| 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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
09 Dec 2005 02:57:34 PM |
|
|
In article <A6ydncVLPKpNdATeRVn-ig@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-1052E9.21012907122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <WP-dneHeoMgR7ArenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-306E51.14060107122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
Stop right there. Don't try to change the subject and make this about
me.
It already is about you, Septic, and has been for some time.
If only Septic claims the thread is about some other subject versus
many
people claiming it is about Septic, then Septic is wrong!
The tyrany of the majority theory of truth? That's a rather odd notion,
don't you think?
Since discussion, by definition, must involve the cooperation of more
thtan one person, no one person gets to dicate what the discussion is
about. This is not about truth by majority, it is about whether Deptic's
monomaniacal monologues constitute a discussion.
Stop right there. Don't try to change the subject and make this about
me.
Don't have to MAKE be about what it IS about!
This is about you and your pals and your hypothesis (your 'might be'
conjecture) that there might be a God/Creator/First Cause. Now how about
an honest answer?
Septic's monomanaical monologue on the subject does not make it tha
subject of discusion, only one of justified derision.
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it?
The "very idea" has no logical flaw unless Septic can come up with proof
of the impossibility of all gods.
The agnostic position that one cannot reject a possiblity without proof
of impossibility defeats Septic's Gnostic claim of impossibility
withhout proof.
As Russell points out
in his "Essay: Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?" (1947)
<BEGIN QUOTE>
Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me.
Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place
they always ask me what is my religion.
I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say
"Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of
you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a
purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself
as an Agnostic, because I DO NOT THINK THAT THERE IS A CONCLUSIVE
ARGUMENT BY WHICH ONE PROVE THAT THERE IS NOT A GOD.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the
ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist,
because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought
to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods
of Homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a
logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them
did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such
proof.
Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely
philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking
popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that
we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think,
take exactly the same line.
Skepticism
There is exactly the same degree of possibility and likelihood of the
existence of the Christian God as there is of the existence of the
Homeric God. I cannot prove that either the Christian God or the Homeric
gods do not exist, but I do not think that their existence is an
alternative that is sufficiently probable to be worth serious
consideration. Therefore, I suppose that that on these documents that
they submit to me on these occasions I ought to say "Atheist", although
it has been a very difficult problem, and sometimes I have said one and
sometimes the other without any clear principle by which to go.
<END QUOTE>
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
10 Dec 2005 02:35:05 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-C9EADA.13573409122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <A6ydncVLPKpNdATeRVn-ig@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause
when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it?
The "very idea" has no logical flaw
As Russell points out, there is definitely a logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in the very idea (hypothesis, conjecture, 'might be'
speculation) of God/Creator/First Cause.
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it? As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected as no better than the silly Hindu hypothesis that the
world might be carried by an elephant standing on a turtle!
" ... there cannot [note: ABSOLUTELY CANNOT!]
be any validity in that argument. It 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
So it is summarily rejected, for cause (special pleading).
Your cure for that fatal illness (special pleading) goes here:
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
10 Dec 2005 05:28:04 PM |
|
|
In article <YpmdnXSHTodtpgbeRVn-og@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-C9EADA.13573409122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <A6ydncVLPKpNdATeRVn-ig@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause
when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it?
The "very idea" has no logical flaw
As Russell points out, there is definitely a logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in the very idea (hypothesis, conjecture, 'might be'
speculation) of God/Creator/First Cause.
Russell does not oppose "might be" though he does not believe in it, but
is eloquent against "must be".
"... the argument that there MUST be a First Cause is one that cannot
have any validity." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
And in 'A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas' by Bertrand
Russell (1947), he says:
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience
I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because
I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can
prove that there is not a God.'
Which leaves Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon's phony claims in tatters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
10 Dec 2005 10:30:36 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-7D3A51.16280410122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <YpmdnXSHTodtpgbeRVn-og@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-C9EADA.13573409122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <A6ydncVLPKpNdATeRVn-ig@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First
Cause
when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it?
The "very idea" has no logical flaw
As Russell points out, there is definitely a logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in the very idea (hypothesis, conjecture, 'might
be'
speculation) of God/Creator/First Cause.
Russell does not oppose "might be"
That there might be a God/Creator/First Cause is the hypothesis (the
'might be' conjecture of theists). It is conjecture because there is no
proof there actually is one. That hypothesis is rejected. As Russell
points out, there is definitely a logical fallacy (special pleading)
inherent in the very idea (hypothesis, conjecture, 'might be'
speculation) of God/Creator/First Cause.
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it? As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected as no better than the silly Hindu hypothesis that the
world might be carried by an elephant standing on a turtle!
" ... there cannot [note: ABSOLUTELY CANNOT!]
be any validity in that argument. It 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
So it is summarily rejected, for cause (special pleading).
Your cure for that fatal illness (special pleading) goes here:
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
11 Dec 2005 12:16:38 AM |
|
|
In article <ZKadncIgg9XtNgbenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-7D3A51.16280410122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <YpmdnXSHTodtpgbeRVn-og@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-C9EADA.13573409122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <A6ydncVLPKpNdATeRVn-ig@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First
Cause
when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it?
The "very idea" has no logical flaw
As Russell points out, there is definitely a logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in the very idea (hypothesis, conjecture, 'might
be'
speculation) of God/Creator/First Cause.
Russell does not oppose "might be"
That there might be a God/Creator/First Cause is the hypothesis (the
'might be' conjecture of theists).
What theists are those? Only those that are falsely so labeled by
septic. but are regarded as agnostic or atheistic by everyone else.
If Septic has the right to label those he disagrees with 'theists' for
no better reason than that he disagrees with them, then those agnostics
and atheists have an equal right to call septic a theist!
In fact, since ther ate considerably more of the non-thiests so
insulteed by Septic's Argumentum ad Hominem against them a considerably
better right.
That hypothesis is rejected. As Russell points out
Russell does not speak about the hypothesizing of possibility in any of
the citations Septic provides, and where Russell does speak of it, he
says he cannot disprove the possibility of any gods.
there is definitely a logical fallacy (special pleading)
inherent in the very idea (hypothesis, conjecture, 'might be'
speculation) of God/Creator/First Cause.
There is no such thing. The possibility of gods is an open question,
with nothing either in logic or in fact to oppose it, though there is
equally nothing to support it. Septic is trying to beg his question aain.
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause
when the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy
(special pleading) inherent in it?
How could there not be when every argument against that possibility is
equally fallacious?
If the arguments on both sides ( there is a god vs there are no gods)
are equally fallacious, as in this instance, then the issue remains
open, and neither possibility can be excluded.
Septic and his coterie of Gnostic anti-theists keep trying to beg the
question against even the possibility of gods as unreasonalby as
Christians beg it for the actuality of gods, and we poor agnostics get
lambasted from both sides for our neutrality.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
10 Dec 2005 03:34:43 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-C9EADA.13573409122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <A6ydncVLPKpNdATeRVn-ig@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause
when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it?
The "very idea" has no logical flaw
As Russell points out, there is definitely a logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in the very idea
False, sir. Two bags full, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
09 Dec 2005 07:47:56 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-1052E9.21012907122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <WP-dneHeoMgR7ArenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-306E51.14060107122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <VNydnXqiUfI3OwveRVn-tw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1133917669.486954.319110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Mani Deli wrote:
On 5 Dec 2005 20:59:02 -0800, wrote:
False. Bertrand Russell established no such thing; it is
evidently
solely a product of Septic's fevered imagination. Septic
provides
no
evidence whatsoever that it corresponds to anything Russell
wrote.
To all like you who can't read.
Ask around. (Hint: the key phrase in Russell is "might as well
be";
as
Virgil points out, this does not reject the idea, as Septic
says;
it
merely rejects the _necessity_ of the idea. _You_ seem to need
some
reading comprehension courses.)
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First
Cause
when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it?
Septic seems to think ...
Stop right there. Don't try to change the subject and make this about
me.
It already is about you, Septic, and has been for some time.
If only Septic claims the thread is about some other subject versus
many
people claiming it is about Septic, then Septic is wrong!
The tyrany of the majority
No, the discussion of the majority, Septic. Wassamatter, Septic, not
happy that the majority prefers to discuss _you_ rather than your
long-refuted assertions?
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
07 Dec 2005 09:10:53 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-306E51.14060107122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <VNydnXqiUfI3OwveRVn-tw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1133917669.486954.319110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Mani Deli wrote:
On 5 Dec 2005 20:59:02 -0800, wrote:
False. Bertrand Russell established no such thing; it is
evidently
solely a product of Septic's fevered imagination. Septic
provides
no
evidence whatsoever that it corresponds to anything Russell
wrote.
To all like you who can't read.
Ask around. (Hint: the key phrase in Russell is "might as well
be";
as
Virgil points out, this does not reject the idea, as Septic says;
it
merely rejects the _necessity_ of the idea. _You_ seem to need
some
reading comprehension courses.)
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause
when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it?
Septic seems to think ...
Stop right there. Don't try to change the subject and make this about
me.
This is about you, Septic. You're completely fallacious.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
07 Dec 2005 06:26:19 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-306E51.14060107122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <VNydnXqiUfI3OwveRVn-tw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1133917669.486954.319110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Mani Deli wrote:
On 5 Dec 2005 20:59:02 -0800, wrote:
False. Bertrand Russell established no such thing; it is
evidently
solely a product of Septic's fevered imagination. Septic
provides
no
evidence whatsoever that it corresponds to anything Russell
wrote.
To all like you who can't read.
Ask around. (Hint: the key phrase in Russell is "might as well
be";
as
Virgil points out, this does not reject the idea, as Septic says;
it
merely rejects the _necessity_ of the idea. _You_ seem to need
some
reading comprehension courses.)
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause
when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it?
Septic seems to think ...
Stop right there.
Yes, please do stop right there, Virgil. Septic, in fact, does not seem
to think.
Don't try to change the subject and make this about
me. This is about you and your pals and your hypothesis (your 'might be'
conjecture) that there might be a God/Creator/First Cause. Now how about
an honest answer?
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it? As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected as no better than the silly Hindu hypothesis that the
world might be carried by an elephant standing on a turtle!
" ... there cannot be any validity in that argument. It 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
So it is summarily rejected, for cause (special pleading).
Your cure for that fatal illness (special pleading) goes here:
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
07 Dec 2005 08:47:39 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1133917669.486954.319110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Mani Deli wrote:
On 5 Dec 2005 20:59:02 -0800, wrote:
False. Bertrand Russell established no such thing; it is evidently
solely a product of Septic's fevered imagination. Septic provides
no
evidence whatsoever that it corresponds to anything Russell wrote.
To all like you who can't read.
Ask around. (Hint: the key phrase in Russell is "might as well be";
as
Virgil points out, this does not reject the idea, as Septic says; it
merely rejects the _necessity_ of the idea. _You_ seem to need some
reading comprehension courses.)
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause
Premise: Anything anyone believes could possibly be false.
Premise: There exist people who believe "there is no such thing as
God/Creator/First-Cause".
Conclusion: There could possibly be such a thing as
God/Creator/First-Cause.
when the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy
False. Only the idea that there _must_ be such a thing has a fatal
logical fallacy, as Russell points out. Try reading Russell for
comprehension next time, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
07 Dec 2005 11:51:21 AM |
|
|
<> wrote in message
news:1133966859.119409.153280@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1133917669.486954.319110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Mani Deli wrote:
On 5 Dec 2005 20:59:02 -0800, wrote:
False. Bertrand Russell established no such thing; it is
evidently
solely a product of Septic's fevered imagination. Septic
provides
no
evidence whatsoever that it corresponds to anything Russell
wrote.
To all like you who can't read.
Ask around. (Hint: the key phrase in Russell is "might as well
be";
as
Virgil points out, this does not reject the idea, as Septic says;
it
merely rejects the _necessity_ of the idea. _You_ seem to need
some
reading comprehension courses.)
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause
when
<unsnip the part about th eissue of special pleading Jeffie is trying to
evade>
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it? As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected as no better than the silly Hindu hypothesis that the
world might be carried by an elephant standing on a turtle!
" ... there cannot be any validity in that argument. It 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
So it is summarily rejected, for cause (special pleading).
Your cure for that fatal illness (special pleading) goes here:
<cue the chirping cicadas>
Premise: Anything anyone believes could possibly be false.
1. Why do you keep trying to evade the issue here, the inherent special
pleading Russell points out?
<cue the chirping cicadas>
What Russell points out is not a religious belief like yours, moron.
This is not a claim that could possibly be false, it is the summary
rejection, for cause (special pleading), of the idea there might be a
God/All Mighty/Creator/First Cause. Russell is merely showing why the
idea there might be a God/All Mighty/Creator/First Cause is summarily
rejected due to a fatal logical fallacy (special pleading) inherent in
it. Do you want to try again?
2. Your cure for that fatal illness (the special pleading) goes here, if
you can come up with one:
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
07 Dec 2005 03:02:20 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1133966859.119409.153280@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1133917669.486954.319110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Mani Deli wrote:
On 5 Dec 2005 20:59:02 -0800, wrote:
False. Bertrand Russell established no such thing; it is
evidently
solely a product of Septic's fevered imagination. Septic
provides
no
evidence whatsoever that it corresponds to anything Russell
wrote.
To all like you who can't read.
Ask around. (Hint: the key phrase in Russell is "might as well
be";
as
Virgil points out, this does not reject the idea, as Septic says;
it
merely rejects the _necessity_ of the idea. _You_ seem to need
some
reading comprehension courses.)
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause
Premise: Anything anyone believes could possibly be false.
1. Why do you keep trying to evade
I showed you how there could possibly be such a thing as God, Septic,
just as you asked:
Premise: Anything anyone believes could possibly be false.
Premise: There exist people who believe "there is no such thing as
God".
Conclusion: There could possibly be such a thing as God.
<cue the chirping cicadas>
What Russell points out ... is the summary
rejection, for cause (special pleading), of the idea there might be
False, Septic. Russell only rejects "must be", as you've been told and
shown. You sir are a bald-faced liar.
And Septic demonstrates yet again the fact that he remains the
completely mendacious, fallacious, and discredited old idiot fool
losing liar of alt.atheism, as always. Ho hum.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
07 Dec 2005 06:56:13 PM |
|
|
<> wrote in message
news:1133989340.674391.184160@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1133966859.119409.153280@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1133917669.486954.319110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Mani Deli wrote:
On 5 Dec 2005 20:59:02 -0800, wrote:
False. Bertrand Russell established no such thing; it is
evidently
solely a product of Septic's fevered imagination. Septic
provides
no
evidence whatsoever that it corresponds to anything Russell
wrote.
To all like you who can't read.
Ask around. (Hint: the key phrase in Russell is "might as well
be";
as
Virgil points out, this does not reject the idea, as Septic
says;
it
merely rejects the _necessity_ of the idea. _You_ seem to need
some
reading comprehension courses.)
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First
Cause
Premise: Anything anyone believes could possibly be false.
1. Why do you keep trying to evade
I showed you how there could possibly be such a thing as God
No you didn't, you didn't answer the question. Try again:
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it? As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected as no better than the silly Hindu hypothesis that the
world might be carried by an elephant standing on a turtle!
" ... there cannot be any validity in that argument. It 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
So it is summarily rejected, for cause (special pleading).
Your cure for that fatal illness (special pleading) goes here:
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
07 Dec 2005 09:42:54 PM |
|
|
In article <UcSdnaVlE8c0GQrenZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it?
Septic seems to think that a fallacious argument in favor of any
statement is enough to prove that statement false. It is not, or we
would be inundated with phony proofs designed to disprove what they
allege they prove.
As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected
The idea Russell rejects is that ther MUST BE a firs cause or a god.
Russell's only comments on the possibility of gods is that he canot
prove them impossible.
"... the argument that there MUST be a First Cause is one that cannot
have any validity." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
And in 'A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas' by Bertrand
Russell (1947), he says:
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience
I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because
I DO NOT THINK THAT THERE IS A CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENT BY WHICH ONE CAN
PROVE THAT THERE IS NOT A GOD.'
Which leaves Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon's phony claims about what
Russell says in tatters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the ideathere might be a creator |
07 Dec 2005 09:58:26 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <UcSdnaVlE8c0GQrenZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it?
Septic seems to think that a fallacious argument in favor of any
statement is enough to prove that statement false. It is not, or we
would be inundated with phony proofs designed to disprove what they
allege they prove.
As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected
The idea Russell rejects is that ther MUST BE a firs cause or a god.
Russell's only comments on the possibility of gods is that he canot
prove them impossible.
"... the argument that there MUST be a First Cause is one that cannot
have any validity." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
And in 'A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas' by Bertrand
Russell (1947), he says:
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience
I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because
I DO NOT THINK THAT THERE IS A CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENT BY WHICH ONE CAN
PROVE THAT THERE IS NOT A GOD.'
Which leaves Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon's phony claims about what
Russell says in tatters.
Here's BR again, from the same essay:
"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments
upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should
not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as
probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is,
I think, one of the essential things in rationality."
DotSix would do well to pay more attention when he reads.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
09 Dec 2005 04:53:38 PM |
|
|
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:CbOlf.31$eD5.77834@twister.southeast.rr.com...
<snip off topic comments>
Have any of you anything to say about the issue raised here, the
inherent special pleading?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
09 Dec 2005 06:15:12 PM |
|
|
In article <ldudnSait_h2lwfeRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:CbOlf.31$eD5.77834@twister.southeast.rr.com...
<snip off topic comments>
Have any of you anything to say about the issue raised here, the
inherent special pleading?
Septic's inherent special pleading for conclusions that he cannot
justify deserves no further comment, except to note that his repeating
it ad nauseam only make it stink worse.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
09 Dec 2005 07:33:37 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:CbOlf.31$eD5.77834@twister.southeast.rr.com...
<snip off topic comments>
<unsnip>
[Russell:]
"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments
upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should
not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as
probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain
is,
I think, one of the essential things in rationality."
DotSix would do well to pay more attention when he reads.
</unsnip>
Have any of you anything to say about the issue raised here, the
inherent special pleading?
There is no inherent special pleading regarding the possibility of a
God as first cause. Again, Septic, Russell's "it might as well be the
universe as God" does not refute the _possibility_ of a God as first
cause atall atall, merely the _necessity_ of same.
Do _try_ to read for understanding next time, Septic, especially your
own sources. Otherwise you just look stupid.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 11:05:16 AM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134178416.996977.65790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:CbOlf.31$eD5.77834@twister.southeast.rr.com...
<snip off topic comments>
Have any of you anything to say about the issue raised here, the
inherent special pleading?
There is no inherent special pleading regarding the possibility of a
God as first cause.
The theist argument for God/Creaor/First Cause is that everything must
have a cause except God, who is special. That is the inherent fallacy of
special pleading Russell highlights, and you are trying to smokescreen.
There is no logical necessity demonstrated here, dunderhead, it is
merely theist conjecture that reasonable people reject (do not accept),
for cause (inherent fallacy of special pleading), as Russell points out:
'It is MAINTAINED [hypothesized, 'might be' conjectured by theists] that
everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the
chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and
to that First Cause you give the name of God. ... There cannot [note:
ABSOLUTELY CANNOT] be any validity in that argument [due to the inherent
special pleading for God]. It 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. ... Therefore, I need not waste any more time on
the argument.' -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 01:50:26 PM |
|
|
In article <A8KdnbPHU63fwQHenZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134178416.996977.65790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:CbOlf.31$eD5.77834@twister.southeast.rr.com...
<snip off topic comments>
Have any of you anything to say about the issue raised here, the
inherent special pleading?
There is no inherent special pleading regarding the possibility of a
God as first cause.
The theist argument for God/Creaor/First Cause is that everything MUST
have a cause except God, who is special.
So that theists are not claiming MIGHT BE, they are claimiing MUST BE.
That is the inherent fallacy of
special pleading Russell highlights, and you are trying to smokescreen.
Whereever I read Russell, he only objects to claims of MUST BE gods, and
is quite silent about claims of MIGHT BE gods.
'It is maintained [by some theists] that everything we see in this
world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further
and further YOU MUST COME TO A FIRST CAUSE, and to that First Cause
you give the name of God. ' -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
Russell concludes that
"... the argument that there MUST be a First Cause is one that cannot
have any validity." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
And in 'A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas' by Bertrand
Russell (1947), he says:
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience
I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because
I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can
prove that there is not a God.'
Which leaves Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon's phony claims in tatters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
12 Dec 2005 06:48:14 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <A8KdnbPHU63fwQHenZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134178416.996977.65790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:CbOlf.31$eD5.77834@twister.southeast.rr.com...
<snip off topic comments>
Have any of you anything to say about the issue raised here, the
inherent special pleading?
There is no inherent special pleading regarding the possibility
of a God as first cause.
The theist argument for God/Creaor/First Cause is that everything
MUST have a cause except God, who is special.
So that theists are not claiming MIGHT BE, they are claimiing MUST
BE.
That is the inherent fallacy of
special pleading Russell highlights, and you are trying to
smokescreen.
Whereever I read Russell, he only objects to claims of MUST BE gods,
and
is quite silent about claims of MIGHT BE gods.
'It is maintained [by some theists] that everything we see in this
world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes
further and further YOU MUST COME TO A FIRST CAUSE, and to that
First Cause you give the name of God. ' -- Russell "Why I Am Not a
Christian" http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
Russell concludes that
"... the argument that there MUST be a First Cause is one that
cannot
have any validity." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
And in 'A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas' by Bertrand
Russell (1947), he says:
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic
audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an
Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive
argument by which one can prove that there is not 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 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
| | | | | | | | | | | |
