| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Katt" |
| Date: |
27 May 2005 07:21:51 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd9ev7l.vvl.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
The notion that there's a God that designed us and yet he for
some stupid reason decided to build this mind-boggling huge
universe and only put us on one itty bitty infinitessimally
tiny part of it is even more preposterous. Given the massive
size of the universe, the notion that we are special and designed
by an omnipotent being is utterly preposterous. If God made us
and attaches special meaning to us, what the hell is the rest of
the universe even THERE for?
You remember what the 'Wholly Babble' says about the 'creation' of the rest
of the universe...?
I do!
It says: "And [Gob] made the stars also".
Seriously. *Five sodding words*, presenting the 'creation' of a billion
galaxies as *some kind of fucking afterthought*...!
How's that for a *bloody serious under-estimation*, eh...?
*Sheeesh*...!! Who the ***** *are* these idiots...?
Katt.
.
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
06 Jun 2005 11:53:25 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:56:49 +0000 (UTC), Steve Mading
<madings@trout.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
In article <h9Ple.3787$rf4.729@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, Alfred wrote:
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in message
news:zQOle.1168$wJ6.1089@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd9ev7l.vvl.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
The notion that there's a God that designed us and yet he for
some stupid reason decided to build this mind-boggling huge
universe and only put us on one itty bitty infinitessimally
tiny part of it is even more preposterous. Given the massive
size of the universe, the notion that we are special and designed
by an omnipotent being is utterly preposterous. If God made us
and attaches special meaning to us, what the hell is the rest of
the universe even THERE for?
You remember what the 'Wholly Babble' says about the 'creation' of the
rest
of the universe...?
I do!
It says: "And [Gob] made the stars also".
Seriously. *Five sodding words*, presenting the 'creation' of a billion
galaxies as *some kind of fucking afterthought*...!
How's that for a *bloody serious under-estimation*, eh...?
*Sheeesh*...!! Who the ***** *are* these idiots...?
Katt.
You have very poor nettiquette.
There is no proof there is no god anymore than there is any proof that there
is a god. Either one would destroy faith, which relies on belief without
evidence.
True. But why is faith viewed as such a good thing?
Because the superstition industry's existence and prophetability
depends on it!
It's a
very dangerous practice to view it with reverence and awe
when all it is is a fallback measure to use when you have
nothing real to go on. Praising faith as a worthwhile thing
is basically praising ignorance. An attitude of "isn't it
wonderful that this takes faith" is essentially saying, "Isn't
it wonderful that we really have no idea what's true?"
Thing is, what's known to be true is superstition is false.
No. It's not wonderful. No, it shouldn't be revered as a
condition that should be cherished and continued. If everyone
had kept that attitude through the ages we'd still be living
like animals in trees.
That's provided we hadn't gone extinct.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
29 May 2005 03:48:15 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 May 2005 00:43:57 GMT, "Alfred" <dot@dot.com> wrote:
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in message
news:zQOle.1168$wJ6.1089@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd9ev7l.vvl.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
The notion that there's a God that designed us and yet he for
some stupid reason decided to build this mind-boggling huge
universe and only put us on one itty bitty infinitessimally
tiny part of it is even more preposterous. Given the massive
size of the universe, the notion that we are special and designed
by an omnipotent being is utterly preposterous. If God made us
and attaches special meaning to us, what the hell is the rest of
the universe even THERE for?
You remember what the 'Wholly Babble' says about the 'creation' of the
rest
of the universe...?
I do!
It says: "And [Gob] made the stars also".
Seriously. *Five sodding words*, presenting the 'creation' of a billion
galaxies as *some kind of fucking afterthought*...!
How's that for a *bloody serious under-estimation*, eh...?
*Sheeesh*...!! Who the ***** *are* these idiots...?
Katt.
You have very poor nettiquette.
Not so. Our ball, our rules. This is alt.atheism.
If you don't like it, you are free to trim us from your headers.
It will be a blow, but we will all rally round, and we'll get over it.
There is no proof there is no god
As yet, no one has claimed there is, in fact we all agree that there can never
*be* tangible proof.
We can never have objective evidence, that there is no god, or faeries, The
Invisible Pink Unicorn, PBUH, the Bean Sidhe, or a million other beings, that
mankind has believed in, over the millennia.
anymore than there is any proof that there
is a god. Either one would destroy faith, which relies on belief without
evidence.
I can see how that would seriously upset us.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling, Like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
29 May 2005 04:41:03 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 May 2005 20:48:15 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
There is no proof there is no god
As yet, no one has claimed there is, in fact we all agree that there can never
*be* tangible proof.
including that he doesn't exist. I believe.
We can never have objective evidence, that there is no god, or faeries, The
Invisible Pink Unicorn, PBUH, the Bean Sidhe, or a million other beings, that
mankind has believed in, over the millennia.
Define "objective" evidence.
anymore than there is any proof that there
is a god. Either one would destroy faith, which relies on belief without
evidence.
I can see how that would seriously upset us.
It will one moment after you take our final breath on this earth and stand in
judgment before God. Then it's too late to change your mind.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
30 May 2005 07:49:15 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 May 2005 16:41:03 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2005 20:48:15 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
There is no proof there is no god
As yet, no one has claimed there is, in fact we all agree that there can never
*be* tangible proof.
including that he doesn't exist. I believe.
We have absolute proof of no good God.
We can never have objective evidence, that there is no god, or faeries, The
Invisible Pink Unicorn, PBUH, the Bean Sidhe, or a million other beings, that
mankind has believed in, over the millennia.
Define "objective" evidence.
anymore than there is any proof that there
is a god. Either one would destroy faith, which relies on belief without
evidence.
I can see how that would seriously upset us.
It will one moment after you take our final breath on this earth and stand in
judgment before God. Then it's too late to change your mind.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
29 May 2005 04:45:19 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2005 20:48:15 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
There is no proof there is no god
As yet, no one has claimed there is, in fact we all agree that there can never
*be* tangible proof.
including that he doesn't exist. I believe.
Beliefs are personal. Keep them that way.
We can never have objective evidence, that there is no god, or faeries, The
Invisible Pink Unicorn, PBUH, the Bean Sidhe, or a million other beings, that
mankind has believed in, over the millennia.
Define "objective" evidence.
objective: Having actual existence; of or having to do with a material
object.
evidence: something indicative; an outward sign
objective evidence: a material object that is indicative.
anymore than there is any proof that there
is a god. Either one would destroy faith, which relies on belief without
evidence.
I can see how that would seriously upset us.
It will one moment after you take our final breath on this earth and stand in
judgment before God. Then it's too late to change your mind.
Again, not according to the Mormons. Why are you right and the Mormons
wrong? You're both Christian, you both believe in Jealous, and you both
believe in Jesus. Why are you right and the other sects (Mormonism,
Lutheran, Episcopalian, Protestantism, Islam, Judaism, etc.) wrong?
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
30 May 2005 06:03:24 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 May 2005 21:45:19 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
including that he doesn't exist. I believe.
Beliefs are personal. Keep them that way.
I've always said you get a chance to discuss your beliefs with God one moment
after you die. Not my problem.
Define "objective" evidence.
objective: Having actual existence; of or having to do with a material
object.
evidence: something indicative; an outward sign
And there you go. We have objective evidence galore.
I can see how that would seriously upset us.
It will one moment after you take our final breath on this earth and stand in
judgment before God. Then it's too late to change your mind.
Again, not according to the Mormons. Why are you right and the Mormons
wrong?
We'll only know the answer to that one when we die.
You're both Christian, you both believe in Jealous, and you both
believe in Jesus. Why are you right and the other sects (Mormonism,
Lutheran, Episcopalian, Protestantism, Islam, Judaism, etc.) wrong?
Who's "Jealous"? Snowden?
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
30 May 2005 12:56:29 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2005 21:45:19 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
including that he doesn't exist. I believe.
Beliefs are personal. Keep them that way.
I've always said you get a chance to discuss your beliefs with God one
moment
after you die. Not my problem.
The problem is, you don't. You die, that is it.
You have a chance here to discuss the concept of god
and see its falasity. You fail, because you want to keep
a false belief.
**********************************
God Disproven Number 3
**********************************
Romans 11:7-8
Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh
for; but the election hath obtained it; and the
rest were blinded.
(According as it is written, God hath given them
the spirit of slumber; eyes that they should not
see, ears that they should not hear) unto this
day.
Many christians claim god gave us free will,
but here we see that that in fact, god is
said to blind many to spiritual truth. So
in fact, free will means nothing to god. Here
Paul is trying to explain why Israel has rejected
Jesus as a messiah.
Thus, if god does not care about free will, and even
denies men free will by so blinding them, free will is
no longer an arguable claim if the bible is true.
If god is omnibenevolent, then he would be duty
bound to make all men believers and all men capable
of only doing moral good. If he could do so, and
does not he is not omnibenevolent.
So a benevolent god that does not care about free will
cannot exist in a world where we see unbelief and moral
evil.
*********
Most theologians in the past have agreed god has free will.
Aquinas in Summa Theologica made that quite explicit.
Yet all theologians also agree god is omnibenevolent.
That is he has free will yet can only do good, never evil.
Yet many apologists tell us man needs free will and thus
ability to do evil. This is to get god off the hook for
existance of evil.
But as god can have a good nature and free will, so can man.
That argument is no longer viable.
But if god can make man with a god like free will
and good nature incapable of never doing moral
evil and fails to, he is the creator and sustaining
cause of all evil and is evil himself.
That we live in a world where moral evil exists proves
an omnibenevolent god is nonexistant.
**********
God is said to be omnipotent.
Can god create a rock so big he cannot lift it?
If yes he cannot lift such a rock and thus is
non-omnipotent. If no, he cannot create such a
rock and is non-omnipotent.
Omnipotent is a self destructing concept that cannot
exist in reality. It is literally nonsense, incoherent,
impossible.
Thus an omnipotent god is not possible.
***********
Is god omnipotent? In Judges 1:19, god
cannot deal with iron chariots.
And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the
inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive
out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had
chariots of iron.
An inventive and intelligent god would have
made the chariot wheels fall off or killed
the horses such as he killed all the cattle
of Egypt in Exodus 9:6.
If the bible is true, there is no omnipotent god.
If apologists wish to claim there is such and
omnipotent god, they have to admit the bible is
false and rather silly.
***********
God is said to be omniscient, knowing all.
In Genesis 2:17, god lies to Adam.
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
thou shall not eat of it, for in the day thou eatest
thereof, thou shalt surely die.
The problem is that this outrageous lie did not
dissuade Adam from actually not eating of the tree.
Yet god was not omniscient enough to see that this lie
would not achieve its goal.
Again, if the bible is true, there is no omniscient god.
An omniscient god cannot exist.
And god here is a liar, which is not omni-benevolent
by any means.
***********
Is god omnibenevolent? By all claims, yes.
That is god must always do good and never evil.
But if he can never do evil, then there is
god cannot do, evil. Thus he has no free will
after all. And there is something he cannot do.
Evil. He is not omnipotent.
Thus a an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god with
free will cannot exist as claimed. Theology has
pretended to solve this problem by essentially
redefining free will and omnipotent in a very
dishonest manner and hoping nobody ever noticed.
And of course there was always the torture chamber
for those who might be honest.
************
Exodus Chapter 5
5:4
And it came to pass by the way into the inn
that the Lord met him (Moses) and tried to kill
him. Then Zipporah (Moses's wife see Exodus 2;21)
took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her
son and cast it at his feet, and said, surely
a bloody husband thou art to me.
So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband
thou art because of the circumcission.
This bizaare tale presents god as being unable
to kill Moses in a personal attack upon his
person bodily.
Thus if the bible is true, god cannot be as claimed,
omnipotent. This is one tale you will not hear
preached from the local pulpits.
A god incapable of killing a solitary Israelite
in an ambush outside an inn isn't much of a god.
****************
(End)
Define "objective" evidence.
objective: Having actual existence; of or having to do with a material
object.
evidence: something indicative; an outward sign
And there you go. We have objective evidence galore.
I can see how that would seriously upset us.
It will one moment after you take our final breath on this earth and
stand in
judgment before God. Then it's too late to change your mind.
Again, not according to the Mormons. Why are you right and the Mormons
wrong?
We'll only know the answer to that one when we die.
You're both Christian, you both believe in Jealous, and you both
believe in Jesus. Why are you right and the other sects (Mormonism,
Lutheran, Episcopalian, Protestantism, Islam, Judaism, etc.) wrong?
Who's "Jealous"? Snowden?
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
30 May 2005 11:49:51 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2005 21:45:19 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
including that he doesn't exist. I believe.
Beliefs are personal. Keep them that way.
I've always said you get a chance to discuss your beliefs with God one moment
after you die. Not my problem.
And yet you keep posting here.
Define "objective" evidence.
objective: Having actual existence; of or having to do with a material
object.
evidence: something indicative; an outward sign
And there you go. We have objective evidence galore.
There is no objective evidence. Where is your "material" proof?
I can see how that would seriously upset us.
It will one moment after you take our final breath on this earth and stand in
judgment before God. Then it's too late to change your mind.
Again, not according to the Mormons. Why are you right and the Mormons
wrong?
We'll only know the answer to that one when we die.
Are you prepared for the consequences if you're wrong?
You're both Christian, you both believe in Jealous, and you both
believe in Jesus. Why are you right and the other sects (Mormonism,
Lutheran, Episcopalian, Protestantism, Islam, Judaism, etc.) wrong?
Who's "Jealous"? Snowden?
Proof that duke does not know his Bible. Sorry, duke, you're destined
for Hell. You don't even know that fact which is common knowledge to a
lot of atheists...
And you say you have superior intelligence. *snicker*snicker*
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
29 May 2005 09:31:36 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2005 20:48:15 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
There is no proof there is no god
As yet, no one has claimed there is, in fact we all agree that there can
never *be* tangible proof.
including that he doesn't exist. I believe.
There is plenty of proof god does not exist if you stop
lying long enough to honestly think about the evidence.
Youc are willfully stupid, the lowest a human can go.
******************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #1
William C. Barwell 3-8-05
******************************************************
1. Orthodox theology makes several very basic
dogmatic claims about god.
2. A. God is omnipotent
B. God is omniscient
C. God is omnibenevolent
D. God created the entire world
E. God is merciful
3. If god creates a world and everthing in it,
and he is omniscient, he knows everything that
is or will be in that Universe and any future
actions that will take place in that Universe.
4. He knows what a concious being will do in any possible
world he will create. If he creates a world that
at a future date has a man named John Smith, god
would know that there will indeed be a John Smith.
5. Being omniscient, he knows what Smith will do.
He will know in any possible world if Smith is good,
a believer and saved, or is evil and damned.
6. He would then have a choice. Create the contemplated
world with an evil Smith or not. He could easily
change his mind and create a world with a good Smith
instead. God may easily chose any world he wishes,
he has no constraints on his omnipotence.
7. Smith has no choice in the matter, he has no say in
being created, or being created as a good Smith or
an evil Smith. All choice is god's choice alone.
8. Thus Smith has no free will. If he is evil it is
solely because god made the concious and purposeful
decision to create an evil Smith who does moral evil.
Smith's actions, and all his intentions and mental states
are predetermined and created in actuality by god.
He can have no free will even in principle. God does
not create a Smith with free will and turn his loose
in an undetermined Universe. All real acts and all real
mental states of Smith have been considered by god, and
chosen from among many possiblibilities and purposefully
created by god to the smallest detail by god alone,
involving all time within Smith's life, second by second.
9. Nobody has free will. All decisions to create any
man or woman or other sentient beings, angels or devils,
that are good or evil are made by knowingly by god.
If any man or woman or being does moral evil it is
solely and only because god decided to create a world
where they exist and do evil and are damned.
All actions of these beings are specifically chosen
and created by god in the most finegrained manner
physically possible in any Universe God actually
creates, down to the smallest possible actually
existant quantum time and space scales in this world.
10 But god is alledegly omnibenevolent. That is all
good. If he creates men and women or beings who do
moral evil, moral evil exists solely and only because
god knowingly creates morally evil, sentient beings.
11. Since it is god who allows morally evil sentient beings
to exist, he is the creator and sustaining cause of
all moral evil in the Universe, and he could just as
easily created all men to do only moral good, but
specifically and purposefully chose not to do so.
12. Since free will is not possible for man, not even
in principle, there is no way to blame evil on man.
Smith if he is evil is evil because god created him
knowingly as a morally evil man. If he is good, he is
good only because god chose to create him good.
And thus no way to claim evil is necessary to allow for
free will which is a common theological claim.
Free will thus cannot be used to get god out of any
blame for existance of moral evil in the world.
13. An omnibenevolent god cannot, because he is indeed
omnibenevolent, create moral evil by definition.
14. Morally evil men and women exist.
15. Thus a god who is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent
4. Creator of the entire world
5. Merciful
Cannot exist in a world where moral evil exists.
16. If such a god existed, free will cannot exist.
17. A god that creates a man as evil, then tortures him
for all eternity for evil acts god created him doing,
who could have made him good, made all his acts good,
created him good a believer and saved, is the one who
is evil, not the man so created evil who had no choice
in this at all. Such a god cannot be said to be
omnibenevolent nor merciful, probably cannot even
be claimed to be sane.
(End)
****************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #2
William C. Barwell 3-14-05
****************************************************
1. God is said to be omnibenevolent, all good.
2. God is also said to have free will.
3. God is also said to be omnipotent.
4. By omnibenevolent, it is meant that god is said
to be incapable of doing evil.
5. But does not this mean god is not omnipotent?
Doesn't god's omnibenevolence limit his omnipotence?
6. No. God has a good nature. He does not do evil.
But he has the very real power to do evil if
he was not restrained by his good nature.
Thus his good nature does not affect his omnipotence.
7. Nor does this then affect his free will. Merely
having a good nature in no way can effect his
having free will. Men may be goodly or evil,
such qualities do not mean they lack free will.
Likewise god's good nature similarly does not
mean god has no free will.
6. So god has free will and a good nature incapable
of doing evil and retains his omnipotence also.
7. Why is there evil in this world? Alledgedly so
man can be said to have free will. Given free
will some men do evil by their own free will.
8. But if god can have free will, and a good nature
incapable of doing moral evil, why then cannot
god likewise give man free will and a good nature
incapable of evil such as god has, thus eliminating
moral evil from this world?
9. If god is as claimed, omnibenevolent and omnipotent
then he is obligated by his omnibenevolence to give
all men free will and a good nature so they will
not sin and be saved. And thus that no moral
evil is allowed to exist in the Universe.
10. Logically then, a god that is simultaneously
omnibenevolent, omnipotent and has free will
cannot exist. Man's free will is not an adequate
excuse to explain the existance of moral evil
and to save a god that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent
and allows moral evil to exist.
(End)
**************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of god #3
William C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************
God is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent.
4. The most powerful thing that can be imagined.
5. The creator of all.
6. Intelligent and concious, having will.
7. What do we mean by omnipotent?
Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
8. That really asks the question, does god create the
rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large?
And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason?
9. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.
10. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.
11. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.
12. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.
13. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.
14. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes
him overtly evil.
15. Free will is said to be why evil exists, man is given
free will and sometimes abuses it. But as we can see,
free will cannot save god from blame if he can make the
rules and laws and laws and logic of the Universe.
16. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.
17. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can
be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.
18. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of
ontological proofs are all thus falsified.
19. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.
20. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is falsified also.
21. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Universe that contained evil only because
he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.
22. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 300 BCE. The gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent or possible neither.
23. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.
24. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.
25. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?
26. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other
sciences.
27. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for disembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.
28. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand
God of theological tradition has actual and real
existance.
29. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing theology,
since as demonstrated above, that has proven to
be a total failure as a methodology.
(END)
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
30 May 2005 06:06:36 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 May 2005 21:31:36 -0500, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
There is plenty of proof god does not exist if you stop
lying long enough to honestly think about the evidence.
Youc are willfully stupid, the lowest a human can go.
******************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #1
William C. Barwell 3-8-05
******************************************************
wiley coyote barnwell demands that God limited to man's ability to reason.
Theory disproven.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ordog" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
30 May 2005 07:41:35 AM |
|
|
<wiley coyote barnwell demands that God limited to man's ability to
reason.
<Theory disproven.
Please explain how do you arrive to this conclusion!
Can you enlighten us how the human reasoning power is inferior to
"God's" own. When "God" communicates with humans it must be restricted
to the rules of human reasoning otherwise we would have absolutely no
way comprehending his message. At that level "it" either follows
human reasoning or not.
I suspect strongly that "God's" advocates do not bother employing
any reason (human or otherwise). They reckon there is no reason for it!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
30 May 2005 11:50:32 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2005 21:31:36 -0500, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
There is plenty of proof god does not exist if you stop
lying long enough to honestly think about the evidence.
Youc are willfully stupid, the lowest a human can go.
******************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #1
William C. Barwell 3-8-05
******************************************************
wiley coyote barnwell demands that God limited to man's ability to reason.
Theory disproven.
Wiley Coyote? I think you mean Wile E. Coyote.
duke disproven.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
30 May 2005 12:54:24 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2005 21:31:36 -0500, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
There is plenty of proof god does not exist if you stop
lying long enough to honestly think about the evidence.
Youc are willfully stupid, the lowest a human can go.
******************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #1
William C. Barwell 3-8-05
******************************************************
wiley coyote barnwell demands that God limited to man's ability to reason.
Theory disproven.
Obviously you do not read anything I post
because you dare not.
What you said above is a lie. Of course, being a
curristian, lying is an old habit with you.
I will post it again so othrs may read and see how big
a liar you are, and how impossible your pathetic superstition
is.
******************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #1
William C. Barwell 3-8-05
******************************************************
1. Orthodox theology makes several very basic
dogmatic claims about god.
2. A. God is omnipotent
B. God is omniscient
C. God is omnibenevolent
D. God created the entire world
E. God is merciful
3. If god creates a world and everthing in it,
and he is omniscient, he knows everything that
is or will be in that Universe and any future
actions that will take place in that Universe.
4. He knows what a concious being will do in any possible
world he will create. If he creates a world that
at a future date has a man named John Smith, god
would know that there will indeed be a John Smith.
5. Being omniscient, he knows what Smith will do.
He will know in any possible world if Smith is good,
a believer and saved, or is evil and damned.
6. He would then have a choice. Create the contemplated
world with an evil Smith or not. He could easily
change his mind and create a world with a good Smith
instead. God may easily chose any world he wishes,
he has no constraints on his omnipotence.
7. Smith has no choice in the matter, he has no say in
being created, or being created as a good Smith or
an evil Smith. All choice is god's choice alone.
8. Thus Smith has no free will. If he is evil it is
solely because god made the concious and purposeful
decision to create an evil Smith who does moral evil.
Smith's actions, and all his intentions and mental states
are predetermined and created in actuality by god.
He can have no free will even in principle. God does
not create a Smith with free will and turn his loose
in an undetermined Universe. All real acts and all real
mental states of Smith have been considered by god, and
chosen from among many possiblibilities and purposefully
created by god to the smallest detail by god alone,
involving all time within Smith's life, second by second.
9. Nobody has free will. All decisions to create any
man or woman or other sentient beings, angels or devils,
that are good or evil are made by knowingly by god.
If any man or woman or being does moral evil it is
solely and only because god decided to create a world
where they exist and do evil and are damned.
All actions of these beings are specifically chosen
and created by god in the most finegrained manner
physically possible in any Universe God actually
creates, down to the smallest possible actually
existant quantum time and space scales in this world.
10 But god is alledegly omnibenevolent. That is all
good. If he creates men and women or beings who do
moral evil, moral evil exists solely and only because
god knowingly creates morally evil, sentient beings.
11. Since it is god who allows morally evil sentient beings
to exist, he is the creator and sustaining cause of
all moral evil in the Universe, and he could just as
easily created all men to do only moral good, but
specifically and purposefully chose not to do so.
12. Since free will is not possible for man, not even
in principle, there is no way to blame evil on man.
Smith if he is evil is evil because god created him
knowingly as a morally evil man. If he is good, he is
good only because god chose to create him good.
And thus no way to claim evil is necessary to allow for
free will which is a common theological claim.
Free will thus cannot be used to get god out of any
blame for existance of moral evil in the world.
13. An omnibenevolent god cannot, because he is indeed
omnibenevolent, create moral evil by definition.
14. Morally evil men and women exist.
15. Thus a god who is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent
4. Creator of the entire world
5. Merciful
Cannot exist in a world where moral evil exists.
16. If such a god existed, free will cannot exist.
17. A god that creates a man as evil, then tortures him
for all eternity for evil acts god created him doing,
who could have made him good, made all his acts good,
created him good a believer and saved, is the one who
is evil, not the man so created evil who had no choice
in this at all. Such a god cannot be said to be
omnibenevolent nor merciful, probably cannot even
be claimed to be sane.
(End)
****************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #2
William C. Barwell 3-14-05
****************************************************
1. God is said to be omnibenevolent, all good.
2. God is also said to have free will.
3. God is also said to be omnipotent.
4. By omnibenevolent, it is meant that god is said
to be incapable of doing evil.
5. But does not this mean god is not omnipotent?
Doesn't god's omnibenevolence limit his omnipotence?
6. No. God has a good nature. He does not do evil.
But he has the very real power to do evil if
he was not restrained by his good nature.
Thus his good nature does not affect his omnipotence.
7. Nor does this then affect his free will. Merely
having a good nature in no way can effect his
having free will. Men may be goodly or evil,
such qualities do not mean they lack free will.
Likewise god's good nature similarly does not
mean god has no free will.
6. So god has free will and a good nature incapable
of doing evil and retains his omnipotence also.
7. Why is there evil in this world? Alledgedly so
man can be said to have free will. Given free
will some men do evil by their own free will.
8. But if god can have free will, and a good nature
incapable of doing moral evil, why then cannot
god likewise give man free will and a good nature
incapable of evil such as god has, thus eliminating
moral evil from this world?
9. If god is as claimed, omnibenevolent and omnipotent
then he is obligated by his omnibenevolence to give
all men free will and a good nature so they will
not sin and be saved. And thus that no moral
evil is allowed to exist in the Universe.
10. Logically then, a god that is simultaneously
omnibenevolent, omnipotent and has free will
cannot exist. Man's free will is not an adequate
excuse to explain the existance of moral evil
and to save a god that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent
and allows moral evil to exist.
(End)
**************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of god #3
William C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************
God is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent.
4. The most powerful thing that can be imagined.
5. The creator of all.
6. Intelligent and concious, having will.
7. What do we mean by omnipotent?
Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
8. That really asks the question, does god create the
rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large?
And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason?
9. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.
10. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.
11. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.
12. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.
13. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.
14. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes
him overtly evil.
15. Free will is said to be why evil exists, man is given
free will and sometimes abuses it. But as we can see,
free will cannot save god from blame if he can make the
rules and laws and laws and logic of the Universe.
16. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.
17. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can
be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.
18. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of
ontological proofs are all thus falsified.
19. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.
20. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is falsified also.
21. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Universe that contained evil only because
he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.
22. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 300 BCE. The gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent or possible neither.
23. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.
24. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.
25. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?
26. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other
sciences.
27. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for disembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.
28. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand
God of theological tradition has actual and real
existance.
29. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing theology,
since as demonstrated above, that has proven to
be a total failure as a methodology.
(END)
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 06:05:31 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 May 2005 00:43:57 GMT, "Alfred" <dot@dot.com> wrote:
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in message
news:zQOle.1168$wJ6.1089@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd9ev7l.vvl.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
The notion that there's a God that designed us and yet he for
some stupid reason decided to build this mind-boggling huge
universe and only put us on one itty bitty infinitessimally
tiny part of it is even more preposterous. Given the massive
size of the universe, the notion that we are special and designed
by an omnipotent being is utterly preposterous. If God made us
and attaches special meaning to us, what the hell is the rest of
the universe even THERE for?
You remember what the 'Wholly Babble' says about the 'creation' of the
rest
of the universe...?
I do!
It says: "And [Gob] made the stars also".
Seriously. *Five sodding words*, presenting the 'creation' of a billion
galaxies as *some kind of fucking afterthought*...!
How's that for a *bloody serious under-estimation*, eh...?
*Sheeesh*...!! Who the ***** *are* these idiots...?
Katt.
You have very poor nettiquette.
There is no proof there is no god
There is no need to go further than that. Someone proposes the
existence of something but has absolutely no evidence to support the
proposal. That is the only relevant point.
anymore than there is any proof that there
is a god.
Totally irrelevant.
Either one would destroy faith, which relies on belief without
evidence.
Non-belief based on a total lack of evidence does not depend on faith.
Your entire comment is based on a theist strawman.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Holbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 11:00:42 AM |
|
|
thomas p wrote:
Non-belief based on a total lack of evidence
does not depend on faith.
Your entire comment is based on a theist strawman.
Right.
The mere absence of any positive evidence in favour of God's existence
rationally justifies one's not believing in God's existence. This
stance is called "negative atheism".
Of course, in order for positive atheism to be rationally justified,
one also needs to present arguments which prove God's nonexistence.
Regards
PH
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 02:05:16 PM |
|
|
On 28 May 2005 09:00:42 -0700, "Paul Holbach"
<paulholbachSPAMBAN@freenet.de> wrote:
thomas p wrote:
Non-belief based on a total lack of evidence
does not depend on faith.
Your entire comment is based on a theist strawman.
Right.
The mere absence of any positive evidence in favour of God's existence
rationally justifies one's not believing in God's existence. This
stance is called "negative atheism".
Of course, in order for positive atheism to be rationally justified,
one also needs to present arguments which prove God's nonexistence.
One assumes that your "positive atheist" is also aware of the
non-existence of any evidence, so no, he is not obliged to offer any
evidence for the non-existence of any god or of Santa or of any other
proposed fantasy that lacks evidence.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Holbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 08:17:03 PM |
|
|
thomas p wrote:
"Paul Holbach" <paulholbachSPAMBAN@freenet.de> wrote:
The mere absence of any positive evidence in favour
of God's existence
rationally justifies one's not believing in God's existence.
This stance is called "negative atheism".
Of course, in order for positive atheism to be rationally justified,
one also needs to present arguments which prove
God's nonexistence.
One assumes that your "positive atheist" is also aware of the
non-existence of any evidence, so no, he is
not obliged to offer any
evidence for the non-existence of any god or of Santa
or of any other
proposed fantasy that lacks evidence.
Positive atheism [PA] implies negative atheism [NA], but not vice
versa.
There's a subtle difference between claiming that there are no rational
reasons to believe that God exists [NA] and claiming that there are
rational reasons to believe that God does not exist [PA].
Regards
PH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
29 May 2005 01:53:11 AM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<1117329423.791854.291260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented Paul Holbach broadcast on alt.atheism:
Positive atheism [PA] implies negative atheism [NA], but not vice
versa.
There's a subtle difference between claiming that there are no rational
reasons to believe that God exists [NA] and claiming that there are
rational reasons to believe that God does not exist [PA].
Well, it always comes down to what is meant by god(s). It
really shouldn't be up to atheists to have a policy ready for
each and every sort of god that can be imagined. Indeed, I
think we can afford to be rather liberal toward certain possible
definitions of god(s).
DEIST: I cannot accept that the big bang just happened. I have
to think it had a cause, and that cause I call God.
ATHEIST: Well, if that is all your God is, nothing more and
nothing less than the name for something you imagine was
necessary for the big bang, I don't see the harm in that.
Naturally, you do not mean a god who continues to affect the
universe by any supernatural means, your god does not hear
prayers, does not promise a heaven or threaten a hell, has no
commandments, dictates no sacred scriptures, appoints no
priests, has nothing to say to anyone, but only kicked off the
big bang, then I don't see an unbridgeable gap in our positions.
You won't claim that this god has any discernable will, and you
won't tell us what you think that will is. There is, of course,
a serious flaw in the position that nothing can be uncaused, and
if something can be uncaused, you haven't really shown that it
ought to be called god rather than the big bang, but let's not
quibble.
PANTHEIST: God, you see is everything that is.
ATHEIST: Well, if that is what your god is, just another name
for what we call the Universe, then why not?
--
Rev. Lars Eighner ULC Atheist #1965 http://www.larseighner.com/
Why be born again, when you can just grow up?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Holbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
29 May 2005 10:47:44 AM |
|
|
Lars Eighner wrote:
Well, it always comes down to what is meant by god(s).
Yes, but the traditional monotheistic conception of God is well-known
to all of us, isn't it?!
Regards
PH
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
29 May 2005 06:55:10 PM |
|
|
In <1117381664.008603.84730@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, on 05/29/05
at 08:47 AM, "Paul Holbach" <paulholbachSPAMBAN@freenet.de> said:
Lars Eighner wrote:
Well, it always comes down to what is meant by god(s).
Yes, but the traditional monotheistic conception of God is well-known to
all of us, isn't it?!
If it was, then theists atheists would not be having these disc ussions. Theists would not be able to move the goal posts as much, or as fast.
BTW, the definitions I have heard for the capital G god, they ,make no sense so I am uncertain what a bleater means when they mewl/whimper it.
Regards
PH
walksalone who has watched three xians come up with over 5 definitions for their god, all diffferent, you want me to think I know what they mean when they use the word?
--
I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time.
Friedrich Nietzsche, philosopher (1844-1900
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
29 May 2005 02:10:24 PM |
|
|
Paul Holbach wrote:
Lars Eighner wrote:
Well, it always comes down to what is meant by god(s).
Yes, but the traditional monotheistic conception of God is well-known
to all of us, isn't it?!
Some Christians, all Jews and all of Islam worship a single god. Both
explicitly deny the divinity of a Jesus Christ. Islam says he was just
another prophet.
Most of Christianity worships a trinity of gods which they claim is a 3 in
1 deal.
Exactly what is meant by this trinity and when the separate members of it
came into being is also a subject of debate within this group.
Lots of people have been killed as a result of these questions.
So, *a* traditional concept is not well known to all of us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Holbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
29 May 2005 03:40:37 PM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
Paul Holbach wrote:
The traditional monotheistic conception of God is well-known
to all of us, isn't it?!
Some Christians, all Jews and all of Islam worship a
single god. Both
explicitly deny the divinity of a Jesus Christ. Islam
says he was just
another prophet.
Most of Christianity worships a trinity of gods
which they claim is a 3 in
1 deal.
You're right, inasmuch as there are indeed some theological differences
within monotheism, with the issue of Christian trinitarianism vs.
Islamic non-trinitarianism not being irrelevant. This fact
notwithstanding, there is a traditional orthodox core conception of
God, which is shared by all three monotheistic world religions.
(See eg: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm)
Regards
PH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
29 May 2005 04:31:04 PM |
|
|
Paul Holbach wrote:
Mike Painter wrote:
Paul Holbach wrote:
The traditional monotheistic conception of God is well-known
to all of us, isn't it?!
Some Christians, all Jews and all of Islam worship a
single god. Both
explicitly deny the divinity of a Jesus Christ. Islam
says he was just
another prophet.
Most of Christianity worships a trinity of gods
which they claim is a 3 in
1 deal.
You're right, inasmuch as there are indeed some theological
differences within monotheism, with the issue of Christian
trinitarianism vs. Islamic non-trinitarianism not being irrelevant.
This fact notwithstanding, there is a traditional orthodox core
conception of God, which is shared by all three monotheistic world
religions. (See eg: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm)
The Jew and Muslim say there is One god. The RCC says that you *must*
believe in three separate gods who are one god. It is heresy and automatic
excommunication to say other wise. The Newadvent cite does not even address
this fundamental difference in theology but it is stated quite clearly in
the RCC catechism and denied by others. These are not "some theological
differences", they are major differences.
253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three
persons, the "consubstantial Trinity". The divine persons do not share the
one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The
Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the
Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."
In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is
that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
29 May 2005 07:04:54 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:swqme.161$wy1.156@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
Paul Holbach wrote:
Mike Painter wrote:
Paul Holbach wrote:
The traditional monotheistic conception of God is well-known
to all of us, isn't it?!
Some Christians, all Jews and all of Islam worship a
single god. Both
explicitly deny the divinity of a Jesus Christ. Islam
says he was just
another prophet.
Most of Christianity worships a trinity of gods
which they claim is a 3 in
1 deal.
You're right, inasmuch as there are indeed some theological
differences within monotheism, with the issue of Christian
trinitarianism vs. Islamic non-trinitarianism not being irrelevant.
This fact notwithstanding, there is a traditional orthodox core
conception of God, which is shared by all three monotheistic world
religions. (See eg: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm)
The Jew and Muslim say there is One god. The RCC says that you *must*
believe in three separate gods who are one god. It is heresy and
automatic excommunication to say other wise. The Newadvent cite does
not even address this fundamental difference in theology but it is
stated quite clearly in the RCC catechism and denied by others. These
are not "some theological differences", they are major differences.
253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in
three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity". The divine persons do not
share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole
and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which
the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is,
i.e. by nature one God." In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council
(1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine
substance, essence or nature."
They say there is one god but they believe in at least two. i.e Trinity +
satan or allah + satan (many individuals believe in other gods as well even
though it would be heretical in their sect to admit it). The fact that they
worship one god or a trinity does not make them monotheistic. The number of
gods believed in is what counts. It's like an ancient greek who worshipped
only athena but nevertheless believed in the other gods. I would not say
that person was a montheist. The official position of these religions of
course is that satan is not a god but that is just doubletalk.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Holbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
30 May 2005 12:42:10 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
They say there is one god but they believe in at least
two. i.e Trinity + satan.
No, they don't consider Satan god-like:
"God did not create a God of Evil, he did not set a countergod beside
himself." (Pope Benedict XVI.)
Regards
PH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
30 May 2005 06:29:31 PM |
|
|
"Paul Holbach" <paulholbachSPAMBAN@freenet.de> wrote in
news:1117474930.443759.253770@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
They say there is one god but they believe in at least
two. i.e Trinity + satan.
No, they don't consider Satan god-like:
"God did not create a God of Evil, he did not set a countergod beside
himself." (Pope Benedict XVI.)
Thats just weasel words. Satan is a god in the same way that thor, wotan,
athena and ghost etc are gods. Saying otherwise only makes sense inside
the particular religion making such a claim i.e using the word 'god' as a
proper name rather than a term for a supernatural being.
Klazmon.
Regards
PH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Holbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
30 May 2005 06:58:12 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Satan is a god in the same way that thor, wotan,
athena and ghost etc are gods. Saying
otherwise only makes sense inside
the particular religion making such a claim i.e
using the word 'god' as a
proper name rather than a term for a supernatural being.
We were talking about the three monotheistic world religions, weren't
we?!
Within those there is exactly one god: the god = God.
Regards
PH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
30 May 2005 08:18:10 PM |
|
|
"Paul Holbach" <paulholbachSPAMBAN@freenet.de> wrote in
news:1117497492.447787.305180@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Satan is a god in the same way that thor, wotan,
athena and ghost etc are gods. Saying
otherwise only makes sense inside
the particular religion making such a claim i.e
using the word 'god' as a
proper name rather than a term for a supernatural being.
We were talking about the three monotheistic world religions, weren't
we?!
Not in isolation.
Within those there is exactly one god: the god = God.
In other words they are using god as a proper name (assuming that these
three religions are actually talking about the same thing - some of the
sects of these religions dispute this assertion you are making).
Klazmon.
Regards
PH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Holbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
30 May 2005 09:41:54 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"Paul Holbach" <paulholbachSPAMBAN@freenet.de> wrote:
Within monotheism there is exactly one god: the god = God.
In other words they are using god as a proper name.
Yes, there is the proper noun "God", which purports to refer to exactly
one unique deity, and the common noun "god", which could be predicated
of infinitely many deities.
Regards
PH
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
31 May 2005 07:44:57 AM |
|
|
On 30 May 2005 19:41:54 -0700, "Paul Holbach"
<paulholbachSPAMBAN@freenet.de> wrote:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"Paul Holbach" <paulholbachSPAMBAN@freenet.de> wrote:
Within monotheism there is exactly one god: the god = God.
In other words they are using god as a proper name.
Yes, there is the proper noun "God", which purports to refer to exactly
one unique deity,
There is a god called "God" who inspired one book and no others and
who is indivisible and non-physical. There is a god called "God" who
inspired two books and no others and who is 3 persons in one, one of
which is both physical and non-physical. There is a god called "God"
who inspired three books and no others who is indivisible and
non-physical. The above does not include all the possibilities
(Mormons for example), but, even though they all three have the same
proper name, they cannot possibly be the same being.
and the common noun "god", which could be predicated
of infinitely many deities.
Regards
PH
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
