| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Scott Erb" |
| Date: |
06 Nov 2005 01:14:07 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
This response didn't get seem to arrive so I'm re-sending it
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote in message news:...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11ms509au2k773d@corp.supernews.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1131249862.012526.200870@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SquareKnot wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
No, I'm saying the nature of the puzzles suggest there must be
a force outside space-time that is beyond our understanding
which brought
space-time into existence (via the bi g bang). This force
could be
impersonal or have consciousness of some sort. There is no
inherent reason to privilege an impersonal force over the
possibility of a
conscious force. Ergo, logically, there is an equal
probability that there is a 'god' (not the typical religious
notion of god) that is conscious or that the force of nature is
impersonal.
You might want to rethink your idea of what constitutes an
equal probability. If you don't know, that doesn't mean
that all the alternatives you can think of are equal.
Plus the fact that arguing as Scott and friends do, that there
might be a God (Creator of the universe) because there is no proof
that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false, is logical
fallacy, argument from ignorance, argument _ad ignorantiam_.
No, if that were the case every scientist who speculates would be
commiting a logical fallacy.
Most of modern physics, including Einstein's idea of relativity,
started with a reflection on the evidence and then, "it might be the
case..."
In any event, I'm simply noting: a) space-time is the realm of
science; b) the big bang created space-time, anything previous to or
causal of the big bang was outside our space-time universe, and thus
not in the realm of current science, and in fact beyond our
understanding;
Not true....
Why do you say that? At one point you tried to use space-time references
as
a way to deny that anything could be out of space-time, which is an error of
reasoning.
We can't know what is or can be outside space-time because we are
psychologically enslaved by it. Mathematics is perhaps the only possible
key to unlocking that, but even with things as complex as string theory,
we're still only trying to get a grip on what the nature of space-time is --
except it is our limited universe, and it is an entity (the Newtonian view
of time as the progression of events and space as the stage on which reality
is played out has long been pushed aside, of course).
.
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
01 Dec 2005 10:57:18 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133481560.331011.19010@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
... just by rolling your eyes and exclaiming
"that's absurd!"
Straw man. That is not what was done, and you know it.
Septic was doing something equally ablsurd.
We were discussing your absurd proposition that there might be a
magic invisible God/Creator outside the universe.
Septic never "discusses" anything, he merely makes pronouncements,
rather as though he were speaking ex cathedra.
No, that is whayt YOU do, Virgil.
You have repeastedly announced god cannot be disproven, I show ytou
are wrong, you never reply. A few weeks later, you repeat the lie.
God cannot be disproven. I prove god can be disproven.
The cycle begins again.
You are one of the most dishonest people on the net and I have
corrected you dozens of times over the last two yers or so.
Here you again, blandly claim Sceptic does what you are very
guilty of repeatedly. I keep calling you on it and you are
too stupid to stop lying.
-------------------------------------------
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible
gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
--
"There is a word in Newspeak," said Syme. "I don't
know whether you know it: duckspeak, to quack like
a duck. It is one of those interesting words that
have two contradictory meanings. Applied to an
opponent, it is abuse; applied to someone you agree
with, it is praise."
-George Orwell "Nineteen Eighty-Four"
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
01 Dec 2005 06:38:41 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
... just by rolling your eyes and exclaiming
"that's absurd!"
Straw man. That is not what was done, and you know it.
We were discussing your absurd proposition that there might be a magic
invisible God/Creator outside the universe.
No, we weren't discussing that at all, since I made no such proposition.
That is a proposition that
is prima facie absurd because the term, 'universe' (or 'megaverse', or
'cosmos', or 'totality' or whatever you want to call everything there
is) means everything there is. Get it now?
If you still don't get it, then google reductio ad absurdum, a
perfectly legitimate means of showing why an idea is reasonably
rejected (because it is absurd). Your proposition leads to the
absurdity of something standing outside everything there is. What is
there to stand on out there? Maybe an antitortoise?
I admire the fact that you actually tried here, DotSix; but since I
never proposed that there might be a God who stands outside everything
there is, you've fallen on your face again. Sorry.
<blockquote>
"[Your proposition] is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view,
that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a
tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian
said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better
than that.
-- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
</blockquote>
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
02 Dec 2005 09:57:21 AM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
... just by rolling your eyes and exclaiming
"that's absurd!"
Straw man. That is not what was done, and you know it.
We were discussing your absurd proposition that there might be a magic
invisible God/Creator outside the universe.
No, we weren't discussing that at all, since I made no such proposition.
Yor memory is failing you. It's right above here in this very thread:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
SquareKnot wrote:
The idea that the universe (or 'megaverse', or whatever you want to call
everything there is) might have had a birthday from nothing is absurd.
It is absurd to speculate about anything outside everything there is
because there is no outside. As Hawking says, the boundary conditions
are that there are no boundaries!
This is what everybody keeps saying -- that the idea is absurd. I've
never seen it proven that it's impossible, though.
You are arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that it might be possible because
there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is
false, same as usual.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
02 Dec 2005 03:05:05 PM |
|
|
In article <1133539041.567942.153960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
... just by rolling your eyes and exclaiming
"that's absurd!"
Straw man. That is not what was done, and you know it.
We were discussing your absurd proposition that there might be a magic
invisible God/Creator outside the universe.
No, we weren't discussing that at all, since I made no such proposition.
Yor memory is failing you. It's right above here in this very thread:
Septic keeps up a monologue claiming all sorts of people re doing all
sorts of thing whicn none of them are doing at all. But discussion
requires dialog, and there is no such dialog.
Malibu Skipper wrote:
SquareKnot wrote:
The idea that the universe (or 'megaverse', or whatever you want to call
everything there is) might have had a birthday from nothing is absurd.
It is absurd to speculate about anything outside everything there is
because there is no outside. As Hawking says, the boundary conditions
are that there are no boundaries!
This is what everybody keeps saying -- that the idea is absurd. I've
never seen it proven that it's impossible, though.
You are arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that it might be possible because
there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is
false, same as usual.
No he is saying that "silly" does not prove "impossible", which is quite
true. If it were true, then Septic would be impossible! Too bad its not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
02 Dec 2005 05:44:26 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
SquareKnot wrote:
The idea that the universe (or 'megaverse', or whatever you want to call
everything there is) might have had a birthday from nothing is absurd.
It is absurd to speculate about anything outside everything there is
because there is no outside. As Hawking says, the boundary conditions
are that there are no boundaries!
This is what everybody keeps saying -- that the idea is absurd. I've
never seen it proven that it's impossible, though.
You are arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that it might be possible because
there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is
false, same as usual.
No he is saying that "silly" does not prove "impossible"
Nobody has to prove your hypothesis false. You can't shift the burden
of proof to the negative. Skipper is arguing just like all of you
theists do, that it might be possible because there is no proof that
hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false, same as usual.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
02 Dec 2005 06:45:25 PM |
|
|
In article <1133567066.947157.112610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
SquareKnot wrote:
The idea that the universe (or 'megaverse', or whatever you want to
call
everything there is) might have had a birthday from nothing is
absurd.
It is absurd to speculate about anything outside everything there is
because there is no outside. As Hawking says, the boundary conditions
are that there are no boundaries!
This is what everybody keeps saying -- that the idea is absurd. I've
never seen it proven that it's impossible, though.
You are arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that it might be possible because
there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is
false, same as usual.
No he is saying that "silly" does not prove "impossible"
Nobody has to prove your hypothesis false.
Possibility has to be proved false to justify Septic's claims of
impossibility, unless one is willing, as Septic always is, to claim what
one has no evidence to support.
You can't shift the burden
of proof to the negative. Skipper is arguing just like all of you
theists do, that it might be possible because there is no proof that
hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false, same as usual.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
02 Dec 2005 10:55:34 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
... just by rolling your eyes and exclaiming
"that's absurd!"
Straw man. That is not what was done, and you know it.
We were discussing your absurd proposition that there might be a magic
invisible God/Creator outside the universe.
No, we weren't discussing that at all, since I made no such proposition.
Yor memory is failing you. It's right above here in this very thread:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
SquareKnot wrote:
The idea that the universe (or 'megaverse', or whatever you want to call
everything there is) might have had a birthday from nothing is absurd.
It is absurd to speculate about anything outside everything there is
because there is no outside. As Hawking says, the boundary conditions
are that there are no boundaries!
This is what everybody keeps saying -- that the idea is absurd. I've
never seen it proven that it's impossible, though.
You are arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that it might be possible because
there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is
false, same as usual.
Except, of course, that I was arguing the universe might have come from
nothing -- not from a magical god outside of everything. But then, you
know that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
02 Dec 2005 05:19:09 PM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
... just by rolling your eyes and exclaiming
"that's absurd!"
Straw man. That is not what was done, and you know it.
We were discussing your absurd proposition that there might be a magic
invisible God/Creator outside the universe.
No, we weren't discussing that at all, since I made no such proposition.
Yor memory is failing you. It's right above here in this very thread:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
SquareKnot wrote:
The idea that the universe (or 'megaverse', or whatever you want to call
everything there is) might have had a birthday from nothing is absurd.
It is absurd to speculate about anything outside everything there is
because there is no outside. As Hawking says, the boundary conditions
are that there are no boundaries!
This is what everybody keeps saying -- that the idea is absurd. I've
never seen it proven that it's impossible, though.
You are arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that it might be possible because
there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is
false, same as usual.
Except, of course, that I was arguing the universe might have come from
nothing
See above. Your argument _ad ignorantiam_:
I've never seen it proven that it's impossible.
See how you are trying to shift the burden of proof to the negative?
That isn't allowed. Understand?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
02 Dec 2005 06:42:29 PM |
|
|
In article <1133565549.601952.211680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
... just by rolling your eyes and exclaiming
"that's absurd!"
Straw man. That is not what was done, and you know it.
We were discussing your absurd proposition that there might be a magic
invisible God/Creator outside the universe.
No, we weren't discussing that at all, since I made no such proposition.
Yor memory is failing you. It's right above here in this very thread:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
SquareKnot wrote:
The idea that the universe (or 'megaverse', or whatever you want to call
everything there is) might have had a birthday from nothing is absurd.
It is absurd to speculate about anything outside everything there is
because there is no outside. As Hawking says, the boundary conditions
are that there are no boundaries!
This is what everybody keeps saying -- that the idea is absurd. I've
never seen it proven that it's impossible, though.
You are arguing _ad ignorantiam
It is Septic arguing in ignorance here.
Except, of course, that I was arguing the universe might have come from
nothing
See above. Your argument _ad ignorantiam_:
It is still Septic arguing in ignorance here.
I've never seen it proven that it's impossible.
As that is an observation, not an argument, Septic must be claiming that
Malibu Skipper HAS seen it proven to be impossible.
Does Septic have any evidence to back up that odd claim?
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
02 Dec 2005 06:47:57 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
I've never seen it proven that it's impossible.
As that is an observation, not an argument
It is the same old argument _ad ignorantiam_ for which you theists are
famous:
---
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the
moon was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had
long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear
to be mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere,
because all its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible
crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection
of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)
---
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
As Chris Lee points out, there is no reason to even consider the
hypothesis there might be a god:
http://tinylink.com/?6664ZqVskh
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
02 Dec 2005 08:05:22 PM |
|
|
In article <1133570877.800319.77620@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
I've never seen it proven that it's impossible.
As that is an observation, not an argument
It is the same old argument
Then Septic must be arguing that malibu Skipper HAS seen it proven to be
impossible!
So where is that alleged proof, Septic? And when do you allege that
Malibu Skipper saw it?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
02 Dec 2005 08:52:02 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
I've never seen it proven that it's impossible.
As that is an observation, not an argument
It is the same old argument
It is an observation and _not_ an argument atall atall, sir. One bag
full, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
02 Dec 2005 06:30:22 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
... just by rolling your eyes and exclaiming
"that's absurd!"
Straw man. That is not what was done, and you know it.
We were discussing your absurd proposition that there might be a magic
invisible God/Creator outside the universe.
No, we weren't discussing that at all, since I made no such proposition.
Yor memory is failing you. It's right above here in this very thread:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
SquareKnot wrote:
The idea that the universe (or 'megaverse', or whatever you want to call
everything there is) might have had a birthday from nothing is absurd.
It is absurd to speculate about anything outside everything there is
because there is no outside. As Hawking says, the boundary conditions
are that there are no boundaries!
This is what everybody keeps saying -- that the idea is absurd. I've
never seen it proven that it's impossible, though.
You are arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that it might be possible because
there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is
false, same as usual.
Except, of course, that I was arguing the universe might have come from
nothing
See above. Your argument _ad ignorantiam_:
I've never seen it proven that it's impossible.
See how you are trying to shift the burden of proof to the negative?
That isn't allowed. Understand?
Sigh. DotSix knows by now, or should, that the burden of proof is on
him, since he's the only one who's interested in proving anything.
He'll keep posting the same silly crap over and over, though. You can
count on it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
02 Dec 2005 06:38:50 PM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
... just by rolling your eyes and exclaiming
"that's absurd!"
Straw man. That is not what was done, and you know it.
We were discussing your absurd proposition that there might be a magic
invisible God/Creator outside the universe.
No, we weren't discussing that at all, since I made no such proposition.
Yor memory is failing you. It's right above here in this very thread:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
SquareKnot wrote:
The idea that the universe (or 'megaverse', or whatever you want to call
everything there is) might have had a birthday from nothing is absurd.
It is absurd to speculate about anything outside everything there is
because there is no outside. As Hawking says, the boundary conditions
are that there are no boundaries!
This is what everybody keeps saying -- that the idea is absurd. I've
never seen it proven that it's impossible, though.
You are arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that it might be possible because
there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is
false, same as usual.
Except, of course, that I was arguing the universe might have come from
nothing
See above. Your argument _ad ignorantiam_:
I've never seen it proven that it's impossible.
See how you are trying to shift the burden of proof to the negative?
That isn't allowed. Understand?
Sigh. OS XI knows by now, or should, that the burden of proof is on
him
No, moron, you cannot shift the burden of proof to the negative as you
are trying to do: "I've never seen it proven that it's impossible."
That is a form of argument _ad ignorantiam_.
"The source of the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true
unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
02 Dec 2005 08:02:30 PM |
|
|
In article <1133570330.192469.177960@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
"I've never seen it proven that it's impossible."
That is a form of argument _ad ignorantiam_.
It is only a simple statement of fact. I do not know of anyone who has
ever sen any proof that it is impossible. Does Septic know of anyone?
Even Septic, though he often claims to know that gods are impossible has
never, at least to my knowledge, claimed to be able to prove that gods
are impossible.
Or does Septic NOW claim to have such proof?
If no one, including Septic himself, can come up with such proof why
does Septic claim that it is a fallacy to say that one has not seen any
such proof?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
01 Dec 2005 10:53:10 PM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
SquareKnot wrote:
The idea that the universe (or 'megaverse', or whatever you want
to call everything there is) might have had a birthday from
nothing is absurd. It is absurd to speculate about anything
outside everything there is because there is no outside. As
Hawking says, the boundary conditions are that there are no
boundaries!
This is what everybody keeps saying -- that the idea is absurd.
I've never seen it proven that it's impossible, though.
Google reductio ad absurdum, a perfectly legitimate means of
showing why an idea is rightfully rejected (rejected because it is
absurd).
Ah. A new argument. I'm afraid, though, that we'll have to add
"reductio ad absurdum" to the list of terms that DotSix does not
understand.
Reductio is a kind of argument, DotSix. It involves accepting a
claim for the sake of the argument, and then drawing out its logical
consequences until you reach one that is absurd -- that is, one that
contradicts something already proven. It DOESN'T entitle you to
declare that something is impossible just by rolling your eyes and
exclaiming "that's absurd!"
If you can use reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate, logically, that
no god can exist, then I will be more than willing to stop saying
that he
might. After all, I don't believe in the old elf to begin with; so
it's
no skin off my nose, and it would probably make you quite famous.
Go
ahead, DotSix: post your logical demonstration that god cannot
exist,
using reductio ad absurdum. Post it right here:
You don't need RAA, you just need simple common sense.
Theer is no evidence for god. Only claims, assertions.
Logically, we can show tha these claims contrdict each other.
Thus we can take out an entire class of gods, omni-everything
gods that are creator of all. Any god of that class, God
almighty, Brahman, Allah, whatever, also falls. Secondary claims,
god as imamnent or god as transcedent all of a sudden become
moot. Claims that god did this in history, or that, become
impossible, Allah did not send messages to Mohammed, Moses
did not talk to go on the Mountain.
Its not hard, but everybody, even Atheists seem to want to avoid
looking at this proof. I know Virgil here has been ignoring me
for years, then lying that "we cannot disprove god".
But god is disprovable, its not even hard.
I know why the agnostics and religious believers want
to ignore me, why the Atheists seem to ignore all of this
mystifies me. Possibly because its more that 80 words long.
..............................................................
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.
**************************************************
--
"There is a word in Newspeak," said Syme. "I don't
know whether you know it: duckspeak, to quack like
a duck. It is one of those interesting words that
have two contradictory meanings. Applied to an
opponent, it is abuse; applied to someone you agree
with, it is praise."
-George Orwell "Nineteen Eighty-Four"
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
02 Dec 2005 08:47:28 PM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
You don't need RAA, you just need simple common sense.
Theer is no evidence for god.
Correction: There is no evidence for God that you will recognize.
Only claims, assertions.
Logically, we can show tha these claims contrdict each other.
No, you cannot, because you do not address all claims. You address
some claims, and attempt to show contradiction among them. By doing
that, I can take some false rumors about the moon and some observed
evidence, and disprove the existence of the moon.
Thus we can take out an entire class of gods, omni-everything
gods that are creator of all.
No, you cannot.
Any god of that class, God
almighty, Brahman, Allah, whatever, also falls.
The Tau is not touched; thus all are unscathed.
Secondary claims,
god as imamnent or god as transcedent all of a sudden become
moot.
You don't know the word.
Claims that god did this in history, or that, become
impossible, Allah did not send messages to Mohammed, Moses
did not talk to go on the Mountain.
Its not hard, but everybody, even Atheists seem to want to avoid
looking at this proof. I know Virgil here has been ignoring me
for years, then lying that "we cannot disprove god".
I have been answering this spam for months. Why do you avoid me?
But god is disprovable, its not even hard.
I know why the agnostics and religious believers want
to ignore me, why the Atheists seem to ignore all of this
mystifies me. Possibly because its more that 80 words long.
You think there is no evidence because you see none. You see none
because you do not look. You find no opposition to your silly ideas
because you choose to ignore us.
.............................................................
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:
You are wrong again. You have chosen a small, airless, theological
seminary definition of God from a tiny corner of Western Protestantism.
No honest debater chooses a subset of his opponent's arguments, then
pretends to defeat them.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
03 Dec 2005 01:36:30 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
You don't need RAA, you just need simple common sense.
Theer is no evidence for god.
Correction: There is no evidence for God that you will recognize.
Meaning what, that you do? If you are saying, "Evidently there is a
God," then will you please explain how you are defining 'evident' and
'God' so that others can check your observations?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
03 Dec 2005 04:06:46 PM |
|
|
In article <1133595390.497734.129600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
You don't need RAA, you just need simple common sense.
Theer is no evidence for god.
Correction: There is no evidence for God that you will recognize.
Meaning what?
As the words, both separately and in the above combination, are all
quite simple, even Septic should be able to look them all up in a
dictionary and deduce their meaning in that combination.
Provided he knows how to use one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smith Computer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
05 Dec 2005 04:45:46 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-109273.15064603122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <1133595390.497734.129600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
You don't need RAA, you just need simple common sense.
Theer is no evidence for god.
Correction: There is no evidence for God that you will recognize.
Meaning what?
As the words, both separately and in the above combination, are all
quite simple, even Septic should be able to look them all up in a
dictionary and deduce their meaning in that combination.
| | | | | |
