| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bible John" |
| Date: |
25 Oct 2005 08:28:46 PM |
| Object: |
Questions for Atheists |
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions. yes
Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not just
cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
isn't that simply faith?
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
do you account for them?
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and can
say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious that God
exists.
John
--
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/
John 14:6 Jesus answered, ³I am the way and
the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
except through me.
AIM-Crucifyself03
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 07:01:54 AM |
|
|
On 25 Oct 2005 20:45:43 -0700, "Chris H. Fleming"
<chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bible John wrote:
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions. yes
Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not just
cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
isn't that simply faith?
Weak atheism is the default position. Theism and Strong Atheism must be
proven.
What the previous poster doesn't grasp is that strong atheism has
plenty of justification. But they reduce conclusion/falsifiable/etc to
belief or claim.
Theism has no evidenciary support. The only thing it has going for it
is itself a fallacy: the number of theists doesn't make it true.
The big problem is that is it an unquestionable axiomatic belief,
which makes its followers irrational on the subject.
Strong atheism has considerable justification. Atheists wouldn't care
about whet is merely somebody else's religious belief if theists
didn't impose their doctrines, including their slanders about
atheists.
But having done that the theist is begging the question and has the
onus of "put up or shut up". At which point they do neither and resort
to transparent fallacies, diversions etc.
I've never understood why they expect "prove it doesn't" to satisfy
the begged question. OR any of the other fallacies and diversions.
But each time they do this is a data point against. There are a heck
of a lot against, and none for. The falsifiable conclusion is obvious.
Something being a default position in itself requires reason to
determine that.
But at some level (probably not this level) people must agree on
foundational principles to debate. Some Indian philosphers would argue
that there is no seperation in distance, time, or any other quality
between anything. And, paradoxically, you cannot prove them wrong
without first assuming what you mean to prove in your axioms. But we
all know that they are wrong. We must first agree that there is
distance, time, color, ... and these things cannot be proven. And even
at that level, it still is not faith.
The real world is a good place to start. In which theists believe
something atheists don't. That's the common ground.
Faith is different from all of these things. Faith is believing in
color when everyone is blind, and the scientist has not yet discovered
light. When you can see, you do not require faith. If the scientist has
discovered it, you do not require faith.
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
I find the concept of a blue ant that hisses to be somewhat plausible,
but I am not aware of any such creature. I do not currently believe in
screaming blue ants. But I am willing to be proven wrong.
I find the concept of a unicorn even less plausible. I would require
overwhelming evidence.
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
do you account for them?
1) Your assertion makes no sense. You accout for the laws of logic via
God. But that explaination is nothing more than a magic hat. You aren't
accounting for the laws of logic. "God did it" is not a valid
explaination. Even if God did do it. You must explain how God did it,
for your explaination to be meaningful. For instance: suppose there is
a God and I ask "Why does it rain?". "God did it" is a true statement
and at the same time useless and not an actual explaination of
anything. The statement is a tautology assuming that it is true; it
contains no information or explaination.
2) There are many more laws of logic that have nothing to do with
reality than there are that do. This doesn't seem to flow with your
picture.
3) I don't have to explain everything in the universe to not believe in
one group of peoples explaination of everything in the universe.
Yes it is preferable to be able to come back with a positive assertion.
But it is also preferable to be knowledgable of your ignorance than
ignorant of your knowledge.
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and can
say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious that God
exists.
I am sorry, I am only a mere physicist, what do you mean by "the Theory
of Dynamics". I will assume that you mean the physical laws of nature
in general.
It seems very obvious to me that the universe is majestic and
organized. I do not leap from that observation to anything. I can
understand how a person with the preconceived notion of god would make
that leap. But again, what new information does this give me? To say
god did it gives me nothing unless I either know how he did it or who
he is.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 04:34:15 AM |
|
|
Bible John wrote:
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions. yes
Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not just
cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
isn't that simply faith?
What evidence would atheism need?
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
Without evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that they do not exist.
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
do you account for them?
How do you account for the existence of your god? If you need
"absolute" laws, which laws caused him to exist?
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and can
say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious that God
exists.
Well, with enough mental gymnastics you can use everything as
evidence for the existence of anything. Without objective
verifiablity such evidence means nothing though.
RS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
25 Oct 2005 10:42:24 PM |
|
|
Bible John wrote:
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions. yes
Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not just
cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
isn't that simply faith?
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
do you account for them?
But this raises the quaestion: Could God violate the Laws of Logic?
Also, the Laws of Logic apply to sentences, which are physical objects.
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and can
say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious that God
exists.
But would it seem that way to others?
John
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 04:04:39 AM |
|
|
Colin Day wrote:
Bible John wrote:
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that
95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably
makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions.
yes Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not
just cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you
are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so,
then isn't that simply faith?
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because
it is a position about the lack of something, then do you have
other positions you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say,
screaming blue ants? Do you hold the position that they do not
exist or that you lack belief in them, too?
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without
God?
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being
absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since
people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute).
So, how do you account for them?
But this raises the quaestion: Could God violate the Laws of Logic?
Could he? Could he make 2 + 2 = 5 or any other changes
in the laws and rules and laws of the Universe?
If so, he could create man where man has free will
yet always freely choses to do moral good, never moral evil.
Moral evil could not exist.
If god could do so, and fails to, god then is creator and
supporting cause of all evil that was, is and will be.
Therefore, god is evil.
But god is defined dogmatically as being omnibenevolent,
all good.
So if you say god can change the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, one admits god is not omnibenevolent but
instead omnimalevolent.
So, no, god cannot make the laws and rules and logic of
the Universe whatever he wants to.
But then te question is where do they come from?
Since they are outside and beyond god and obviously
part of the intristic nature of the Universe beyond
and outside god, god cannot have created that.
Also, the Laws of Logic apply to sentences, which are physical
objects.
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and
can say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious
that God exists.
But would it seem that way to others?
John
Colin Day aa #1500
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 01:22:19 PM |
|
|
Colin Day wrote:
Bible John wrote:
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that
95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably
makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions.
yes Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not
just cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you
are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so,
then isn't that simply faith?
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because
it is a position about the lack of something, then do you have
other positions you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say,
screaming blue ants? Do you hold the position that they do not
exist or that you lack belief in them, too?
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without
God?
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being
absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since
people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute).
So, how do you account for them?
But this raises the quaestion: Could God violate the Laws of Logic?
Theology has had to face that problem and to deal
with it has declared no. Omnipotent god can only
do that which is possible.
Can god create a rock that is so heavy he
cannot lift it?
The way out of puzzles like this is to claim god can
only do what is logical.
Can god do evil? No. Is god omnipotent?
Yes. But if he is omnipotent he can do evil.
If he can't do evil, he isn't omnipotent.
Theologians have been wobbling around such questions
for millenia.
God can only do what is logical is the mantra, even
when as above it doesn't exactly fit the problem at hand.
Anslem had problems with omnibenevolence. If god
is omnibenevolent and can only do good and cannot
do evil, can he be said to be omnipotent?
Can god give up his omnipotence? Can god commit suicide?
Can god do evil?
All questions long ago swept under the theological rug
with "god can only do logical things" broom.
And where does logic come from?
Another quesion swept under the rug.
Also, the Laws of Logic apply to sentences, which are physical
objects.
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and
can say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious
that God exists.
But would it seem that way to others?
Not to Atheists.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 05:50:18 PM |
|
|
Bible John wrote:
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions. yes
Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not just
cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
isn't that simply faith?
Faith is required to accept an existential claim without evidence. It is not
required to reject one.
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
Yes, where there is no evidence.
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
do you account for them?
They are the product of our ability to reason.
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and can
say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious that God
exists.
Believe what you want.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 03:20:01 AM |
|
|
Bible John wrote:
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions. yes
Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not just
cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
isn't that simply faith?
You answer this yourself in Q2.
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
Oh yes, exactly. I lack belief in screaming blue ants.
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
do you account for them?
I don't see that it follows that they "transcend space and time".
In fact I'm not sure what that means.
What makes you think that they are not properties of space and
time?
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and can
say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious that God
exists.
Why?
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 12:43:33 AM |
|
|
In article
<john.doggett-DF0EC9.18284625102005@News-West.newsfeeds.com>,
Bible John <john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote:
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults.
Good!
I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions. yes
Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not just
cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
isn't that simply faith?
Atheism is lack of belief in gods, period. I am aware of no evidence for
gods therefore I don't believe in them The person of 'faith' (in the
sense that you are using it) is aware of no evidence for gods, but
believes in them anyway. Now tell me which position is more illogical?
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
If someone showed me evidence for 'screaming blue ants' I would accept
their existence as a fact.
Theist: "I believe that there is something in the box."
Atheist: Rips cover off of box. "Look for yourself, there is nothing in
here!"
Theist: "No. I don't have to look for myself. I have Faith".
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
Physics, chemistry, biology.
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
do you account for them?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'conceptual'. The natural laws of
the universe are what they are. They are properties of the physical
universe since the universe would not exist without them. If they were
different, the universe would be different.
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and can
say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious that God
exists.
'Theory of Dynamics' ? Are you sure that you don't mean
'thermodynamics'? Won't do you any good since that tired old argument
doesn't work either.
John
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
25 Oct 2005 08:59:55 PM |
|
|
In article
<john.doggett-DF0EC9.18284625102005@News-West.newsfeeds.com>,
Bible John <john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote:
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults.
Why would that be "sad"?
I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions. yes
Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not just
cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis?
It's a moot point. I don't say that. Reason is at the base of my lack of
belief in the supernatural.
<snip>
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
I've never heard of such critters, but if you can produce evidence for
them, I would see no reason to doubt.
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
do you account for them?
Logic is a subset of mathematics... a tool humans have developed to
model the real world in an effort to understand and manipulate our
environment more effectively.
You talk as if you think *GAWD!* could void such laws, which would make
them non-absolute. If they are non-absolute, then the premise of your
statement is false. Good luck following that to its logical conclusion...
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and can
say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious that God
exists.
For most folks, pre-determined conclusions do seem pretty obvious to
them. Theory of Dynamics, eh? What a laugh!
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 03:54:24 AM |
|
|
*nemo* wrote:
In article
<john.doggett-DF0EC9.18284625102005@News-West.newsfeeds.com>,
Bible John <john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote:
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults.
Why would that be "sad"?
I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably
makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions.
yes Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not
just cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you
are holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis?
It's a moot point. I don't say that. Reason is at the base of my
lack of belief in the supernatural.
<snip>
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because
it is a position about the lack of something, then do you have
other positions you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say,
screaming blue ants? Do you hold the position that they do not
exist or that you lack belief in them, too?
I've never heard of such critters, but if you can produce evidence
for them, I would see no reason to doubt.
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without
God?
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being
absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since
people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute).
So, how do you account for them?
Logic is a subset of mathematics... a tool humans have developed to
model the real world in an effort to understand and manipulate our
environment more effectively.
You talk as if you think *GAWD!* could void such laws, which would
make them non-absolute. If they are non-absolute, then the premise
of your statement is false. Good luck following that to its logical
conclusion...
Its not that hard actually.
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD PART THREE
Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of
the Universe or not? Is 2 + 2 = 4 something god
set as part of the nature of the Universe or is
that outside and beyond god?
Can god change 2 + 2 to 5?
A. If god did in fact make the rules and laws and
logic of the Universe, god could also change
them as needed.
B. A god that creates the rules.laws and logic
of the world he creates could simply make a
world where man has free will yet freely
choses only to do moral good. Since god
creates the rules of the Universe, he could
change them in name of omnibenevolence, free
will is perserved and evil is banished. Evil
no longer needs to exist to allow for free
will.
C. If god could do this and fails to, evil
exists solely and only because of god's
failure to use his omnipotence to change
the rules and laws and logic of the Universe
to give man free will and a nature incapable
of doing evil.
D. If god can do this and fails to, god is not
omnibenevolent as claimed, a contradiction
in definitions of god as omnibenevolent and
omnipotent.
E. God in fact since he is essentially the
creator and sustaining cause of all evil
that was, is, and shall be is omni-malevolent.
F. If god does not make the rules, the laws, the
very logic of the Universe, then we have the
problem of what these things are and where
they come from.
G. If these laws and rules and logic limit god,
then god is obviously not omnipotent as
claimed.
H. And thus god is not as claimed, the greatest
thing that can be imagined. Obviously laws
and rules and logic that limit the most
powerful in the Universe are greater
still because they do in fact limit such
a being.
I. If such laws and rules and logic outside and
beyond god do exist, and are thus greater
than god, god is not the greatest thing
imaginable and all ontological 'proofs' that
are based on that basic claim fail.
J. Such rules and laws and logic must exist
outside of god's control and must have always
bee outside his control. If there were ever
in god's control, god cannot have reduced his
power to abandon omnipotence voluntarily.
Omnipotence is an inherent ability. It would
be like abandoning a sense of taste or touch.
This observation forstalls attempts at
apologisms claiming god abandoned any
abilities.
K. And if god could indeed abandon omnipotence,
he must avoid that. After all, he is also
omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolence dictates he
must at all times do the good thing, never an
evil thing. Abandoning omnipotence such that
he could no longer create a world where man
has free will, and a nature incapable of evil
is to allow evil to exist. To abandon
omnipotence is to embrace the proposition
evil is to be allowed to flourish. So any
claims god might have for some greater good
abandoned omnipotence freely are not possible.
L. If god is said to be omnipotent, if he at
anytime gave up any abilities he can no
longer said to be omnipotent, if he actually
gave up any abilities.
M. Since god must have had maximum power and
abilities and cannot have at any time
vountarily relinquished any powers or
abilities, at least in the name of banishing
evil the fact that there are laws and rules
and logic of a universe outside and beyond
god, they are truely beyond and outside god,
and always were.
N. Since such laws and rules and laws are outside
god, and always were so,and are properties of
the Universe, the Universe is likewise outside
and beyond god, with its laws and rules and
logic.
O. Since the Universe and its laws and rules and
logic are outside and beyond god, god is not
as, creator of all.
P. Since the Universe no longer relies on god for
its purported existance, nor on god for the
existance of its laws and rules and logic,
god is no longer a necessary being. If there
are things that have necessary existance, it
would have to be the Universe as whole, or
possibly its laws, its rules or its logic,
or a subset of these rules or laws or the
underlying causes of these things, if any.
None were created bygod or can be modified
by god.
Q. If these laws and rules and logic could be
modified by god, then the rules and laws
and logic of the Universe would have been
modified to end existance of evil, and must
be modified this if god is actually
omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
R. God then is not omnipotent, or not
omnibenevolent, or is neither, or
does not exist.
THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF THE
ABOVE EXAMINATION OF GOD
Thus the idea god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent,
and creator of all, clash again
and mutually self-destruct over the issue of
evil's existance. This raises
serious questions on the nature of the Universe
that cannot be as Grand Theology
claims it is.
A. We have shown god cannot have created the
Universe.
B. We have shown god does not create the laws,
rules and laws of that Universe.
C. That god is thus not omnipotent as these laws
limit him.
D. That god is not the greatest imaginable thing.
E. That ontological proofs of god's existance
based on claims god is the greatest thing
imaginable are failed arguments.
F. That god cannot be a necessary being, as
claimed.
G. That any possible claims god might for some
reason abandon or limit any abilities cannot
be true in any attempt to avoid this line of
inquiry. Nor can that approach derail logical
examination of consequences of Grand
Theology's overarching claims to god's
attributes or nature.
The fact that god is alledgedly omnibenevolent and
evil exists, demonstrates god cannot make the
rules of the world. 2 + 2 = 4 because that is
the nature of the Universe, not something god
created.Because if god did create the rules and
laws and logic of the Universe, and was
omnibenevolent, we should have no signs of evil,
especially moral evil of man, Satan, demons and
devils.
But if one admits to that, Many other important
claims collapse, many other arguments about god
and his attributes and nature no longer are
viable. Some of these claims, god's creation
of the Universe are among the oldest and most
basic of theology.
Ontological proofs started with Anselm in the
10th century, all of these now must be abandoned.
The necessary being argument, long a rhetorical
argument is now finally dead.
Free will defenses against the problem of evil
opened up a line of attack here that is powerful
and very final.
**************************************************
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 03:41:33 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Wednesday 26 October 2005 4:54 am
wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com wrote:
Its not that hard actually.
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD PART THREE
Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of
the Universe or not? Is 2 + 2 = 4 something god
set as part of the nature of the Universe or is
that outside and beyond god?
Can god change 2 + 2 to 5?
Has any of them even attempted to answer this? The least they could do is
cut and paste a little of Anselm or Aquinas. Not that you don't already
have an answer to those two, but at least it would show some effort on the
part of Fundies to actually consider for a second what the arguments are.
I'm still waiting for these religious experts to answer my little three
question test.. The closest I've come is one self proclaimed expert who
portends to knowledge of scripture and ancient languages claimed to know
the answers but wasn't going to expend the energy to answer without first
getting $10,000. Yet he expended the energy to tell me he wouldn't expend
the energy to answer.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 02:07:48 PM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<john.doggett-DF0EC9.18284625102005@News-West.newsfeeds.com>,
the lovely and talented Bible John
broadcast on alt.atheism:
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions. yes
Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not just
cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
isn't that simply faith?
No. Atheist make no claims. Atheist don't promise heaven or
threaten hell, they don't promise to make your clothes whiter or
you breath smell like a mountain spring. Theists want to
control other people by claiming there is (a) god(s) who want(s)
people to do certain things. Because theists are asking for the
power to control other people, they have to evidence that people
should do as they say. If you want to sell a product, it is up
to you to show people why they should buy. No one needs a
reason to keep his own money in his own pocket. It isn't faith
that keeps your own money in your own pocket. It is lack of
any reason to take your money out of your pocket.
Since religious people ask us to kill, maim, imprison, and
otherwise harm people in the name of their god(s), it is up to
them to show that such obviously evil actions are justified by
the existence of such god(s). It doesn't take faith to be good
and do it good. It takes belief in god(s) to make people do
things that are evil in the name of their god(s).
If you want us to do what is obviously evil on the justification
that your god(s) command it, you have to have some evidence that
your god(s) is/are genuine. You can't expect us to do evil
simply because you say your god(s) demand it.
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
Yeah, you pretty much nailed it. I don't believe in screaming
blue ants for pretty much the same reasons I don't believe in
god(s). I know of no evidence for screaming blue ants, I no of
no evidence that whether screaming blue ants exist is in any
way an important issue. Screaming blue ants do me no harm, and
I'm not convinced that screaming blue ants command me to go to
war for George Bush or Pat Robertson.
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
I don't see anything that needs accounting for. "Laws of logic"
exist only in the human mind.
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
do you account for them?
I don't see anything that needs accounting for.
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and can
say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious that God
exists.
So what? Is it also obvious which god is your god? Evidently not.
Is it obvious that you know anything about god? Is it obvious
that you know whether god has any particular commandments for
you in particular or humanity as a whole? Is it obvious that
your god has one particular holy book as opposed to all of the
other holy books that other people with other gods have? What
is it that you want us to do on account of you believe in
god(s)? If what you want us to do is good and right, why
couldn't you convince us without bringing (a) god(s) into it?
Or is that you want us to do something that is obviously evil
and wrong and the only way you can convince us to do it is to
say you have a big invisible pal who will punish us unless we do
the evil, wrong things you say for us to do?
Nobody is particularly bothered if you have an invisible cosmic
teddy bear to take to bed with you at night. But why should
anyone else be asked to believe in your invisible cosmic teddy
bear? Is it because you want us to do what you say the teddy
bear commands? Sorry. If you need to hug your invisible teddy
bear and suck your thumb to get to sleep, fine. But we don't
need to hear about it. And your only reason for trying to tell
us about it is that you don't want comfort, you want world
domination by being the earthly voice of the cosmic teddy bear.
--
Rev. Lars Eighner ULC Atheist #1965 http://www.larseighner.com/
The Mint Jelly of God® -- The World's Best Atheist -- Unholier Than Thou
I don't see posts from or threads started from googlegroups.
"The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense."--T. Paine
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Crisp" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 09:24:05 PM |
|
|
On Oct 26, 2005, Bible John sent message
<john.doggett-DF0EC9.18284625102005@News-West.newsfeeds.com>, which
allegedly said:
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions. yes
Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not just
cults.
I'm somewhat confused by your distinction between cults &
religions. Since the only real difference seems to be an appeal to
numerical superiority. [i.e. not a real difference at all]
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
isn't that simply faith?
No, it's saying that the view that atheism is a belief *about*
something is false or at least misleading. Atheism, at core, is a
lack of a belief that others have: that something(s) called
'god(s)' exist(s).
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
Yes. I lack belief in screaming blue ants. I lack belief in things
for which there is no evidence when it seems apparent that should
the thing exist there would be evidence.
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
do you account for them?
:-))
You have heard of Gödel, yes? The laws of logic don't escape
contradiction (or are incomplete) :-P So... if we accept your
(incredibly dubious) suggestion that they come from "gawd" doesn't
that imply your God is incapable of producing complete & consistent
laws?
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and can
say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious that God
exists.
Taking a subject compared with passing it... or maybe getting a
pass with distinction or even high distinction. See above comments
about evidence...
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #1792 Almost always SMASHed
AIM: Hypercube3141592
ICQ: 137333576
email: as given, or whatever you like @ tesseract.com.au
ph: http://www.whitepages.com.au/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
25 Oct 2005 11:03:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:28:46 -0700 the ET form known as Bible
John<john.doggett@x-files.gov> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions. yes
Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not just
cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
isn't that simply faith?
No. Atheism is the LACK of belief. It is not necessarily anything more
than that. Any more than a lack of belief in the tooth fairy is.
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
I have no evidence of blue ants so I lack a belief that they exist.
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
God works best when taken without logic.
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute
they transcend space and time.
No. They are based on what is observed. No god is needed.
They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
do you account for them?
Religion contradict each other. And so do their gods.
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and can
say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious that God
exists.
But you have no evidence.
--
Remove YOUR_SHOES before replying
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2009
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
Sunday: A day given over by Americans to wishing that they themselves
were dead and in Heaven, and that their neighbors were dead and in
Hell.
-Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
25 Oct 2005 09:58:05 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:28:46 -0700, Bible John
<john.doggett@x-files.gov> in news message
<john.doggett-DF0EC9.18284625102005@News-West.newsfeeds.com> wrote:
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic.
John, in case you are unaware, you posted this to alt.atheism.
Surprise, surprise! There are more atheists in alt.atheism than there
are cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
isn't that simply faith?
A claim needs evidence to support belief. There is no evidence that
deities exist, therefore I don't believe in any of them. Not
believing in every wild claim until objective evidence is presented is
a very rational basis for withholding that belief.
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
Actually, I believe in screaming blue ants depending, of course, by
what you mean by blue and by screaming. But there is a class of
insects we know as ants. The possibility that a type of that class
may be bluish or make a sound that one could interpret as a scream is
far more likely than believing in an entity of which there is none of
such a class that can be proved to exist.
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
Easy. There are no laws of logic in the universe. Logic is a human
construction.
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
do you account for them?
People thought them up, sort of like they though up gods and
leprechauns and fairies.
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and can
say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious that God
exists.
To you, maybe, but you fail in supporting your belief with any
objective evidence. Some people believe in extraterrestrials with the
same fervor that you believe in you god. You need to show me the
money before I play either of those games.
Liz #658 BAAWA
"I serve God because he gives life, hope, love, and joy.
Even if God truly was a fake, I wouldn't want to stop
serving him." - David Sears
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 12:03:53 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:28:46 -0700, Bible John
<john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote:
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95%
:
Sad?
For whom?
Why is it sad that there are more people who rely on their own minds?
Why is it sad that there are more people who don't believe in any old
fairy tale without even a tiny scrap of evidence?
I think it is a good sign that there are fewer delusional individuals
around.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 04:35:14 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:28:46 -0700, Bible John
<john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote:
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions. yes
Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not just
cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
isn't that simply faith?
Reason, we have. It's believers that lean more to fantasy.
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
Christians lack the evidence. Christians would be more likely to
worship screaming blue ants, if the con is pitched right.
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
do you account for them?
No matter how the universe was formed, any intelligent life in it
would choose between worship or not. We work with what we see, feel,
taste, smell and hear, rather than throw our lives to some
contradictory spirit.
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and can
say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious that God
exists.
Clean your lenses before looking into the sky.
John
TheRain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 07:54:06 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:28:46 -0700, Bible John
<john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote:
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions. yes
Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not just
cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
isn't that simply faith?
Since I know nothing of gods, whether they exist or what their
charactetistic are I have nnothing upon whih to form a belief about
them. Certainly plenty of claims and assertions concerning gods
but opinions and beliefs are not worth anything without some
evidence upon which to form a belief.
Thus without this necessary evidence atheists are unable to
form any kind of belief regarding gods. I neither believe gods exist
or that gods do not exists. What is there to prove or demonstrate
since I am making no claims or assertions regarding gods
except my ignorance of them based on no evidence.
i
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something,
then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
I know nothing about blue ants, so cannot venture an opinion or form
a belief about them sorry. My field of interest does not extend to
fauna and flora.
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
I cannot.
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
do you account for them?
This is a claim or belief that requires evidence, ignorance is simply
ignorance
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and can
say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious that God
exists.
A claim that requires evidence for it to be justified.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
27 Oct 2005 09:18:33 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:28:46 -0700, Bible John <john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote:
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions. yes
Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not just
cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
isn't that simply faith?
It isn't a faith, it is a lack of one.
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
Yep, I lack belief in them, too.
There is no evidence for their existence, so I don't believe that they exist.
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
What does your god have to do with logic. All the evidence, if I might use the
term so loosely, is that logic, is not your god's strongest suit.
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
do you account for them?
That doesn't tell us what your god, has to do with logic.
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and can
say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious that God
exists.
That is nice for you: But have you got any empirical evidence to support your
assertion?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
27 Oct 2005 07:13:18 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:28:46 -0700, Bible John wrote:
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95% of
the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions. yes
Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not just cults.
Were you born an *****, or are you learning a new skill?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
25 Oct 2005 09:49:50 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:28:46 -0700, in alt.atheism , Bible John
<john.doggett@x-files.gov> in
<john.doggett-DF0EC9.18284625102005@News-West.newsfeeds.com> wrote:
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions. yes
Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not just
cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
isn't that simply faith?
One could argue that atheism is the appropriate default position: sans
argument or evidence for something, we should not accept that thing.
(And another could then argue that that was a reason.)
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
The number of things I lack belief in is probably infinite.
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
do you account for them?
One could easily say that the "laws of logic" are not "absolute", they
are things developed by humans.
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and can
say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious that God
exists.
How nice for you.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 09:12:44 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:28:46 -0700, in alt.atheism , Bible John
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic.
Know why, Spanky?
Because you assholes crosspost. AA is not here to be preached to or
try to decipher your babble into a coherent lucidity.
Stop crossposting and you'll have a nice warm and fuzzy fantasized
group of zombies slapping each other on the back, telling miracle
stories about how god let you remember to tie your shoe laces. You can
ooh and ah without our laughter.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 07:42:30 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Bible John
<john.doggett@x-files.gov> posting the following on Tue, 25 Oct 2005
18:28:46 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
isn't that simply faith?
No. I simply do not believe in gods. There is no faith, just a lack
of belief.
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
I have no evidence either way. At this point, I'd be skeptical about
the existence of screaming blue ants until hard evidence was
presented.
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
do you account for them?
What "Laws of Logic" would these be?
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and can
say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious that God
exists.
And then the burden is on your to prove that belief.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Last of All" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 08:23:12 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:42:30 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Bible John
<john.doggett@x-files.gov> posting the following on Tue, 25 Oct 2005
18:28:46 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
isn't that simply faith?
No. I simply do not believe in gods. There is no faith, just a lack
of belief.
Knowledge is belief with a relative degree of certainty.
Terrell
http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
Conservatives love America for what she was and hate her for what she
is ... Liberals love America for what she is, but realize there's room
for improvement.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
