| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Barry OGrady" |
| Date: |
13 Aug 2005 09:06:55 PM |
| Object: |
Proof of no God? |
We have the PROOF of no GOOD God all around us, but not proof there is no
God, but if God is defined as good then we have PROOF or NO God.
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
.
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
13 Aug 2005 09:55:47 PM |
|
|
"Barry OGrady" <atheist.xxx@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dj9tf19qkfq3fdtg37144bgvicak95u5ft@4ax.com...
We have the PROOF of no GOOD God all around us, but not proof there is no
God, but if God is defined as good then we have PROOF or NO God.
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
"We have the PROOF of no GOOD God all around us,
I'm with you so far.
but not proof there is no God,
That all depends on the definition of God. But I'm just going to refer you
to my story regarding "Manfred, the Invisible Monkey."
There's no "proof" that *he* doesn't exist either.
but if God is defined as good then we have PROOF or NO God
Notice the use of the word "if"? What you're seeming to suggest, is that
*if* God is good, then we have proof of a good God. You're already assuming
that the existence of God is a given. It isn't. Are we to assume that this
God may be "bad"? If that's the case, there is no proof he exists anymore
than a "good" God does. "NO God," you say. How about the 'bad' one? Like I
said, there's no proof that either one of them exists. When it is all said
and done, we are left with no God. That is, until someone proves us atheists
different. (How about some of you right-wing evangelicals stickin' your
noses in this one?)
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
16 Aug 2005 06:59:05 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:55:47 -0500, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote:
"Barry OGrady" <atheist.xxx@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dj9tf19qkfq3fdtg37144bgvicak95u5ft@4ax.com...
We have the PROOF of no GOOD God all around us, but not proof there is no
God, but if God is defined as good then we have PROOF or NO God.
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
"We have the PROOF of no GOOD God all around us,
I'm with you so far.
but not proof there is no God,
That all depends on the definition of God.
That's my point.
But I'm just going to refer you
to my story regarding "Manfred, the Invisible Monkey."
There's no "proof" that *he* doesn't exist either.
but if God is defined as good then we have PROOF or NO God
or above should be of.
Notice the use of the word "if"? What you're seeming to suggest, is that
*if* God is good, then we have proof of a good God. You're already assuming
that the existence of God is a given.
Completely wrong. Where did you get that from?
It isn't. Are we to assume that this God may be "bad"?
No.
If that's the case, there is no proof he exists anymore
There is no proof that God ever existed.
than a "good" God does. "NO God," you say. How about the 'bad' one? Like I
said, there's no proof that either one of them exists.
There is proof of no GOOD God.
When it is all said and done, we are left with no God. That is, until someone
proves us atheists different.
We have proof that gods with certain characteristics don't exist.
(How about some of you right-wing evangelicals stickin' your
noses in this one?)
Greywolf
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
18 Aug 2005 05:48:50 PM |
|
|
"Barry OGrady" <atheist.xxx@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ik93g1dtu3gihhio6t7vldoapush83qop8@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:55:47 -0500, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
"Barry OGrady" <atheist.xxx@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dj9tf19qkfq3fdtg37144bgvicak95u5ft@4ax.com...
We have the PROOF of no GOOD God all around us, but not proof there is
no
God, but if God is defined as good then we have PROOF or NO God.
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
"We have the PROOF of no GOOD God all around us,
I'm with you so far.
but not proof there is no God,
That all depends on the definition of God.
That's my point.
But I'm just going to refer you
to my story regarding "Manfred, the Invisible Monkey."
There's no "proof" that *he* doesn't exist either.
but if God is defined as good then we have PROOF or NO God
or above should be of.
Notice the use of the word "if"? What you're seeming to suggest, is that
*if* God is good, then we have proof of a good God. You're already
assuming
that the existence of God is a given.
Completely wrong. Where did you get that from?
Huh? '...if God is defined as good... The premise is God exists and that
'if' he is 'good,' we
have proof he's a 'good' God.
It isn't. Are we to assume that this God may be "bad"?
No.
And why not? Given the above hypothetical premise, i.e., if God is defined
as good ... Then we
can turn around and say, with equal force, '... if God is defined as bad,
then we have proof ...
If that's the case, there is no proof he exists anymore
There is no proof that God ever existed.
than a "good" God does. "NO God," you say. How about the 'bad' one? Like I
said, there's no proof that either one of them exists.
There is proof of no GOOD God.
When it is all said and done, we are left with no God. That is, until
someone
proves us atheists different.
We have proof that gods with certain characteristics don't exist.
We have proof that any characteristics one wants to attribute to an imaginay
entity are purely the work of one's imagination.
(How about some of you right-wing evangelicals stickin' your
noses in this one?)
Greywolf
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
I'm still a waitin' for the real 'heavy-hitters.' I guess they're off taking
their steroids or something.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "john r howell" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
21 Aug 2005 12:43:09 AM |
|
|
If there were an all powerful and all loving God, and this God wants us
humans to know of his/hers/its existence, why does he/she/it keep playing
hide and seek games with all of us humans? St John the Atheist
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:11ga42ra89tg9b1@corp.supernews.com...
"Barry OGrady" <atheist.xxx@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ik93g1dtu3gihhio6t7vldoapush83qop8@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:55:47 -0500, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
"Barry OGrady" <atheist.xxx@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dj9tf19qkfq3fdtg37144bgvicak95u5ft@4ax.com...
We have the PROOF of no GOOD God all around us, but not proof there is
no
God, but if God is defined as good then we have PROOF or NO God.
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
"We have the PROOF of no GOOD God all around us,
I'm with you so far.
but not proof there is no God,
That all depends on the definition of God.
That's my point.
But I'm just going to refer you
to my story regarding "Manfred, the Invisible Monkey."
There's no "proof" that *he* doesn't exist either.
but if God is defined as good then we have PROOF or NO God
or above should be of.
Notice the use of the word "if"? What you're seeming to suggest, is that
*if* God is good, then we have proof of a good God. You're already
assuming
that the existence of God is a given.
Completely wrong. Where did you get that from?
Huh? '...if God is defined as good... The premise is God exists and that
'if' he is 'good,' we
have proof he's a 'good' God.
It isn't. Are we to assume that this God may be "bad"?
No.
And why not? Given the above hypothetical premise, i.e., if God is defined
as good ... Then we
can turn around and say, with equal force, '... if God is defined as bad,
then we have proof ...
If that's the case, there is no proof he exists anymore
There is no proof that God ever existed.
than a "good" God does. "NO God," you say. How about the 'bad' one? Like
I
said, there's no proof that either one of them exists.
There is proof of no GOOD God.
When it is all said and done, we are left with no God. That is, until
someone
proves us atheists different.
We have proof that gods with certain characteristics don't exist.
We have proof that any characteristics one wants to attribute to an
imaginay
entity are purely the work of one's imagination.
(How about some of you right-wing evangelicals stickin' your
noses in this one?)
Greywolf
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
I'm still a waitin' for the real 'heavy-hitters.' I guess they're off
taking their steroids or something.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
22 Aug 2005 07:02:00 PM |
|
|
"john r howell" <jh.pita@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:NvUNe.2916$0U6.542@trnddc09...
If there were an all powerful and all loving God, and this God wants us
humans to know of his/hers/its existence, why does he/she/it keep playing
hide and seek games with all of us humans? St John the Atheist
You know, if all the religionists would just sit down, take 5 minutes out of
their busy schedule, and ask
themselves that very question, I wonder what they would say to themselves?
What *could* they say to
themselves?
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
18 Aug 2005 06:34:02 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:48:50 -0500, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote:
"Barry OGrady" <atheist.xxx@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ik93g1dtu3gihhio6t7vldoapush83qop8@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:55:47 -0500, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
"Barry OGrady" <atheist.xxx@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dj9tf19qkfq3fdtg37144bgvicak95u5ft@4ax.com...
We have the PROOF of no GOOD God all around us, but not proof there is
no
God, but if God is defined as good then we have PROOF or NO God.
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
"We have the PROOF of no GOOD God all around us,
I'm with you so far.
but not proof there is no God,
That all depends on the definition of God.
That's my point.
But I'm just going to refer you
to my story regarding "Manfred, the Invisible Monkey."
There's no "proof" that *he* doesn't exist either.
but if God is defined as good then we have PROOF or NO God
or above should be of.
Notice the use of the word "if"? What you're seeming to suggest, is that
*if* God is good, then we have proof of a good God. You're already
assuming
that the existence of God is a given.
Completely wrong. Where did you get that from?
Huh? '...if God is defined as good... The premise is God exists and that
'if' he is 'good,' we have proof he's a 'good' God.
We know there is no good God, so if God can't be bad we know there is no God.
It isn't. Are we to assume that this God may be "bad"?
No.
And why not? Given the above hypothetical premise, i.e., if God is defined
as good ... Then we can turn around and say, with equal force, '... if God is
defined as bad, then we have proof ...
If God can be bad we have no proof either way.
If that's the case, there is no proof he exists anymore
There is no proof that God ever existed.
than a "good" God does. "NO God," you say. How about the 'bad' one? Like I
said, there's no proof that either one of them exists.
There is proof of no GOOD God.
When it is all said and done, we are left with no God. That is, until
someone
proves us atheists different.
We have proof that gods with certain characteristics don't exist.
We have proof that any characteristics one wants to attribute to an imaginay
entity are purely the work of one's imagination.
(How about some of you right-wing evangelicals stickin' your
noses in this one?)
Greywolf
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
I'm still a waitin' for the real 'heavy-hitters.' I guess they're off taking
their steroids or something.
Greywolf
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "sensi" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
13 Aug 2005 10:27:37 PM |
|
|
"Barry OGrady" <atheist.xxx@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dj9tf19qkfq3fdtg37144bgvicak95u5ft@4ax.com...
We have the PROOF of no GOOD God all around us, but not proof there is no
God, but if God is defined as good then we have PROOF or NO God.
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
sensi:
Where there is life, there is God
..I can prove there is life.
I'm a living example of life, both good and bad.
I have lots of good in my life of which I'm thankful for
Thank you God, for life..
"Hi Barry"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
14 Aug 2005 05:51:08 PM |
|
|
"sensi" <sensi4sight@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:P4idnWMAUcixJ2PfRVn-1Q@pghconnect.com:
"Barry OGrady" <atheist.xxx@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dj9tf19qkfq3fdtg37144bgvicak95u5ft@4ax.com...
We have the PROOF of no GOOD God all around us, but not proof there is
no God, but if God is defined as good then we have PROOF or NO God.
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
sensi:
Where there is life, there is God
Unsupported assertion.
.I can prove there is life.
I'm a living example of life, both good and bad.
I have lots of good in my life of which I'm thankful for
Thank you God, for life..
False premise. False conclusion.
Klazmon.
"Hi Barry"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
13 Aug 2005 11:30:42 PM |
|
|
sensi wrote:
Barry OGrady wrote:
We have the PROOF of no GOOD God all around us, but not proof
there is no God, but if God is defined as good then we have
PROOF or NO God.
Where there is life, there is God
.I can prove there is life.
I'm a living example of life, both good and bad.
I have lots of good in my life of which I'm thankful for
Thank you God, for life..
If ever there were a textbook example of illogic....
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Hal0nfireS" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
14 Aug 2005 12:17:52 PM |
|
|
Ben Goren wrote:
sensi wrote:
Barry OGrady wrote:
We have the PROOF of no GOOD God all around us, but not proof
there is no God, but if God is defined as good then we have
PROOF or NO God.
Where there is life, there is God
.I can prove there is life.
I'm a living example of life, both good and bad.
I have lots of good in my life of which I'm thankful for
Thank you God, for life..
If ever there were a textbook example of illogic....
Cheers,
b&
LOL
Sensi I see the point you are getting at; but unless you can prove your
first statement "Where there is life there is God" then you cannot disprove
the statement that there is no god, even though you know in your heart that
there is at least one god. We can all prove there is life, even though
quantum science is beginning to back up Buddhist philosophy that all reality
is generated by the perception of that reality, and without perception
reality cannot exist as it has no discernable value, therefore everything is
illusion unless brought into reality by perception... Yo that's spooky! ;)
--
My part-time website is at http://5110.sytes.net
The full-time server is at http://www.geocities.com/spmf38 , but
there's no TechSection there. I'm running 2.2 Mbps and burnin' up the
wires!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
14 Aug 2005 02:41:08 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:17:52 +0100, "Dr Hal0nfireS" <wheel_of_life@msn.nospam.com> wrote:
quantum science is beginning to back up Buddhist philosophy that all reality
is generated by the perception of that reality, and without perception
reality cannot exist as it has no discernable value, therefore everything is
illusion unless brought into reality by perception... Yo that's spooky! ;)
Complete nonsense, that quantum science does anything of the kind.
--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
e-mail to lower-case only
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Hal0nfireS" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
14 Aug 2005 07:05:19 PM |
|
|
Apostate wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:17:52 +0100, "Dr Hal0nfireS"
<wheel_of_life@msn.nospam.com> wrote:
quantum science is beginning to back up Buddhist philosophy that
all reality is generated by the perception of that reality, and
without perception reality cannot exist as it has no discernable
value, therefore everything is illusion unless brought into reality
by perception... Yo that's spooky! ;)
Complete nonsense, that quantum science does anything of the kind.
And you know exactly what about quantum science? So you haven't heard that
this is the case? That's a shame as I heard that this was the case on the
theorhetical cutting edge. Maybe I stated that wrong somehow?
--
My part-time website is at http://5110.sytes.net
The full-time server is at http://www.geocities.com/spmf38 , but
there's no TechSection there. I'm running 2.2 Mbps and burnin' up the
wires!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Hal0nfireS" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
14 Aug 2005 07:22:15 PM |
|
|
Dr Hal0nfireS wrote:
Apostate wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:17:52 +0100, "Dr Hal0nfireS"
<wheel_of_life@msn.nospam.com> wrote:
quantum science is beginning to back up Buddhist philosophy that
all reality is generated by the perception of that reality, and
without perception reality cannot exist as it has no discernable
value, therefore everything is illusion unless brought into
reality by perception... Yo that's spooky! ;)
Complete nonsense, that quantum science does anything of the kind.
And you know exactly what about quantum science? So you haven't
heard that this is the case? That's a shame as I heard that this was
the case on the theorhetical cutting edge. Maybe I stated that wrong
somehow?
Yes I messed up there by trying to paraphrase the theory. It's 1AM gone and
I'm trying in vain with a closing-down brain to put what I mean into words.
Oh! See the film "What The Bleep Do We Know?" It'll explain what I mean much
better than I can.
--
My part-time website is at http://5110.sytes.net
The full-time server is at http://www.geocities.com/spmf38 , but
there's no TechSection there. I'm running 2.2 Mbps and burnin' up the
wires!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
14 Aug 2005 11:03:30 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 01:22:15 +0100, "Dr Hal0nfireS" <wheel_of_life@msn.nospam.com> wrote:
Dr Hal0nfireS wrote:
Apostate wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:17:52 +0100, "Dr Hal0nfireS"
<wheel_of_life@msn.nospam.com> wrote:
quantum science is beginning to back up Buddhist philosophy that
all reality is generated by the perception of that reality, and
without perception reality cannot exist as it has no discernable
value, therefore everything is illusion unless brought into
reality by perception... Yo that's spooky! ;)
Complete nonsense, that quantum science does anything of the kind.
And you know exactly what about quantum science? So you haven't
heard that this is the case? That's a shame as I heard that this was
the case on the theorhetical cutting edge. Maybe I stated that wrong
somehow?
Yes I messed up there by trying to paraphrase the theory. It's 1AM gone and
I'm trying in vain with a closing-down brain to put what I mean into words.
It happens.
Oh! See the film "What The Bleep Do We Know?" It'll explain what I mean much
better than I can.
Admitting to a whoops shows character.
--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
e-mail to lower-case only
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
14 Aug 2005 11:02:34 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 01:05:19 +0100, "Dr Hal0nfireS" <wheel_of_life@msn.nospam.com> wrote:
Apostate wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:17:52 +0100, "Dr Hal0nfireS"
<wheel_of_life@msn.nospam.com> wrote:
quantum science is beginning to back up Buddhist philosophy that
all reality is generated by the perception of that reality, and
without perception reality cannot exist as it has no discernable
value, therefore everything is illusion unless brought into reality
by perception... Yo that's spooky! ;)
Complete nonsense, that quantum science does anything of the kind.
And you know exactly what about quantum science?
Ooooooooh! That was your hole card, in case anyone called your bluff?
Ask yourself exactly what you know.
So you haven't heard that
this is the case? That's a shame as I heard that this was the case on the
theorhetical cutting edge.
The lurkers, in e-mail, I'm guessing.
Maybe I stated that wrong somehow?
Ya think?
--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
e-mail to lower-case only
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Hal0nfireS" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
15 Aug 2005 03:15:04 PM |
|
|
Apostate wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 01:05:19 +0100, "Dr Hal0nfireS"
<wheel_of_life@msn.nospam.com> wrote:
Apostate wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:17:52 +0100, "Dr Hal0nfireS"
<wheel_of_life@msn.nospam.com> wrote:
quantum science is beginning to back up Buddhist philosophy that
all reality is generated by the perception of that reality, and
without perception reality cannot exist as it has no discernable
value, therefore everything is illusion unless brought into
reality by perception... Yo that's spooky! ;)
Complete nonsense, that quantum science does anything of the kind.
And you know exactly what about quantum science?
Ooooooooh! That was your hole card, in case anyone called your
bluff?
Ask yourself exactly what you know.
So you haven't heard that
this is the case? That's a shame as I heard that this was the case
on the theorhetical cutting edge.
The lurkers, in e-mail, I'm guessing.
Maybe I stated that wrong somehow?
Ya think?
Like OK yar. This game is not for my play. I know I was the only female
thusfar trained in the Kadaitcha Man School of XP Trolls (2002/3), and
graduated with honours, even getting a non-derogatory mention in the Peanut
Gallery for my project on reducing Syphillis Syndrone to a quivering wreck;
and then jointly eradicated DaveinIllinois' trolling from a dating group,
using magick as the final solution to rid alt.dating.uk.south-east of the
fundy freakazoid. Unlike my colleague Ken, (The Truth Squad.) I have
basically retired from internet anti-trolling & fuckwittery patrol this
year, and other than helping to police a few groups if I see a blatant moron
or spammer, I've hung up my troll & fuckwit-targeting weapons and relaxed
deeply into Witchcraft which I've been a practitioner of for pretty much
exactly an entire year to date, although, at times without realising, I've
been studying nearly all my life.
So, not to detract from the point, as I am in all actuality doing, I have
stated my point, put forward my argument, and do not intend to get involved
or caught up in some testosterone-fuelled tit-for-tat over a minor point. If
you don't accept my statements then that is your perogative. However despite
putting up a good act I really don't enjoy argumentative masculine-style
online-warfare. Ok I can be a real ***** at times and have a tongue fitted
with a blade honed to the sharpest cutting edge on the planet, as well as a
Scorpio sting packed with lethal venom; but I'd rather follow the path of
love, peace, and flowers, than continue in cyber warfare. Perhaps the *****
is getting old? The menopause is the strangest of things.
Bright Blessings.
--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy
Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
e-mail to lower-case only
--
My part-time website is at http://5110.sytes.net
The full-time server is at http://www.geocities.com/spmf38 , but
there's no TechSection there. I'm running 2.2 Mbps and burnin' up the
wires!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Witziges Rätsel" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
14 Aug 2005 07:36:54 AM |
|
|
We have the PROOF of no GOOD God all around us, but not proof there is no
God, but if God is defined as good then we have PROOF or NO God.
Study the difference between proof and evidence. Proof requires
convincing and it's nearly impossible to convince those who've been
thoroughly permeated by faith in religious doctrine of any other
perspective. The lack of evidence of the existence of any god is
indeed evidence that there are no gods, good or bad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
16 Aug 2005 06:59:05 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:36:54 -0400, "Witziges Rätsel" <zer@roer.com> wrote:
We have the PROOF of no GOOD God all around us, but not proof there is no
God, but if God is defined as good then we have PROOF or NO God.
Study the difference between proof and evidence. Proof requires
convincing and it's nearly impossible to convince those who've been
thoroughly permeated by faith in religious doctrine of any other
perspective. The lack of evidence of the existence of any god is
indeed evidence that there are no gods, good or bad.
Is proof of a criminal act invalid because the crim denies it?
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
16 Aug 2005 09:14:09 AM |
|
|
Barry OGrady wrote:
Witziges R=E4tsel wrote:
We have the PROOF of no GOOD God all around us, but not proof
there is no God, but if God is defined as good then we have
PROOF or NO God.
Study the difference between proof and evidence. Proof
requires convincing and it's nearly impossible to convince
those who've been thoroughly permeated by faith in religious
doctrine of any other perspective. The lack of evidence of the
existence of any god is indeed evidence that there are no gods,
good or bad.
Is proof of a criminal act invalid because the crim denies it?
Or, more apropos to the case of that particular criminal, ``God'':
is proof of a criminal act invalid because the criminal declares
that it's great and glorious when /he/ does it, but it's vile and
evil when anybody else does it?
I mean, really. ``Thou shalt not murder.'' (Or kill, or
whatever.) But that didn't stop God from the Flood, the Plagues,
Job, the kids with the bears...Jesus...Armageddon....
If you believe the Bible, God is the most heinous criminal in the
history of the world, and mankind's greatest enemy past, present,
and future. But, because it's /God/ doing all the murder and the
mayhem and the madness, it's /good./ See? Because it's God, and
God is Love. And since God is love, when God tortures and murders
innocent people, it's because he loves them.
Gahk. I can't take this much ***** this early in the
morning. Please excuse me while I go get clean....
Cheers,
b&
--=20
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
14 Aug 2005 01:22:23 PM |
|
|
Barry OGrady wrote:
We have the PROOF of no GOOD God all around us, but not proof there is no
God, but if God is defined as good then we have PROOF or NO God.
IS THERE A GOD?
Hard 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 conciousness.
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 truely 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 in
no way are foundational or truely 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.
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.
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.
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 cound againts 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 existance 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 defence, 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 neccesary.
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 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 relevation to man or some prophet.
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
13 Aug 2005 10:11:07 PM |
|
|
Barry OGrady wrote:
We have the PROOF of no GOOD God all around us, but not proof there is no
God, but if God is defined as good then we have PROOF or NO God.
We don't need proof either way. Proof is for mathematicians. I'd
settle for a good reason to care.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Hal0nfireS" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
14 Aug 2005 09:22:19 AM |
|
|
Barry OGrady wrote:
We have the PROOF of no GOOD God all around us, but not proof there
is no God, but if God is defined as good then we have PROOF or NO
God.
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
I'm posting this not even having read any of the replies in this thread. :
There are many gods, as many as there are people. The monotheistic concept
of one god is a fallicy. Did "god"; one of the gods, create the universe?
Quite possibly so, but not by snapping his/her fingers and it all came to be
as is in a week or a few thousand years, It would be of much more interest
to even the gods to set in place a chain of evolution aimed at producing
creatures in the likeness of the gods and to see what develops. Having said
this one has to bear in mind that our universe is, despite its relative size
in proportion to modern understanding, one of an infinity of universes
within an infinity of infinities; a sort of 5-dimensional vortex within
26-dimensional space. (5-dimensional? 'Assume time is the 4th; what's the
5th? Gravity of course! The other 4 dimensions are dependant upon the 5th,
which also links the fabric of this universe to the other dimensions outside
of time/space... That's another story anyway.) So the gods observed the
universe from its birth billions of years ago, through the formation of
stars and planets, to the present.
Now I have thusfar seemingly discounted the biblical story of Adam and Eve
as a copy of fiction from Sumerian or Chaldean legend. : Yet within every
legend is usually concealed fact. Take the creation myth as symbolism. :
"Adam and Eve"; the first homo sapiens in a paradisiac-like state in
relation to the gods, including to Yaweh the caretaker god and
Mephistophilles the testing angel, of total innocence and naivity, having
unused intelligence and unacquired knowledge. Yaweh advises it best to avoid
instant gratification of desire with knowledge as a subsequent byproduct,
but rather to acquire knowledge of the subject before indulgance. (Actually
many new and novice Witches to this day dabble in things and disturb the
powers of darkness before they know what they're doing - thereby losing
their bottle when the powers reply, and becoming fundies. : ("I was once a
Witch but gave my life to Jesus as I could see that Witches are evil..." -
If that's the case then why give your life to the greatest Witch who ever
lived, Jesus Christ?) ...Or in the instance of Hitler. : Dropout german thug
with a gang, who discovered Witchcraft, and subsequently sought to
re-establish a world power similar to the Pagan Roman Empire, but in the
only way he knew how; by thuggery, intimidation, deception, and violence
fuelled from the dark side and channelled into domination and personal
greed, ending with the ultimate price that all who dabble with darkness
eventually pay - his life.)
Humans, being human and greedy/lazy want it all and want it now, so when, in
the form of the snake of the Goddess, the testing angel Mephistophilles,
later known as Satan, advises "Eve" that knowledge should preceed action but
also that action can give rise to knowledge; "Eve" eats from the "tree" of
the knowledge of good and bad by her actions, dragging others into her
depravity also. : She introduces a selectively theistic religious system and
learns from the gods some of the secrets of the powers, dabbling into all
kinds of magick and energy, both dark and light, black and white, realigning
the cosmic spheres even perhaps?... Yaweh discovers this and is furious. :
He curses the snake of the Goddess and slams the tester Mephistophilles who
he blames for the situation. He shuts out the Goddess and kills her Tree of
Life, abandoning Gaia to the ravages of time and space, he withdraws his
support and pours out his fury in the Realm of the Gods.
(There are some, represented by another woman (I forget her name.) who are
left in the original innocence, but are eventually exterminated by or
interbred with the rogue elemnet, (Possibly a reference to the remaining
Neanderthal race?) and eventually die out.
Inana's resultant fury and determination to terminate the universe project
causes him to stop and to send a son to the world as a forefeit for his
abandonment at the start of humanity, to therefore fulfil the sacred Goddess
tradition and to bring about the Age of Pisces, a time of warring, civil
unrest, and domination by fear and slavery to more than just other humans.
In my present lifetime, in this enlightenment, we are coming out of the Age
of Pisces into the Age of Aquarius; a time to reflect upon the lessons of
the past, a period of growth through the knowledge that we initially sought,
having experienced the continued effects of greed and a headstrong
attitude...but we have yet to learn the humility nescessary to enlighten us
as a species in this age. If we fail to learn it within the next 2000 or so
years we'll have to wait over 26,000 years for this astrological ocurrence
to emerge again, and will relive the past lifetimes in order to gain the
nescessary enlightenment for the next turn of the greater zodiacal wheel.
Read the Gospel of Truth from the Nag Hammadi Library... It touches upon
this scenorio in its entirity, though the translation is open to many
anomalies.
So we have a sight beyond what was originally intended at first. We have
built a society partially in ignorance of gods and Goddess(es), we have
discovered evil and the dark side, as well as the light that we knew from
the start. Gods and Goddesses are not good or bad; they are simply
"balanced". By that first act of detraction from the plan we have upset the
balance of yin and yang for the entire human race from the outset of homo
sapiens. Witches worldwide pray and intercede with rites and rituals for
that balance to be re-established upon earth, and were it not for this earth
magick the spheres would disalign to an extent where the powers would clash
and the quarters would descend upon Gaia and restart the creation, resetting
the balance and obliterating the past, possibly even recollapsing the
universe.
"Good" and "Evil" are relative concepts, relative to light and darkness,
which must be balanced for there to be existance. Perhaps I have failed to
convey the real meaning of what I am saying, but I do hope this enlightens
someone somewhere.
--
My part-time website is at http://5110.sytes.net
The full-time server is at http://www.geocities.com/spmf38 , but
there's no TechSection there. I'm running 2.2 Mbps and burnin' up the
wires!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
14 Aug 2005 01:04:45 AM |
|
|
In article <dj9tf19qkfq3fdtg37144bgvicak95u5ft@4ax.com>,
Barry OGrady <atheist.xxx@gmail.com> wrote:
We have the PROOF of no GOOD God all around us, but not proof there is no
God, but if God is defined as good then we have PROOF or NO God.
Barry
I suppose that we can't rule out an evil god, or a neutral god, but then
again we also don't have evidence for either of those.
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "uragoner" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of no God? |
14 Aug 2005 09:31:10 AM |
|
|
The the false prophet of Reveation 16:13 (Islam) not too long ago ran a
couple of jetliners into edifices both in NYC and DC. The Pope (the little
horn, the head of Catholocism -the beast) is reaching out to muslims for
dialog as we read. How interesting, since muslims declare the Bible full of
errors and corrupted by man. Although they say they believe in all the
prophets and in Jesus. They don't believe of Jesus as the Son of God, but
just another prophet and of course Mohammed was greater and the Seal or end
of the aforementioned. In Saudia Arabia they confiscate Bibles and shred and
burn them. Why? What are they afraid of if they have the truth in their
koran? Shouldn't the light standup to darkness ? Why don't they want their
people to compare their great 'truth' to the Bible's? And, why would the
pope, the supposed leader of Christiandom, not be insulted at the least by
this groups beliefs. Clearly, the fact that islam desecrates Christ, burns
down churches and destroys Bibles is in direct contrast to everything the
true church of Christ believes in. But a prostitute for the love of worldly
gain, why she might just feel like there is something to gain here, wouldn't
you say? After all mingling with the heathen is part of this church's
history.
Just as the first Gulf war began, there was an ominiscient sign that
many of the soldiers witnessed. At night, in total darkness, there appeared
a dull greenish light around them, apparently from no source (albiet it was
of the Holy Spirit ) This was reported in theWashington Post as well as
other news media and can be seen in the film 'Fires of Kuwait'. Many of the
soldiers were quoted that it seemed biblical. This was reported in the media
as well. It wasn't much later that the Kuwait oil fields were on fire
leaving huge clouds of toxic soot that could be seen from our satelites. The
Persian Gulf was partially poisoned by the oil which flowed into it from
bombed out oil pipes. The islamic trait (and satanic trait, I might add) of
if we can't have it nobody can, left what many thought would be years and
years of life destroying pollution unequaled in the half century that
automobiles have been destroying the atmosphere. Was it a sign of things to
come? Would God actually take the time to forewarn those who watch for His
appearing? What did the green light represent? Signs in the heavens, could
this be? One need only look up green in a search engine to learn that the
color of Islam is green. Is this just a strange coincidence? So what is to
come? What is the point? What about the Iraq war, isn't it based around the
river Euphrates? What about the Middle East Peace talks, is this really
possible? When they say peace ....then cometh sudden destruction.
The Kuwait oil fields were put out in a year. This supprised most of the
world and put it back into self complacency only to be ruined by Sept. 11th
or 911 as the muslims so cleverly conceived. But what would kill a third of
mankind (refering to Revelation 9, see below) and make it impossible to
repair the oil infrastructure and dry up the river Euphrates, not just
litterally but figuratively as well. This with reference to the Medes and
Persians who conquered the historic Babylon by diverting the Euphrates
river. So then what is the figurative river that feeds the present day
Babylon which truly our world has become? The vast majority of the world's
fossil fuel resources (produced from the floods' aftermath) are located in
Saudia Arabia the very throne of islam and the bitter enemy of the Bible.
Was this accidental? I mean with Satan being at war with Christ and all. I
once read that one field in particular was responsible for over 50% of the
worlds supply. Bin Laden has declared the present leadership in Arabia as
corrupt and the oil fields are the rightful ownership of muslims and muslims
only. Kuffr, a derogatory for unbelievers of islam should convert or be cut
off from this great resource given as a gift from Bin Laden's Allah.
Meanwhile we see what happened when Sadam, a muslim, didn't get his way in
the first Gulf war. Truly a sign, if you will here it. Furthermore, Al
Qeada is working to try to overthrow the government of Pakistan, not only
because of it ties with the US, but much more importantly, because it has
nuclear capabilites. On this note Iran, which has been lying to the world
all along is working rapidly to finish creating the bomb(s). And to think
that Iran hasn't formed some bonds with Al Qaeda and/or its offspring due to
their common enemies the US, Israel and the 'west' is nothing more than
folly, unfortunately.
Revelation 9:14 Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the
four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.
15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a
day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.
16 And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand
thousand: and I heard the number of them.
17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them,
having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of
the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire
and smoke and brimstone.
18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the
smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.
Revelation 16:12 ¶And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great
river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the
kings of the east might be prepared.
Wake up my friends, wake up! And pray that I do the same spiritually each
and every day!
Revelation 3:14 ¶And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write;
These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of
the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert
cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue
thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need
of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor,
and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be
rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of
thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou
mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and
repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and
open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as
I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the
churches.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
