they are. If they're a ``Christmas and
Easter'' kind of Christian who's rational otherwise, use plain ol'
reason and evidence.
Hey, I'll go for it. Lets use reason and evidence. You want to start?
He said you can use reason and evidence on a "Christmas and Easter
Christian" who is otherwise rational.
I know what he said - that's why I volunteered - to get something unheard of out
of an atheist - discussion.
You aren't -by your own admission - a "Christmas and Easter Christian", and
as the man implies, you are "too far gone"
I'm Christian thru and thru, and extraordinarily rational to boot. Try me.
Damn, duke - don't you pay any attention at all to what's said in here?
It was a simple enough statement.
Perhaps it's your reading comprehension that's at fault.
Won't you please he'p yourself?
Can't take me on, can you?
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Life is too short to argue with Theist |
02 Feb 2006 02:23:10 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:55:12 -0000, "Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
It depends on how far gone they are. If they're a ``Christmas and
Easter'' kind of Christian who's rational otherwise, use plain ol'
reason and evidence.
Hey, I'll go for it. Lets use reason and evidence. You want to
start?
He said you can use reason and evidence on a "Christmas and Easter
Christian" who is otherwise rational.
I know what he said - that's why I volunteered - to get something
unheard of out of an atheist - discussion.
You aren't -by your own admission - a "Christmas and Easter Christian",
and as the man implies, you are "too far gone"
I'm Christian thru and thru, and extraordinarily rational to boot. Try
me.
Damn, duke - don't you pay any attention at all to what's said in here?
It was a simple enough statement.
Perhaps it's your reading comprehension that's at fault.
Won't you please he'p yourself?
Can't take me on, can you?
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible
gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
--
The first law of the false prophet has
always and ever been "Don't laugh!"
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Life is too short to argue with Theist |
30 Jan 2006 07:07:41 PM |
|
|
Steve O wrote:
duke lied:
Ben Goren wrote:
Khubla wrote:
What basis do you propose using since religious belief is not
based on Logic, Reason, Evidence, or Proof?
It depends on how far gone they are. If they're a ``Christmas
and Easter'' kind of Christian who's rational otherwise, use
plain ol' reason and evidence.
Hey, I'll go for it. Lets use reason and evidence. You want
to start?
He said you can use reason and evidence on a "Christmas and
Easter Christian" who is otherwise rational. You aren't -by
your own admission - a "Christmas and Easter Christian", and as
the man implies, you are "too far gone" Damn, duke - don't
you pay any attention at all to what's said in here? It
was a simple enough statement. Perhaps it's your reading
comprehension that's at fault.
Plonk him, already. He's a nasty ***** who thirives on any kind of
attention. Negative attention is best for him--he thinks it
somehow scores him more brownie points. The only way to be rid of
him is to starve him.
Most of the rest of him plonked him /en masse/ some time ago. Do
please join us!
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Life is too short to argue with Theist |
31 Jan 2006 05:44:15 PM |
|
|
On 30 Jan 2006 17:07:41 -0800, "Ben Goren" <ben.goren@gmail.com> wrote:
Plonk him, already
Hey, when one can't participate in a public discussion, one runs and hides
behind the kill filter.
We all know you can't discuss the point.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Life is too short to argue with Theist |
02 Feb 2006 02:23:36 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 30 Jan 2006 17:07:41 -0800, "Ben Goren" <ben.goren@gmail.com> wrote:
Plonk him, already
Hey, when one can't participate in a public discussion, one runs and
hides behind the kill filter.
We all know you can't discuss the point.
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible
gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
--
The first law of the false prophet has
always and ever been "Don't laugh!"
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Duke dodging a debate? He proves god does not exist! was summat else |
02 Feb 2006 04:13:08 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 02:23:36 -0600, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
duke wrote:
On 30 Jan 2006 17:07:41 -0800, "Ben Goren" <ben.goren@gmail.com> wrote:
Plonk him, already
Hey, when one can't participate in a public discussion, one runs and
hides behind the kill filter.
We all know you can't discuss the point.
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
<snip>
Duke has no right to claim others cannot discuss a point
when he has offered only silence to a question that I put
to him on another thread. Unless of course he missed my
post, which is possible knowing the reliability of Usenet.
He agreed my summary of a paper of his that he published
which he claims to prove there is a god.
His argument proposes levels of existence where things
or beings cannot comprehend things or beings at higher
levels.
Thus:
A stone cannot comprehend a worm
A worm cannot comprehend a human
A human cannot comprehend beings at higher levels
(comprehended by some as 'gods' or "Intelligent Designers"
or "creators" or "Intellihent Designer/creators"
He agreed this was a reasonably summary of part of his case
Using the examples postulated above we know that though
the worm is at a 'higher level' than a stone it cannot communicate
with a stone and even though we are two or more levels higher
(as Duke sees it in his argument) we cannot communicate
with the stone either and neither can we commuinicate with
a worm. Indeed at best out ability to communicate with any
other living being is limited.
This all boils down to two things:
1. We cannot comprehend higher entitities higher than us
therefore we have not comprehended any higher entities.
Therefore any claims to have comprehended any higher
entity must be false
Thus the claims concerning the gods of the Bible are false
as this speaks of things comprehended (God is love,
provides an after life, hell heaven etc something which
Duke argues we are incapble of comprehending)
2. Just as we cannot communicate with beings at a
lower level than us, entities at a higher level than us
cannot communicate with us. If they did communicate then
we must have been able to comprehend them.
If we cannot comprehend them then we cannot comprehend
any commications from them (as the worm cannot
comprehend any attempt we may make to communicate
with them)
Therefore any claims that people make that a higher
entity has communicated with them is false.
These conclusions are based on Duke's own argument an
argument that proves that the gods of the Bible are false because
the Bible claims to know things about a higher entity and that
people have communicated with it, even to having seen this higher
entity something he says we cannot do (higher entitites are not
comprehensible he argues)
By his argument, the best we can do is speculate
the possibility of higher entities but this agnostic
argument is that there is no way we can know
Duke is an agnostic theist believing in something he argues
is false!
Note if you (dear reader) want to dispute this argument take
it up with Duke, I am only trying to interpret his 'god is
not comprehensible' argument the best I can and are
pointing out to him the logical conclusions that are drawn
fom it. It seems obvious to me that if he argues that gods are
not comprehensible then we have not comprehended any
and any claims otherwise must of necessity be false.
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke dodging a debate? He proves god does not exist! was summat else |
02 Feb 2006 06:00:51 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 10:13:08 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
Duke has no right to claim others cannot discuss a point
when he has offered only silence to a question that I put
to him on another thread. Unless of course he missed my
post, which is possible knowing the reliability of Usenet.
He agreed my summary of a paper of his that he published
which he claims to prove there is a god.
Nope. No one can prove the existence of God almighty, and I never claimed
anyone could. I have 100% claimed that all evidence demands the existence of
God, but no proof.
At least try and be reliable in quoting me, les.
His argument proposes levels of existence where things
or beings cannot comprehend things or beings at higher
levels.
Thus:
A stone cannot comprehend a worm
A worm cannot comprehend a human
A human cannot comprehend beings at higher levels
(comprehended by some as 'gods' or "Intelligent Designers"
or "creators" or "Intellihent Designer/creators"
Nope. Comprehend is your word, not mine. We all recognize in my "5 Evidences"
that each higher level demonstrated advanced faculties over it's lower level.
Thus mankind gets ever closer to closing the link with almighty God, but cannot
get there.
He agreed this was a reasonably summary of part of his case
You can't even repeat correctly what I said, and you profess more knowledge than
me???? NO way.
Using the examples postulated above we know that though
the worm is at a 'higher level' than a stone it cannot communicate
with a stone and even though we are two or more levels higher
(as Duke sees it in his argument) we cannot communicate
with the stone either and neither can we commuinicate with
a worm. Indeed at best out ability to communicate with any
other living being is limited.
*****. You can't even comprehend what I said. Try again, dummy.
This all boils down to two things:
Yeah, that you have no concept of what I said, and therefore am clearly unable
to debate my points.
1. We cannot comprehend higher entitities higher than us
therefore we have not comprehended any higher entities.
Therefore any claims to have comprehended any higher
entity must be false
Thus the claims concerning the gods of the Bible are false
as this speaks of things comprehended (God is love,
provides an after life, hell heaven etc something which
Duke argues we are incapble of comprehending)
In your case, that's clearly true.
2. Just as we cannot communicate with beings at a
lower level than us, entities at a higher level than us
cannot communicate with us. If they did communicate then
we must have been able to comprehend them.
If we cannot comprehend them then we cannot comprehend
any commications from them (as the worm cannot
comprehend any attempt we may make to communicate
with them)
Therefore any claims that people make that a higher
entity has communicated with them is false.
These conclusions are based on Duke's own argument an
argument that proves that the gods of the Bible are false because
the Bible claims to know things about a higher entity and that
people have communicated with it, even to having seen this higher
entity something he says we cannot do (higher entitites are not
comprehensible he argues)
By his argument, the best we can do is speculate
the possibility of higher entities but this agnostic
argument is that there is no way we can know
Duke is an agnostic theist believing in something he argues
is false!
Note if you (dear reader) want to dispute this argument take
it up with Duke, I am only trying to interpret his 'god is
not comprehensible' argument the best I can
You've got a long way to be serious.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke dodging a debate? He proves god does not exist! was summat else |
03 Feb 2006 03:34:02 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:00:51 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 10:13:08 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
Duke has no right to claim others cannot discuss a point
when he has offered only silence to a question that I put
to him on another thread. Unless of course he missed my
post, which is possible knowing the reliability of Usenet.
He agreed my summary of a paper of his that he published
which he claims to prove there is a god.
Nope. No one can prove the existence of God almighty, and I never claimed
anyone could. I have 100% claimed that all evidence demands the existence of
God, but no proof.
Yes you did indeed make that clear I am in error. My apologies
At least try and be reliable in quoting me, les.
I try.
His argument proposes levels of existence where things
or beings cannot comprehend things or beings at higher
levels.
Thus:
A stone cannot comprehend a worm
A worm cannot comprehend a human
A human cannot comprehend beings at higher levels
(comprehended by some as 'gods' or "Intelligent Designers"
or "creators" or "Intellihent Designer/creators"
Nope. Comprehend is your word, not mine. We all recognize in my "5 Evidences"
that each higher level demonstrated advanced faculties over it's lower level.
Thus mankind gets ever closer to closing the link with almighty God, but cannot
get there.
He agreed this was a reasonably summary of part of his case
You can't even repeat correctly what I said, and you profess more knowledge than
me???? NO way.
I herewith quote the exchange in which, to my summary of several
paragraphs of yours you responded "of course"
<quote>
Les:
What you are basically saying here is that just as a rock cannot
comprehend a worm (a higher being) or a worm us (a higher being
than a worm) we cannot comprehend beings 'higher' than us
Have I got this right?
Duke:
Of course. Logic and reason demand a higher level. We lack the faculties to
meet one on one with God just as the cow lacks the faculties to meet with humans
one on one. Higher has full authority over the lower. Notice though that each
lower level (moving up) gets progressive closer to one on one with it's
superior.
<unquote>
I have not quoted the original passages since you said "Of course" to
my summary and I proceeded on that basis.
Using the examples postulated above we know that though
the worm is at a 'higher level' than a stone it cannot communicate
with a stone and even though we are two or more levels higher
(as Duke sees it in his argument) we cannot communicate
with the stone either and neither can we commuinicate with
a worm. Indeed at best out ability to communicate with any
other living being is limited.
*****.
The above is *****? How often do you have a chat with a worm
then?
You can't even comprehend what I said. Try again, dummy
You agreed above with my summary of what you said when you
replied "Of course". I specifically put the summary to you first
before proceeding to comment on your argument so you would not
then be able to dismiss with "Try again dummy" as usual. You
are too late with it now.
The above quoted analysis was not based on what you said anyway.
You talked about lower beings being unable to comprehend higher ones.
The above passage is me talking about higher being being unable to
communicate with lower. If you disagree and think you can chat with
worms and stones then I guess I must not be surprised if you think
I am talking *****. Do you talk to stones then and hold discourse
with worms? Cats perhaps?
This all boils down to two things:
Yeah, that you have no concept of what I said, and therefore am clearly unable
to debate my points.
Yet you said "Of course" to my summary of your argument put in the
passages I quoted originally, and now tell us that my argument that
we cannot communicate with stones and worms is *****! Unless
you know different and think you can communicate with stones and
worms just who is having difficulty with comprehension and the
debating of points here?
Knock knock, is there anybody there?
1. We cannot comprehend higher entitities higher than us
therefore we have not comprehended any higher entities.
Therefore any claims to have comprehended any higher
entity must be false
Thus the claims concerning the gods of the Bible are false
as this speaks of things comprehended (God is love,
provides an after life, hell heaven etc something which
Duke argues we are incapble of comprehending)
In your case, that's clearly true.
If so then the god you think you can comprehend has also
failed to communicate with me.
As ad-hominem is dodging and running away you loose
this point by default since you have not offered any
cons or counter arguments. Indeed your comment would
seem to add weight to my argument in that you accept
that this higher entity (if indeed it does exist) has been
unable to communicate with me, a lower entity.
2. Just as we cannot communicate with beings at a
lower level than us, entities at a higher level than us
cannot communicate with us.
You argued this point yourself when you wrote:
"We lack the faculties to meet one on one with God just as the
cow lacks the faculties to meet with humans one on one"
If they did communicate then
we must have been able to comprehend them.
If we cannot comprehend them then we cannot comprehend
any commications from them (as the worm cannot
comprehend any attempt we may make to communicate
with them)
Therefore any claims that people make that a higher
entity has communicated with them is false.
These conclusions are based on Duke's own argument an
argument
the Bible claims to know things about a higher entity and that
people have communicated with it, even to having seen this higher
entity something he says we cannot do (higher entitites are not
comprehensible he argues)
By his argument, the best we can do is speculate
the possibility of higher entities but this agnostic
argument is that there is no way we can know
Duke is an agnostic theist believing in something he argues
is false!
Note if you (dear reader) want to dispute this argument take
it up with Duke, I am only trying to interpret his 'god is
not comprehensible' argument the best I can
You've got a long way to be serious.
True but nothing you say aught to be taken seriously.
Tying you in knots with your own argument is fun! :-)
My arguments above stand unchallenged by you so as you
have not offerred any cons or counter arguments you loose
by default. You have proved by your argument that the gods of the
Bible are false
I am disappointed that you conceed and run away so easily
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect way to waste an hour."
Pope Paul VI aught to have said
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke dodging a debate? He proves god does not exist! was summat else |
03 Feb 2006 04:17:23 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 09:34:02 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
Nope. No one can prove the existence of God almighty, and I never claimed
anyone could. I have 100% claimed that all evidence demands the existence of
God, but no proof.
Yes you did indeed make that clear I am in error. My apologies
Accepted.
At least try and be reliable in quoting me, les.
I try.
His argument proposes levels of existence where things
or beings cannot comprehend things or beings at higher
levels.
Thus:
A stone cannot comprehend a worm
A worm cannot comprehend a human
A human cannot comprehend beings at higher levels
(comprehended by some as 'gods' or "Intelligent Designers"
or "creators" or "Intellihent Designer/creators"
Nope. Comprehend is your word, not mine. We all recognize in my "5 Evidences"
that each higher level demonstrated advanced faculties over it's lower level.
Thus mankind gets ever closer to closing the link with almighty God, but cannot
get there.
He agreed this was a reasonably summary of part of his case
You can't even repeat correctly what I said, and you profess more knowledge than
me???? NO way.
I herewith quote the exchange in which, to my summary of several
paragraphs of yours you responded "of course"
<quote>
Les:
What you are basically saying here is that just as a rock cannot
comprehend a worm (a higher being) or a worm us (a higher being
than a worm) we cannot comprehend beings 'higher' than us
Have I got this right?
Duke:
Of course. Logic and reason demand a higher level. We lack the faculties to
meet one on one with God just as the cow lacks the faculties to meet with humans
one on one. Higher has full authority over the lower. Notice though that each
lower level (moving up) gets progressive closer to one on one with it's
superior.
I have not quoted the original passages since you said "Of course" to
my summary and I proceeded on that basis.
And now you understand correctly. As we go from rock to plant to cow to human
to God, the ability to relate lower to higher gets progressively higher, but
never fully gets there. Man is a lot closer to interfacing with God than a cow
with a man.
Using the examples postulated above we know that though
the worm is at a 'higher level' than a stone it cannot communicate
with a stone and even though we are two or more levels higher
(as Duke sees it in his argument) we cannot communicate
with the stone either and neither can we commuinicate with
a worm. Indeed at best out ability to communicate with any
other living being is limited.
*****.
The above is *****? How often do you have a chat with a worm
then?
Never, because it is one way. The cow cannot respond because it lacks the
faculties to respond.
You can't even comprehend what I said. Try again, dummy
You agreed above with my summary of what you said when you
replied "Of course". I specifically put the summary to you first
before proceeding to comment on your argument so you would not
then be able to dismiss with "Try again dummy" as usual. You
are too late with it now.
Nope - is the glass half full or half empty.
The above quoted analysis was not based on what you said anyway.
You talked about lower beings being unable to comprehend higher ones.
The above passage is me talking about higher being being unable to
communicate with lower. If you disagree and think you can chat with
worms and stones then I guess I must not be surprised if you think
I am talking *****. Do you talk to stones then and hold discourse
with worms? Cats perhaps?
Not even dogs. A dog has no idea what you're saying to it although it can be
trained to response a specific way to a specific sound, but as far as knowing
what you said, not a chance.
Although I know of one dummyette that thinks she can get her cat to make out the
grocery list, do the shopping, pay for the groceries, and put them away back
home.
This all boils down to two things:
Yeah, that you have no concept of what I said, and therefore am clearly unable
to debate my points.
Yet you said "Of course" to my summary of your argument put in the
passages I quoted originally,
You worded your statement poorly that left a multiple response at hand, one of
which was "of course".
and now tell us that my argument that
we cannot communicate with stones and worms is *****! Unless
you know different and think you can communicate with stones and
worms just who is having difficulty with comprehension and the
debating of points here?
Knock knock, is there anybody there?
You lack the faculties to understand my response.
1. We cannot comprehend higher entitities higher than us
therefore we have not comprehended any higher entities.
Therefore any claims to have comprehended any higher
entity must be false
Thus the claims concerning the gods of the Bible are false
as this speaks of things comprehended (God is love,
provides an after life, hell heaven etc something which
Duke argues we are incapble of comprehending)
In your case, that's clearly true.
If so then the god you think you can comprehend has also
failed to communicate with me.
I am a man in God's world, maybe you are a cow.
2. Just as we cannot communicate with beings at a
lower level than us, entities at a higher level than us
cannot communicate with us.
You argued this point yourself when you wrote:
"We lack the faculties to meet one on one with God just as the
cow lacks the faculties to meet with humans one on one"
Rest assured a cow cannot communicate with you.
You've got a long way to be serious.
True but nothing you say aught to be taken seriously.
Tying you in knots with your own argument is fun! :-)
You're not tying me up at all. It's easy to see thru your facade.
I am disappointed that you conceed and run away so easily
I'm right here.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke dodging a debate? He proves god does not exist! was summat else |
03 Feb 2006 05:33:05 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:17:23 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 09:34:02 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
Nope. No one can prove the existence of God almighty, and I never claimed
anyone could. I have 100% claimed that all evidence demands the existence of
God, but no proof.
Yes you did indeed make that clear I am in error. My apologies
Accepted.
At least try and be reliable in quoting me, les.
I try.
His argument proposes levels of existence where things
or beings cannot comprehend things or beings at higher
levels.
Thus:
A stone cannot comprehend a worm
A worm cannot comprehend a human
A human cannot comprehend beings at higher levels
(comprehended by some as 'gods' or "Intelligent Designers"
or "creators" or "Intellihent Designer/creators"
Nope. Comprehend is your word, not mine. We all recognize in my "5 Evidences"
that each higher level demonstrated advanced faculties over it's lower level.
Thus mankind gets ever closer to closing the link with almighty God, but cannot
get there.
He agreed this was a reasonably summary of part of his case
You can't even repeat correctly what I said, and you profess more knowledge than
me???? NO way.
I herewith quote the exchange in which, to my summary of several
paragraphs of yours you responded "of course"
<quote>
Les:
What you are basically saying here is that just as a rock cannot
comprehend a worm (a higher being) or a worm us (a higher being
than a worm) we cannot comprehend beings 'higher' than us
Have I got this right?
Duke:
Of course. Logic and reason demand a higher level. We lack the faculties to
meet one on one with God just as the cow lacks the faculties to meet with humans
one on one. Higher has full authority over the lower. Notice though that each
lower level (moving up) gets progressive closer to one on one with it's
superior.
I have not quoted the original passages since you said "Of course" to
my summary and I proceeded on that basis.
And now you understand correctly. As we go from rock to plant to cow to human
to God, the ability to relate lower to higher gets progressively higher, but
never fully gets there. Man is a lot closer to interfacing with God than a cow
with a man.
Using the examples postulated above we know that though
the worm is at a 'higher level' than a stone it cannot communicate
with a stone and even though we are two or more levels higher
(as Duke sees it in his argument) we cannot communicate
with the stone either and neither can we commuinicate with
a worm. Indeed at best out ability to communicate with any
other living being is limited.
*****.
The above is *****? How often do you have a chat with a worm
then?
Never, because it is one way. The cow cannot respond because it lacks the
faculties to respond.
You can't even comprehend what I said. Try again, dummy
You agreed above with my summary of what you said when you
replied "Of course". I specifically put the summary to you first
before proceeding to comment on your argument so you would not
then be able to dismiss with "Try again dummy" as usual. You
are too late with it now.
Nope - is the glass half full or half empty.
The above quoted analysis was not based on what you said anyway.
You talked about lower beings being unable to comprehend higher ones.
The above passage is me talking about higher being being unable to
communicate with lower. If you disagree and think you can chat with
worms and stones then I guess I must not be surprised if you think
I am talking *****. Do you talk to stones then and hold discourse
with worms? Cats perhaps?
Not even dogs. A dog has no idea what you're saying to it although it can be
trained to response a specific way to a specific sound, but as far as knowing
what you said, not a chance.
Although I know of one dummyette that thinks she can get her cat to make out the
grocery list, do the shopping, pay for the groceries, and put them away back
home.
This all boils down to two things:
Yeah, that you have no concept of what I said, and therefore am clearly unable
to debate my points.
Yet you said "Of course" to my summary of your argument put in the
passages I quoted originally,
You worded your statement poorly that left a multiple response at hand, one of
which was "of course".
and now tell us that my argument that
we cannot communicate with stones and worms is *****! Unless
you know different and think you can communicate with stones and
worms just who is having difficulty with comprehension and the
debating of points here?
Knock knock, is there anybody there?
You lack the faculties to understand my response.
1. We cannot comprehend higher entitities higher than us
therefore we have not comprehended any higher entities.
Therefore any claims to have comprehended any higher
entity must be false
Thus the claims concerning the gods of the Bible are false
as this speaks of things comprehended (God is love,
provides an after life, hell heaven etc something which
Duke argues we are incapble of comprehending)
In your case, that's clearly true.
If so then the god you think you can comprehend has also
failed to communicate with me.
I am a man in God's world, maybe you are a cow.
It matters not at what level I am the point is there has been
no communication made. The higher being either does
not exist, is not trying to communicate with me or cannot
because I am ibcapable of comprehending it as you argue
Which is it?
2. Just as we cannot communicate with beings at a
lower level than us, entities at a higher level than us
cannot communicate with us.
You argued this point yourself when you wrote:
"We lack the faculties to meet one on one with God just as the
cow lacks the faculties to meet with humans one on one"
Rest assured a cow cannot communicate with you.
Exactly.
but it can comprehend me. It is aware I exist when it sees
me. If I get too close it does a Duke.
You've got a long way to be serious.
True but nothing you say aught to be taken seriously.
Tying you in knots with your own argument is fun! :-)
You're not tying me up at all. It's easy to see thru your facade.
I am disappointed that you conceed and run away so easily
You still have not offered any refutation of my conclusions
to your argument but at least you have tried to dodge and
weave and introduce a few diversions so that is something I
guess.
Argument still not refuted though and no attempt made
To recap:
Duke argues that beings/things cannot comprehend beings at
higher levels that it. Thus:
The stone cannot comprehend the worm
The worm cannot comprehend the human
The human cannot comprehend entities above it.
Though Duke argues this it the argument does have some
merit
The logical conclusion to his argument is thus:
Since we cannot comprehend higher entities than us we have not.
Higher beings cannot communicate with us as that would
require comprehension.
Since we cannot comprehend higher beings or comprehend
communications from them all claims to the contrary are
false as we cannot possibly know anything about these entities
or even if they exist.
The gods claimed in the Bible are therefore false.
QED
Duke hoist with own petar!
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke dodging a debate? He proves god does not exist! was summat else |
03 Feb 2006 09:42:40 PM |
|
|
Les Hellawell wrote:
************
To recap:
Duke argues that beings/things cannot comprehend beings at
higher levels that it. Thus:
The stone cannot comprehend the worm
The worm cannot comprehend the human
The human cannot comprehend entities above it.
Though Duke argues this it the argument does have some
merit
The logical conclusion to his argument is thus:
Since we cannot comprehend higher entities than us we have not.
Higher beings cannot communicate with us as that would
require comprehension.
Since we cannot comprehend higher beings or comprehend
communications from them all claims to the contrary are
false as we cannot possibly know anything about these entities
or even if they exist.
The gods claimed in the Bible are therefore false.
QED
Duke hoist with own petard!
Exactly. If god cannot communicate with us worms,
then the god that communicated with man in the bible,
Moses, Joshua, Abraham et al cannot exist.
Furthe rmore since he cannot even in principle
communicate with us, any religion that claims god
communicates with us is false.
So is every prophet, mystic or sort of claimant
of revelation.
If there was a god that cannot communicate with us,
all we can say is, god never communicated with man
and never will.
And thus we can know nothing about what god is,
does or wants.
That god is good or evil, or omnipotent or immortal
are all guesses.
Amazingly, Duke never bothered for 1 second to
see where people would take his ignorant jive.
And how is a god like this different
from exactly nothing?
--
The first law of the false prophet has
always and ever been "Don't laugh!"
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke dodging a debate? He proves god does not exist! was summat else |
04 Feb 2006 09:57:13 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 21:42:40 -0600, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Les Hellawell wrote:
************
To recap:
Duke argues that beings/things cannot comprehend beings at
higher levels that it. Thus:
The stone cannot comprehend the worm
The worm cannot comprehend the human
The human cannot comprehend entities above it.
Though Duke argues this it the argument does have some
merit
The logical conclusion to his argument is thus:
Since we cannot comprehend higher entities than us we have not.
Higher beings cannot communicate with us as that would
require comprehension.
Since we cannot comprehend higher beings or comprehend
communications from them all claims to the contrary are
false as we cannot possibly know anything about these entities
or even if they exist.
The gods claimed in the Bible are therefore false.
QED
Duke hoist with own petard!
Exactly. If god cannot communicate with us worms,
then the god that communicated with man in the bible,
Moses, Joshua, Abraham et al cannot exist.
Furthe rmore since he cannot even in principle
communicate with us, any religion that claims god
communicates with us is false.
So is every prophet, mystic or sort of claimant
of revelation.
If there was a god that cannot communicate with us,
all we can say is, god never communicated with man
and never will.
And thus we can know nothing about what god is,
does or wants.
That god is good or evil, or omnipotent or immortal
are all guesses.
Amazingly, Duke never bothered for 1 second to
see where people would take his ignorant jive.
And how is a god like this different
from exactly nothing?
The difference is this wishful thinking notion they
have of an immortal soul and that this god determines
it's fate.
Duke argues freewill and If I have him correctly god
does not intervene in our life but sits there waiting for
us to die. Then it pounces. To him it matters not what
this god is or what powers it has except its ability to
determine the fate of our 'soul' and that it created us and
our world.
It would be interesting to know what is supposed to happen
to freewill on death? Does this immortal soul have free will
after death?
So, consider these properties of Duke's god
God exists
God created the world
God did not necessarily create life but gave human life
something called an 'Immortal soul' which only humans have.
When a human dies god determines the fate of this immortal
soul.
Can you disprove these and that this god cannot
exist?
As for me, they are beliefs that make no sense to me
and even if true the responce would be 'so what?' I do
not know what this god desires (assuming it exists) nor
what it regards as good or evil since I have never had any
communication from this god and nor has anybody else.
The best I can do is decide for myself what I consider to
be the proper way to live my life and face the consequences
honestly should they arise. I am not going to try and
second guess a future that is beyond my comprehension.
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke dodging a debate? He proves god does not exist! was summat else |
04 Feb 2006 12:58:46 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 21:42:40 -0600, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Exactly. If god cannot communicate with us worms,
then the god that communicated with man in the bible,
Moses, Joshua, Abraham et al cannot exist.
God can speak to you, and does. But you can't comprehend. If you were a man,
you'd hear a lot better.
And thus we can know nothing about what god is,
does or wants.
I do, you worm.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke dodging a debate? He proves god does not exist! was summat else |
04 Feb 2006 02:19:15 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 12:58:46 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 21:42:40 -0600, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Exactly. If god cannot communicate with us worms,
then the god that communicated with man in the bible,
Moses, Joshua, Abraham et al cannot exist.
God can speak to you, and does. But you can't comprehend.
As you argue.
To recap:
Duke argues that beings/things cannot comprehend beings at
higher levels that it. Thus:
The stone cannot comprehend the worm
The worm cannot comprehend the human
The human cannot comprehend entities above it.
Though Duke argues this it the argument does have some
merit
The logical conclusion to his argument is thus:
Since we cannot comprehend higher entities than us we have not.
Higher beings cannot communicate with us as that would
require comprehension.
Since we cannot comprehend higher beings or comprehend
communications from them all claims to the contrary are
false as we cannot possibly know anything about these entities
or even if they exist.
The gods claimed in the Bible are therefore false.
QED
Duke hoist with own petar!
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke dodging a debate? He proves god does not exist! was summat else |
04 Feb 2006 09:30:15 PM |
|
|
Les Hellawell wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 12:58:46 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 21:42:40 -0600, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Exactly. If god cannot communicate with us worms,
then the god that communicated with man in the bible,
Moses, Joshua, Abraham et al cannot exist.
God can speak to you, and does. But you can't comprehend.
As you argue.
To recap:
Duke argues that beings/things cannot comprehend beings at
higher levels that it. Thus:
The stone cannot comprehend the worm
The worm cannot comprehend the human
The human cannot comprehend entities above it.
Though Duke argues this it the argument does have some
merit
The logical conclusion to his argument is thus:
Since we cannot comprehend higher entities than us we have not.
Higher beings cannot communicate with us as that would
require comprehension.
Since we cannot comprehend higher beings or comprehend
communications from them all claims to the contrary are
false as we cannot possibly know anything about these entities
or even if they exist.
The gods claimed in the Bible are therefore false.
And he claims this god has no mind, intelligence or
free will. No personality, no nothing.
This sort of senseless babble waas declared heresy 800
years ago when theologians like Dennis of Divant or
John Scottus Eriugena centuries ago yarbled on this.
This sort of nonsense was reiterated as heresy in
the 1st Vatican council. One of the greatest
denunciations of heresy since the Albigenisan
crusades were announced.
This was a form of gnosticism Augustine denounced,
it came out of neo-Platonism 2000 years ago.
Constitution "De Fide Catholica."
The first doctrinal definition, "On the Catholic faith" (approved Apr.
1870; also called "Dei Filius"), expressed a consensus of the Catholic
revival concerning God, faith, and reason. In its four chapters it
defined as a doctrine of divine revelation the existence of a free,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
personal, creator God who was absolutely independent of the universe he
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
created. The religious truth concerning the existence of this God, it
affirmed, could be known by human reason alone, so that all people had
no excuse for unbelieving. Nevertheless, other truths about God and this
creation could only be known by faith through divine revelation via
Scripture and the tradition of the church. Properly understood, faith
and reason were not in conflict. The errors that were specifically
mentioned in an appendix, notably atheism, pantheism, rationalism,
fideism, biblicism, traditionalism, were either utterly wrong (atheism)
or wrong in emphazing merely one element of the whole truth
(rationalism). This definition provided the basis for Catholic theology
and philosophy for the next several generations.
The bible speaks of an intensely personal god with will and emotions and
personality and intelligence. To speak otherwise is heresy specifically
because of that.
And he claims to be Catholic!
He has already excommincated himself by arguing for deep heresy on the
very nature of god.
One cannot help but laugh.
--
The first law of the false prophet has
always and ever been "Don't laugh!"
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke dodging a debate? He proves god does not exist! was summat else |
04 Feb 2006 12:56:43 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 23:33:05 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
If so then the god you think you can comprehend has also
failed to communicate with me.
I am a man in God's world, maybe you are a cow.
It matters not at what level I am the point is there has been
no communication made. The higher being either does
not exist, is not trying to communicate with me or cannot
because I am ibcapable of comprehending it as you argue
I believe you are therefore incapable of comprehending, as a cow would be
incapable. Man gets closer to God in communication than a cow does to man. Man
uses his power of logic and reason as that means to close the communication gap
with God. A cow can't do this with God or man.
Which is it?
Explalined.
Rest assured a cow cannot communicate with you.
Exactly.
but it can comprehend me. It is aware I exist when it sees
me. If I get too close it does a Duke.
No it does not comprehend you. It sees something but has no idea what it is. A
plant cannot do that much with a cow. And the inanimate rock has no concept of
anything.
You still have not offered any refutation of my conclusions
to your argument but at least you have tried to dodge and
weave and introduce a few diversions so that is something I
guess.
You have made no attempt at | | | | | | | | | | | | |
