| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jamal Bernhard" |
| Date: |
19 Oct 2005 05:28:10 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
wrote:
So what's the point
of being good? You won't be rewarded for it in the afterlife.
If the only reason you do good is to be rewarded for it, then you are a
truly sad person, regardless of whether or not there's an afterlife.
By the way, it's possible to be an Atheist (in the sense of not
believing in a Judeo-Christian God) and still believe in an afterlife.
.
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 11:11:39 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:35:08 -0700, in alt.atheism
Derek Janssen <djanss@nospam.charter.net> wrote in
<VCh7f.16593$RG4.3664@fe05.lga>:
Chris Johnson wrote:
Derek Janssen wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
The second is near impossible for the believer once he is certain that
the post-mortem reward exists. One cannot give of himself selflessly
if the goal is Heaven?.
I don't follow. How does belief of heaven make it impossible to give of
selflessly? Of course, no one will be perfect but that's not the point.
Isn't trying to get into heaven selfish? Isn't any action that is
motivated by the desire to get into heaven or stay out of hell selfish
in its very nature?
Not if most of the primary acts consist of being part of an
"underground" PR/group-ethic to help *others* to.
Forgive me for being dense, but I can't figure out what the hell you
just said. What's "underground"? Does PR mean public relations (and if
so, how does that apply)?
You got a good product, you sell it--Generate some customer word-of-mouth.
No better selling tool...So, what's your question again?
So, are you working on commission? Some folks within Christianity think
they are.
Group-ethic? Help others to do what?
I mean, I consider myself to be a pretty smart guy, but I'm not
entirely sure that sentence wasn't in code.
Okay, let's try translating that for the dense and/or self-absorbed:
nice touch of condescension. Maybe the location of the self-absorption
isn't where you say it is.
Who said it was just *ourselves* that we were trying to get
upstairs?...Would YOU keep a cool restaurant to yourself if you were
friends with the owner?
What if you were selling an illegal pyramid and required new
participants to keep the older ones from figuring out the grift?
Derek Janssen (y'know, it just CAN'T have been this easy for CS Lewis)
That's because he tried to make decent arguments.
djanss@charter.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
25 Oct 2005 10:01:05 PM |
|
|
On 2005-10-24 17:23:55 -0700, Derek Janssen <djanss@nospam.charter.net> said:
TRUST me.
I rarely trust someone who asks to be trusted.
We know these things.
Prove it.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"My bible is accurate where it needs to be." --Earl "duke" Webber
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Jacobs" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 06:49:51 PM |
|
|
In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
I don't follow. How does belief of heaven make it impossible to give of
selflessly? Of course, no one will be perfect but that's not the point.
Isn't trying to get into heaven selfish? Isn't any action that is
motivated by the desire to get into heaven or stay out of hell selfish
in its very nature?
Oh, I see.
The idea is that you don't care about the reward. In fact, it shouldn't
matter to you if heaven exists or not.
Now, if your only motivation is to get into heaven then you'll definitely
fail. Not only are you in the wrong mindset, but you'll lack the desire
and devotion to keep going.
In some ways, I'd compare it to college. Regardless the field you choose,
if you don't actually *ENJOY* what you're studying, you aren't going to be
happy and successful. I met many people who wanted to be engineers because
they heard they could make $60k/year. Yes, you could make that (or more) but
you had to actually LIKE what you were doing in order to make it through the
years of math, science and engineering classes.
One of the more tragic people I met in college was in engineering because
his parents thought that would be the best for him. But the guy loved to
sing. He only looked happy and relaxed when he was singing. Otherwise,
he looked extremely stressed and unhappy while studying for his classes.
The guy could sing, too. His one act of defiance was that he had secretly
joined the Men's Glee Club without asking his parents' permission. He
really should have been in the music school doing what he liked, rather
than what his parents thought was best for him :( I only hope the guy's
doing OK, and hasn't snapped, killing someone. (seriously, he looked like
he was going to blow a blood vessel and go off on a killing spree while doing
calculus...)
Unfortunatly, all too many just look at college as a 4 year exercise to
get that piece of paper, and then get a job. If you treat your spiritual
life the same way, you've missed the whole point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Liken" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 08:45:03 PM |
|
|
"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
I don't follow. How does belief of heaven make it impossible to give of
selflessly? Of course, no one will be perfect but that's not the point.
Isn't trying to get into heaven selfish? Isn't any action that is
motivated by the desire to get into heaven or stay out of hell selfish
in its very nature?
Oh, I see.
The idea is that you don't care about the reward. In fact, it shouldn't
matter to you if heaven exists or not.
Now, if your only motivation is to get into heaven then you'll definitely
fail. Not only are you in the wrong mindset, but you'll lack the desire
and devotion to keep going.
In some ways, I'd compare it to college. Regardless the field you choose,
if you don't actually *ENJOY* what you're studying, you aren't going to be
happy and successful. I met many people who wanted to be engineers
because
they heard they could make $60k/year. Yes, you could make that (or more)
but
you had to actually LIKE what you were doing in order to make it through
the
years of math, science and engineering classes.
Not sure if that's a good analogy. One can be extremely successful doing
something they don't like doing. In fact, most successful people don't like
what they were doing, and that's why they tried all the harder to get
farther than those that did like what they were doing and were happy to do
tasks others didn't want to.
Your analogy is pretty depressing, actually. It implies that heaven is
reserved for those that already have the predisposition to go there anyways
and is unattainable to those that would have trouble doing what was
necessary or have strayed far from the path or way.
And, honestly, what's the bad part of having heaven as a reward to initially
motivate people that would otherwise not strive to do good or strive to not
do bad? Good acts reap rewards on earth, even atheists agree with that.
And, as good acts are performed and the person becomes more accustomed to
doing good and realizing the rewards of the feelings of doing good, or
rather the lessening of the dukkah caused by bad actions and thoughts, they
would do good for good's sake and eventually be worthy of heaven by your
criteria you seem to believe in, no? Only in doing what is necessary to
fulfill the requirements for heaven can what heaven is be realized, no?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
25 Oct 2005 09:54:30 AM |
|
|
"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:11lqsov2748gca4@corp.supernews.com...
snip
Unfortunatly, all too many just look at college as a 4 year exercise to
get that piece of paper, and then get a job. If you treat your spiritual
life the same way, you've missed the whole point.
Not everyone feel the need for a "spiritual" life.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
25 Oct 2005 09:57:14 PM |
|
|
On 2005-10-24 16:49:51 -0700, Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> said:
In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
I don't follow. How does belief of heaven make it impossible to give
of selflessly? Of course, no one will be perfect but that's not the
point.
Isn't trying to get into heaven selfish? Isn't any action that is
motivated by the desire to get into heaven or stay out of hell selfish
in its very nature?
Oh, I see.
The idea is that you don't care about the reward.
Excuse me? Can you explain how this happens?
In fact, it shouldn't matter to you if heaven exists or not.
That's the position of the atheist, who maintains the position of doubt
as to its existence.
Now, if your only motivation is to get into heaven then you'll definitely fail.
Then why sell it in the first place?
The death-centric religion that Christianity is, it sets forth only two
possible post-mortem outcomes: heaven and eternal suffering.
Then it presents a vain, jealous judge of all who die and decides which
of the two outcomes each will meet.
Sounds like a pretty powerful motivating factor.
Not only are you in the wrong mindset, but you'll lack the desire and
devotion to keep going.
I dunno. If I truly believed in hell, I'd keep avoiding it forefront
in my mind.
In some ways, I'd compare it to college.
And you'd do so badly. The comparison is way off the mark.
Regardless the field you choose, if you don't actually *ENJOY* what
you're studying, you aren't going to be happy and successful.
Not always true.
I met many people who wanted to be engineers because they heard they
could make $60k/year. Yes, you could make that (or more) but you had
to actually LIKE what you were doing in order to make it through the
years of math, science and engineering classes.
Not always true. But feel free to pile on the anecdotes.
One of the more tragic people I met in college was in engineering
because his parents thought that would be the best for him. But the
guy loved to sing. He only looked happy and relaxed when he was
singing. Otherwise, he looked extremely stressed and unhappy while
studying for his classes. The guy could sing, too. His one act of
defiance was that he had secretly joined the Men's Glee Club without
asking his parents' permission. He really should have been in the
music school doing what he liked, rather than what his parents thought
was best for him :( I only hope the guy's doing OK, and hasn't
snapped, killing someone. (seriously, he looked like he was going to
blow a blood vessel and go off on a killing spree while doing
calculus...)
Whatever. The story bored me, and it was irrelevant. We're talking
about eternity, and you're off on a tangent about what courses to take
in college?
Unfortunatly, all too many just look at college as a 4 year exercise to
get that piece of paper, and then get a job. If you treat your
spiritual life the same way, you've missed the whole point.
Whatever. In real life, if you get a degree in a field and don't like
the job you get, you can change direction. Study something else. Take
on a different skill. Marry someone rich and never have to work again.
It's clearly not the same in a reward-based faith like Christianity.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"My bible is accurate where it needs to be." --Earl "duke" Webber
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Liken" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
27 Oct 2005 07:48:02 PM |
|
|
"655321" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message
news:2005102519570164440%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom...
Whatever. The story bored me, and it was irrelevant. We're talking about
eternity, and you're off on a tangent about what courses to take in
college?
It's run of the mill Doug Jacobs.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
25 Oct 2005 10:00:00 PM |
|
|
On 2005-10-24 16:49:51 -0700, Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> said:
The idea is that you don't care about the reward. In fact, it
shouldn't matter to you if heaven exists or not.
Now, if your only motivation is to get into heaven then you'll
definitely fail. Not only are you in the wrong mindset, but you'll
lack the desire and devotion to keep going.
The failure in this, furthermore, is that one must always have that
insecurity that one knows what will get one into heaven as opposed to
hell. The Bible sucks as a guide, really, and the human "guides" are
of little help.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"My bible is accurate where it needs to be." --Earl "duke" Webber
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Liken" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
27 Oct 2005 07:49:02 PM |
|
|
"655321" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message
news:2005102519594838165%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom...
The failure in this, furthermore, is that one must always have that
insecurity that one knows what will get one into heaven as opposed to
hell. The Bible sucks as a guide, really,
How so? It has two basic tenents. Respect God and the "Golden Rule".
Pretty simple.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Derek Janssen" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
27 Oct 2005 11:13:01 PM |
|
|
Fred Liken wrote:
The failure in this, furthermore, is that one must always have that
insecurity that one knows what will get one into heaven as opposed to
hell. The Bible sucks as a guide, really,
How so? It has two basic tenents. Respect God and the "Golden Rule".
Pretty simple.
Unoriginal Q. Smartypants wrote:
Oh, but about the Old Testament, and all that bloody Battle-of-Joshua stuff, and...
....And, er, how about the fact that selectively first half was just a
deliberately theocratic/political historical-propaganda spin,
strategically using selective-chosen events and folk-history to scare
its followers into Why Outsiders Are Evil--
And that the real "God and Golden Rule" stuff of merit doesn't actually
happen until the more balanced self-described "New" SECOND half of the
book, where harsh views of theology seem to have "strangely" relaxed a
tad, and everyone's now persuaded to get along for principle's sake,
even if they're icky old Samaritans, Gentiles and tax collectors.
Either it's a reading problem or a difficulty in seeing the Big Picture,
but *some* of us out of college manage to recognize different authors
when we read them.
Derek Janssen
djanss@charter.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
30 Oct 2005 01:37:03 PM |
|
|
On 2005-10-27 17:49:02 -0700, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> said:
"655321" < > wrote in message
news:2005102519594838165%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom...
The failure in this, furthermore, is that one must always have that
insecurity that one knows what will get one into heaven as opposed to
hell. The Bible sucks as a guide, really,
How so? It has two basic tenents.
Two? Hardly. There are dozens of injunctions and commandments, a
whole mess of indecipherable stories meant to "teach," and internal
contradictions galore.
Respect God
This one is hardly simple. The idea takes two words; the practice of
same has resulted in centuries of bloody conflict.
and the "Golden Rule".
Something that predates the Bible.
Pretty simple.
Yes, pretty simple: The Bible sucks as a guide.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
27 Oct 2005 07:51:43 PM |
|
|
On 27 Oct 2005 19:49:02 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"655321" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message
news:2005102519594838165%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom...
The failure in this, furthermore, is that one must always have that
insecurity that one knows what will get one into heaven as opposed to
hell. The Bible sucks as a guide, really,
How so? It has two basic tenents. Respect God and the "Golden Rule".
Pretty simple.
Only one of which is valid in the real world,moron. Why the *****
should people outside your religion respect its deity any more than
you respect Zeus.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
25 Oct 2005 03:31:05 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:49:51 -0000, Doug Jacobs
<djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
I don't follow. How does belief of heaven make it impossible to give of
selflessly? Of course, no one will be perfect but that's not the point.
Isn't trying to get into heaven selfish? Isn't any action that is
motivated by the desire to get into heaven or stay out of hell selfish
in its very nature?
Oh, I see.
The idea is that you don't care about the reward. In fact, it shouldn't
matter to you if heaven exists or not.
snip
In other words atheists can be people with high morals.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
23 Oct 2005 12:39:36 PM |
|
|
On 2005-10-19 19:11:56 -0700, "imagenieinabottlebaby"
<ugottarubmetherightway@hotmail.com> said:
People who do good without expecting rewards
....are not followers of a reward-based faith like Christianity.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
I am not famous, I am notorious. And if I am rich, it is because I have
taken my wages in people.
- Quentin Crisp
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
19 Oct 2005 10:29:09 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet imagenieinabottlebaby
(ugottarubmetherightway@hotmail.com) made the light shine upon us with
this:
Why would I bother doing good, though? I mean, it will earn me the same
end result, anyway.
The end of life is not the point of living. Why do you focus your life on
death? Life is for living, and there is a distinct satisfaction derived
out of doing good, something which, I am sorry to say, someone who believes
that someone else can die to atone for your wrongdoings will never feel.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Today's warm fuzzy example of Christian Love:
"1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he (JUDAH)drave out the
inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants
of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. IT WAS JUDAH YOU
DUMBFUCK.
Go back to masturbating to porn sites, you goddammned idiot."
-- Mikal 606
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Liken" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
20 Oct 2005 04:41:03 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Vic" <address@withheld.com> wrote
The end of life is not the point of living. Why do you focus your life on
death? Life is for living, and there is a distinct satisfaction derived
out of doing good, something which, I am sorry to say, someone who
believes
that someone else can die to atone for your wrongdoings will never feel.
Sorry, but if you follow the way that Jesus laid out, you'd reap the exact
benefits you're saying you can't. It's about the same as Buddhism. You
don't have to die to benefit from either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
20 Oct 2005 10:18:09 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Fred Liken
(nothanks@toocoolforschool.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
"Uncle Vic" <address@withheld.com> wrote
The end of life is not the point of living. Why do you focus your
life on death? Life is for living, and there is a distinct
satisfaction derived out of doing good, something which, I am sorry
to say, someone who believes
that someone else can die to atone for your wrongdoings will never
feel.
Sorry, but if you follow the way that Jesus laid out, you'd reap the
exact benefits you're saying you can't. It's about the same as
Buddhism. You don't have to die to benefit from either.
I don't follow little invisible friends. There is only one way to atone
for your wrongdoings, and that is to make amends with those you've
wronged. The jesus concept is substitutionary forgiveness. If a
neighbor poisons my dog, then seeks forgiveness from Jesus, he feels
better about himself. But I am still wronged. Do you see the
difference? If my neighbor makes amends with me, we *both* feel better.
If he atones with Jesus, it's only about himself.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Today's warm fuzzy example of Christian Love:
"1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he (JUDAH)drave out the
inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants
of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. IT WAS JUDAH YOU
DUMBFUCK.
Go back to masturbating to porn sites, you goddammned idiot."
-- Mikal 606
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William T. Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
19 Oct 2005 10:17:46 PM |
|
|
imagenieinabottlebaby wrote:
Jamal Bernhard wrote:
ugottarubmetherightway@hotmail.com wrote:
So what's the point
of being good? You won't be rewarded for it in the afterlife.
If the only reason you do good is to be rewarded for it, then you are a
truly sad person, regardless of whether or not there's an afterlife.
Why would I bother doing good, though? I mean, it will earn me the same
end result, anyway. Of course you're going to say "because it's just
the right thing to do." But there's something deeper than just the
incentives. People who do good without expecting rewards, do it because
they believe in the concept of goodness, and they put faith in the
concept of goodness. Atheism tells us that no matter how good we are
we're going to be destroyed forever, and that kind of thing has a way
of jading you.
Why? How?
If atheism is true, then why would I care about
anything, or love anything or put faith in anything? Atheism is such a
spirit-crushing concept. Nothing matters. As the Poison song goes,
"give me something to belive in." Because if I'm going to face the
horror of ceasing to exist, I can't be motivated to care, love,
believe, or have faith.
Well, that's your problem, isn't it? Maybe everyone else *can* face the
horror without losing their spirit.
By the way, it's possible to be an Atheist (in the sense of not
believing in a Judeo-Christian God) and still believe in an afterlife.
atheism is the belief that there is no god, and that when we die we
cease to excist.
No, it isn't. I think atheists know what atheism is better than you do.
--Billy
(By the way, what does this have to do with TV, Playstation, or the
Dallas Cowboys? Google won't let me crosspost to more than five groups
at a time.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 04:54:17 PM |
|
|
imagenieinabottlebaby wrote:
People who do good without expecting rewards, do it because
they believe in the concept of goodness, and they put faith in the
concept of goodness. Atheism tells us that no matter how good we are
we're going to be destroyed forever, and that kind of thing has a way
of jading you.
Why?
I am an agnostic with STRONG atheistic leanings (Because I cannot prove
there is no Creator, I am reluctant to say definitively there is not
Creator).
However, being an atheist simply means acknowledging that life is
finite and we only have a relatively short time on this planet.
Afterlifes were invented by those in power to control the masses.
"Your life sucks today - Well guess what when you die you go to
paradise and moreover, those evil moneygrubbing rich guys - they'll
likely end up in Hell."
I believe there is no inherent point meaning or purpose in life. There
is only that which we ourselves choose to give it. You may see this as
bleak. I do not. I control my destiny and face whatever adversity I
may face myself (with the support of family or friends).
I am really wary of anyone who associates religious beliefs with
morality. If you need to believe in an afterlife to do good deeds,
there is something seriously wrong with you as a person.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
27 Oct 2005 12:33:47 PM |
|
|
On 24 Oct 2005 14:54:17 -0700, wrote:
imagenieinabottlebaby wrote:
People who do good without expecting rewards, do it because
they believe in the concept of goodness, and they put faith in the
concept of goodness. Atheism tells us that no matter how good we are
we're going to be destroyed forever, and that kind of thing has a way
of jading you.
Why?
I am an agnostic with STRONG atheistic leanings (Because I cannot prove
there is no Creator, I am reluctant to say definitively there is not
Creator).
Ah, but you don't have so say the words "their is definately not a
god" to be an atheist.
If you find there is no evidence for any gods, then, you are an
atheist.
I hate the terms...but for now, they have stuck....
"WEAK" atheists: "There's no evidence for gods, so I don't have a
reason to believe in them" This is your stance, and mine. I hate
calling myself "weak" though... the term sucks.
"STRONG" atheists: "There are absolutely no gods" To me, THIS
statement takes as much of a leap from evidence as theists take in the
opposite direction since there is zero evidence in either direction.
If asked though... I SAY "There are no gods" because it's simpler, but
if pressed or it turns into a discussion, I'll elaborate on my stance.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "navi-gater" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
28 Oct 2005 10:13:28 AM |
|
|
RainLover <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in
news:7f32m1ljrsov2pbhfr6ee2cfpukap25h1b@4ax.com:
I hate the terms...but for now, they have stuck....
"WEAK" atheists: "There's no evidence for gods, so I don't have a
reason to believe in them" This is your stance, and mine. I hate
calling myself "weak" though... the term sucks.
"STRONG" atheists: "There are absolutely no gods" To me, THIS
statement takes as much of a leap from evidence as theists take in the
opposite direction since there is zero evidence in either direction.
Well I'd be careful now.
Let me put it this way, if someone claims to believe in the
jewish/muslim/christian god (whatever that is) I would say they are wrong
since the god as defined in those religions does not exist (I could even go
so far as to prove that to them, but it's a waste of time so I don't
normally bother).
However, the universe is here (apparently) which does leave a certain
amount of room for speculation about how that may have come to pass.
However the Universe Creator could be anything from an invisible rhino to a
mystical "force" to a kid playing with it's chemistry set at home...
So from this, it looks like it's possible to be a "strong" atheist in some
senses and "weak" in others....
gater.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
03 Nov 2005 04:13:57 PM |
|
|
I am sorry, but you cannot prove there is no judaeo-christian-Muslim
God.
The whole point is there is no conclusory evidence one way or the
other.
Joe
navi-gater wrote:
RainLover <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in
news:7f32m1ljrsov2pbhfr6ee2cfpukap25h1b@4ax.com:
I hate the terms...but for now, they have stuck....
"WEAK" atheists: "There's no evidence for gods, so I don't have a
reason to believe in them" This is your stance, and mine. I hate
calling myself "weak" though... the term sucks.
"STRONG" atheists: "There are absolutely no gods" To me, THIS
statement takes as much of a leap from evidence as theists take in the
opposite direction since there is zero evidence in either direction.
Well I'd be careful now.
Let me put it this way, if someone claims to believe in the
jewish/muslim/christian god (whatever that is) I would say they are wrong
since the god as defined in those religions does not exist (I could even go
so far as to prove that to them, but it's a waste of time so I don't
normally bother).
However, the universe is here (apparently) which does leave a certain
amount of room for speculation about how that may have come to pass.
However the Universe Creator could be anything from an invisible rhino to a
mystical "force" to a kid playing with it's chemistry set at home...
So from this, it looks like it's possible to be a "strong" atheist in some
senses and "weak" in others....
gater.
.
|
|
|
| User: "navi-gater" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
07 Nov 2005 08:32:49 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1131054100.066598.14850@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
I am sorry, but you cannot prove there is no judaeo-christian-Muslim
God.
Actually *that* god is easy to disprove. Sorry.
The whole point is there is no conclusory evidence one way or the
other.
On what basis do you make this claim? For example, I may claim there is no
evidence "one way or the other" that a rhino is living in my room. But I
can verify it for sure by simply looking - assuming the room is not
infinitly large, I adequately define what a rhino is, and I am able to
detect said rhino, I can say whether the rhino is there or not.
Now let's replace rhino with "God" (not any particular god of course, see
above for the christian/jewish/muslim one).
Assuming the universe is not infinite, I can establish a suitable
definition and I have the means to test, I can determine whether that god
exists or not (it might take a while though).
So far, based on the definitions of many man-made gods, we have done
exactly what I just described....No Mount Olympus, No Sun God and No
christian god living in the clouds.
gater.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
08 Nov 2005 01:16:22 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I am sorry, but you cannot prove there is no judaeo-christian-Muslim
God.
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disprove and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
OMNIPOTENCE AND OMNISCIENCE
A. Omnipotence is a special sort of attribute, of
all god's alledged attributes the most
important, because from that attribute you
can derive others attributes, including
omniscience. If one says for purposes of
argument god is omnipotent, one is also
implying god is also omniscient.
B. If god is omnipotent, god must also
specifically have omniscience because if
he does not have omniscience, one
cannot claim omnipotence as an attribute.
C. Thus if god is omnipotent, and created all,
free will is impossible because creation
and omniscience rule out free will as was
shown. In this world god supposedly created,
evil exists. So god must not be
omnibenevolent as claimed as all evil is
created by god if man cannot have free will.
D. So omnipotence and omnibenevolence are thus
mutually exclusive in a world that does in
fact have evil in it. Because omniscience
must exist as part of omnipotence and
omniscience and creatorhood cannot coexist
with free will, omnipotence is also not
compatible with creatorhood and
omnibenevolence. One cannot finesse this
all by ignoringomniscience or abandoning
omniscience.
E. One can only dispose of omniscience by also
explicitly abandoning omnipotence. If god is
defined as being omnibenevolent then a god
that is also allegedly also creator of all
must be evil.
CREATORHOOD OF GOD
F. One may be tempted to abandon the idea god
created all. But that creates some very strong
logical problems also.
G. If god is omnipotent, he can create all. Or
modify any other creation he does not himself
create. No other being or process may create
something god could not modify, because of the
power of his omniscience.
H. So if for purposes of argument, we claim the
Universe was not created by god, he could,
being omnipotent, change that creation for
his own purposes, that of creating good due
to his attribute of omnibenevolence.
We are back to the problem of evil again, he
could change creation such that no evil John
Smiths can exist.
If not he then is sole and only cause for
existence of all evil.
If god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent he
still must modify any creations he did not
himself create to destroy evil, if he can
do so. So claiming god did not create all
does not save the concept of an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent god. It cannot avoid the
problem of evil.
I. Omniscience means we cannot dodge the problem
of evil by stating god did not create the
Universe even if one wished to, nor by limiting
his creatorhood, for example saying god did not
create the original material of the Universe,
but used it as a building material.
J. Thus to get rid of the creator problem, we must
explicitly abandon it all and totally. Only by
doing so could one get around the problem of
creatorhood and omniscience. But if we say god
cannot either create the Universe or modify it
as he finds it, we drop omniscience also,
explicitly. God then turns out not to be
creator of all nor omnipotent as a priori
defined, a contradiction disproving that
a priori defined god.
K. If evil exists because god could change the
Universe he did not create, and he fails to do
so, then all evil exists solely because
of knowing and personal choices god makes.
L. God being omnipotent cannot be controlled by
any other process or other entities. He may
modify any works or creations made by them.
M. If god cannot change creations of others, or
the pre-existing materials of the Universe,
omnipotence in not an attribute of god as
claimed a priori.
M. Omnipotence and creatorhood thus are entangled
in a manner that makes it hard to abandon the
doctrine god created all and if one does, one
must likewise abandon claims of omnipotence.
PRE-EXISTING MATTER AND A PRE-EXISTING UNIVERSE.
The Greek writer Hesiod in his Theogony, starts
with a Universe that is a chaotic void. This
void, through the mysterious property of
emanation, created the first generation of gods,
the Titans, who in their turn created the
Olympians gods who eventually displace the
Titans as rulers of the world.
Likewise, some theologians see Genesis as
representing god creating the world out of a
similar void, a primordial sea god did not
himself create, but used as raw material for
his creations.
God's existence is not explained.
This idea god did not create all still would not
absolve an omnipotent god from responsibility
for evil. The biblical god if he did not create
the Universe and its component materials used them
as he pleased. If that god is omnipotent, then he
bears all responsibility for the world he did
create out of pre-existing material. Whether
this god is said to be eternal or like Hesiod's
Titans was somehow emanated from the chaos of
the void does not materially change any arguments
involving omnipotence, omniscience or
omnibenevolence, if god is said to have these
attributes.
************************************************
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
chooses 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
voluntarilyy 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 aretrulyy 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 purportedexistencee, nor on god for the
existencee of its laws and rules and logic,
god is no longer a necessary being. If there
are things that have necessaryexistencee, it
would have to be the Universe as whole, or
possibly its laws, its rules or its logic,
or a subset of these rules or laws or the
underlying causes of these things, if any.
None were created by god or can be modified
by god.
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 enexistencece 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'existencece. 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'existencece
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 iallegedlyly 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: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
04 Nov 2005 09:33:50 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I am sorry, but you cannot prove there is no judaeo-christian-Muslim
God.
The whole point is there is no conclusory evidence one way or the
other.
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disprove and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
OMNIPOTENCE AND OMNISCIENCE
A. Omnipotence is a special sort of attribute, of
all god's alledged attributes the most
important, because from that attribute you
can derive others attributes, including
omniscience. If one says for purposes of
argument god is omnipotent, one is also
implying god is also omniscient.
B. If god is omnipotent, god must also
specifically have omniscience because if
he does not have omniscience, one
cannot claim omnipotence as an attribute.
C. Thus if god is omnipotent, and created all,
free will is impossible because creation
and omniscience rule out free will as was
shown. In this world god supposedly created,
evil exists. So god must not be
omnibenevolent as claimed as all evil is
created by god if man cannot have free will.
D. So omnipotence and omnibenevolence are thus
mutually exclusive in a world that does in
fact have evil in it. Because omniscience
must exist as part of omnipotence and
omniscience and creatorhood cannot coexist
with free will, omnipotence is also not
compatible with creatorhood and
omnibenevolence. One cannot finesse this
all by ignoringomniscience or abandoning
omniscience.
E. One can only dispose of omniscience by also
explicitly abandoning omnipotence. If god is
defined as being omnibenevolent then a god
that is also allegedly also creator of all
must be evil.
CREATORHOOD OF GOD
F. One may be tempted to abandon the idea god
created all. But that creates some very strong
logical problems also.
G. If god is omnipotent, he can create all. Or
modify any other creation he does not himself
create. No other being or process may create
something god could not modify, because of the
power of his omniscience.
H. So if for purposes of argument, we claim the
Universe was not created by god, he could,
being omnipotent, change that creation for
his own purposes, that of creating good due
to his attribute of omnibenevolence.
We are back to the problem of evil again, he
could change creation such that no evil John
Smiths can exist.
If not he then is sole and only cause for
existence of all evil.
If god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent he
still must modify any creations he did not
himself create to destroy evil, if he can
do so. So claiming god did not create all
does not save the concept of an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent god. It cannot avoid the
problem of evil.
I. Omniscience means we cannot dodge the problem
of evil by stating god did not create the
Universe even if one wished to, nor by limiting
his creatorhood, for example saying god did not
create the original material of the Universe,
but used it as a building material.
J. Thus to get rid of the creator problem, we must
explicitly abandon it all and totally. Only by
doing so could one get around the problem of
creatorhood and omniscience. But if we say god
cannot either create the Universe or modify it
as he finds it, we drop omniscience also,
explicitly. God then turns out not to be
creator of all nor omnipotent as a priori
defined, a contradiction disproving that
a priori defined god.
K. If evil exists because god could change the
Universe he did not create, and he fails to do
so, then all evil exists solely because
of knowing and personal choices god makes.
L. God being omnipotent cannot be controlled by
any other process or other entities. He may
modify any works or creations made by them.
M. If god cannot change creations of others, or
the pre-existing materials of the Universe,
omnipotence in not an attribute of god as
claimed a priori.
M. Omnipotence and creatorhood thus are entangled
in a manner that makes it hard to abandon the
doctrine god created all and if one does, one
must likewise abandon claims of omnipotence.
PRE-EXISTING MATTER AND A PRE-EXISTING UNIVERSE.
The Greek writer Hesiod in his Theogony, starts
with a Universe that is a chaotic void. This
void, through the mysterious property of
emanation, created the first generation of gods,
the Titans, who in their turn created the
Olympians gods who eventually displace the
Titans as rulers of the world.
Likewise, some theologians see Genesis as
representing god creating the world out of a
similar void, a primordial sea god did not
himself create, but used as raw material for
his creations.
God's existence is not explained.
This idea god did not create all still would not
absolve an omnipotent god from responsibility
for evil. The biblical god if he did not create
the Universe and its component materials used them
as he pleased. If that god is omnipotent, then he
bears all responsibility for the world he did
create out of pre-existing material. Whether
this god is said to be eternal or like Hesiod's
Titans was somehow emanated from the chaos of
the void does not materially change any arguments
involving omnipotence, omniscience or
omnibenevolence, if god is said to have these
attributes.
************************************************
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
chooses 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
voluntarilyy 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 aretrulyy 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 purportedexistencee, nor on god for the
existencee of its laws and rules and logic,
god is no longer a necessary being. If there
are things that have necessaryexistencee, it
would have to be the Universe as whole, or
possibly its laws, its rules or its logic,
or a subset of these rules or laws or the
underlying causes of these things, if any.
None were created by god or can be modified
by god.
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 enexistencece 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'existencece. 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'existencece
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 iallegedlyly 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: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
03 Nov 2005 05:15:19 PM |
|
|
On 3 Nov 2005 14:13:57 -0800, wrote:
I am sorry, but you cannot prove there is no judaeo-christian-Muslim
God.
Yes you can. When those who rub their beliefs in our faces insist it
has mutually exclusive attributes.
The whole point is there is no conclusory evidence one way or the
other.
It's not "one way or the other" - it's in-your-face god-bothers who
neither put up nor shut up.
Do you honestly imagine "you can't prove it doesn't" is a satisfactory
response to that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
10 Nov 2005 03:49:33 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 14:13:57 -0800, wrote:
I am sorry, but you cannot prove there is no judaeo-christian-Muslim
God.
Yes you can. When those who rub their beliefs in our faces insist it
has mutually exclusive attributes.
The whole point is there is no conclusory evidence one way or the
other.
It's not "one way or the other" - it's in-your-face god-bothers who
neither put up nor shut up.
Do you honestly imagine "you can't prove it doesn't" is a satisfactory
response to that?
If you missed my original point, I am agnostic with strong atheist
leanings. The only reason I am not an atheist is that one cannot prove
the absence of a God. [And despite what a few logically challenged
people believe, the inability to prove an assertion does not mean the
opposite is true. I am amazed by how many narrow-minded "skeptics" (of
religion, UFOs, conspiracies, etc.) who I've met or whose work I have
read that are not skeptics, just believers that whatever they are
skeptical about is untrue]
The previous poster made an assertion that could disprove the existence
of the Judaeo-Christian-Muslim God and that is not possible. IMO, does
that make the existence likely? No.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
11 Nov 2005 01:25:33 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 14:13:57 -0800, wrote:
I am sorry, but you cannot prove there is no
judaeo-christian-Muslim God.
Yes you can. When those who rub their beliefs in our faces insist
it has mutually exclusive attributes.
The whole point is there is no conclusory evidence one way or the
other.
It's not "one way or the other" - it's in-your-face god-bothers
who neither put up nor shut up.
Do you honestly imagine "you can't prove it doesn't" is a
satisfactory response to that?
If you missed my original point, I am agnostic with strong atheist
leanings. The only reason I am not an atheist is that one cannot
prove the absence of a God.
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are n | | | | | | | |
