| 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: "Alfred" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
27 May 2005 07:43:57 PM |
|
|
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in message
news:zQOle.1168$wJ6.1089@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd9ev7l.vvl.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
The notion that there's a God that designed us and yet he for
some stupid reason decided to build this mind-boggling huge
universe and only put us on one itty bitty infinitessimally
tiny part of it is even more preposterous. Given the massive
size of the universe, the notion that we are special and designed
by an omnipotent being is utterly preposterous. If God made us
and attaches special meaning to us, what the hell is the rest of
the universe even THERE for?
You remember what the 'Wholly Babble' says about the 'creation' of the
rest
of the universe...?
I do!
It says: "And [Gob] made the stars also".
Seriously. *Five sodding words*, presenting the 'creation' of a billion
galaxies as *some kind of fucking afterthought*...!
How's that for a *bloody serious under-estimation*, eh...?
*Sheeesh*...!! Who the ***** *are* these idiots...?
Katt.
You have very poor nettiquette.
There is no proof there is no god anymore than there is any proof that there
is a god. Either one would destroy faith, which relies on belief without
evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
27 May 2005 07:54:20 PM |
|
|
"Alfred" <dot@dot.com> wrote in message
news:h9Ple.3787$rf4.729@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in message
news:zQOle.1168$wJ6.1089@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd9ev7l.vvl.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
The notion that there's a God that designed us and yet he for
some stupid reason decided to build this mind-boggling huge
universe and only put us on one itty bitty infinitessimally
tiny part of it is even more preposterous. Given the massive
size of the universe, the notion that we are special and designed
by an omnipotent being is utterly preposterous. If God made us
and attaches special meaning to us, what the hell is the rest of
the universe even THERE for?
You remember what the 'Wholly Babble' says about the 'creation' of the
rest
of the universe...?
I do!
It says: "And [Gob] made the stars also".
Seriously. *Five sodding words*, presenting the 'creation' of a billion
galaxies as *some kind of fucking afterthought*...!
How's that for a *bloody serious under-estimation*, eh...?
*Sheeesh*...!! Who the ***** *are* these idiots...?
Katt.
You have very poor nettiquette.
There is no proof there is no god anymore than there is any proof that
there
is a god. Either one would destroy faith, which relies on belief without
evidence.
Look, Alfred: no-one gives a ***** about what you think, or about how you lie
about it afterwards when someone calls you on it. No-one cares.
No-one. At all. Cares.
Really.
So just go and *kill yourself*, all right? Preferably in a really
entertaining and vividly splattery manner.
'Cos otherwise, no-one is even gonna fucking *notice you*...
Okay?
Thanks!
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alfred" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
27 May 2005 08:37:51 PM |
|
|
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in message
news:0jPle.1176$wJ6.988@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
"Alfred" <dot@dot.com> wrote in message
news:h9Ple.3787$rf4.729@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in message
news:zQOle.1168$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.
Look, Alfred: no-one gives a ***** about what you think, or about how you
lie
about it afterwards when someone calls you on it. No-one cares.
I do not know how simple I can make this for you. But I will say again, I
have NEVER said I believe in God, I have also NEVER said I do not believe in
god. Check my past posts.
No-one. At all. Cares.
Really.
So just go and *kill yourself*, all right? Preferably in a really
entertaining and vividly splattery manner.
'Cos otherwise, no-one is even gonna fucking *notice you*...
Nettiquette!! And it really bad form to get personal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
27 May 2005 08:39:17 PM |
|
|
"Alfred" <dot@dot.com> wrote in message
news:PXPle.1630$Mi4.808@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
I do not know how simple I can make this for you. But I will say again, I
have NEVER said I believe in God, I have also NEVER said I do not believe
in
god. Check my past posts.
Look, Alfred: no-one gives a ***** about what you think, or about how you lie
about it afterwards when someone calls you on it. No-one cares.
No-one. At all. Cares.
Really.
So just go and *kill yourself*, all right? Preferably in a really
entertaining and vividly splattery manner.
'Cos otherwise, no-one is even gonna fucking *notice you*...
Okay?
Thanks!
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "D-word" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
27 May 2005 09:01:39 PM |
|
|
Katt wrote:
"Alfred" <dot@dot.com> wrote in message
news:PXPle.1630$Mi4.808@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
I do not know how simple I can make this for you. But I will say again, I
have NEVER said I believe in God, I have also NEVER said I do not believe
in
god. Check my past posts.
Look, Alfred: no-one gives a ***** about what you think, or about how you lie
about it afterwards when someone calls you on it. No-one cares.
No-one. At all. Cares.
"No one" is two words. I know, it's tricky. At least you avoided the
"noone" trap.
Really.
Yes.
So just go and *kill yourself*, all right? Preferably in a really
entertaining and vividly splattery manner.
'Cos otherwise, no-one is even gonna fucking *notice you*...
You did.
Okay?
Thanks!
Katt.
Is Katt female -- or androgenous?
.
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 04:33:20 PM |
|
|
On 27 May 2005 19:01:39 -0700, "D-word" <yank_ees_suck@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Katt wrote:
"Alfred" <dot@dot.com> wrote in message
news:PXPle.1630$Mi4.808@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
I do not know how simple I can make this for you. But I will say again, I
have NEVER said I believe in God, I have also NEVER said I do not believe
in
god. Check my past posts.
Look, Alfred: no-one gives a ***** about what you think, or about how you lie
about it afterwards when someone calls you on it. No-one cares.
No-one. At all. Cares.
"No one" is two words. I know, it's tricky. At least you avoided the
"noone" trap.
None cares, none at all.
none (nùn) pronoun
1. No one; not one; nobody: None dared to do it.
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further
reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of
the United States. All rights reserved.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barry Trotter" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 04:47:52 AM |
|
|
In the great debate about "Re: Is there any proof that there is no
God?" in alt.atheism, "Alfred" <dot@dot.com> catapaulted the following
boulder:
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in message
news:0jPle.1176$wJ6.988@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
"Alfred" <dot@dot.com> wrote in message
news:h9Ple.3787$rf4.729@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in message
news:zQOle.1168$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.
Look, Alfred: no-one gives a ***** about what you think, or about how you
lie
about it afterwards when someone calls you on it. No-one cares.
I do not know how simple I can make this for you. But I will say again, I
have NEVER said I believe in God, I have also NEVER said I do not believe in
god. Check my past posts.
So why are you bothering to post at all?
No-one. At all. Cares.
Really.
So just go and *kill yourself*, all right? Preferably in a really
entertaining and vividly splattery manner.
'Cos otherwise, no-one is even gonna fucking *notice you*...
Nettiquette!! And it really bad form to get personal.
It's even poorer netiquette to be a troll.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alfred" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 05:13:03 AM |
|
|
"Barry Trotter" <trotb02@hogwash.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8dfg91hopivehi7mcovu3i0kcd04j29rin@4ax.com...
In the great debate about "Re: Is there any proof that there is no
God?" in alt.atheism, "Alfred" <dot@dot.com> catapaulted the following
boulder:
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in message
news:0jPle.1176$wJ6.988@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
"Alfred" <dot@dot.com> wrote in message
news:h9Ple.3787$rf4.729@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"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.
Look, Alfred: no-one gives a ***** about what you think, or about how
you
lie
about it afterwards when someone calls you on it. No-one cares.
I do not know how simple I can make this for you. But I will say again,
I
have NEVER said I believe in God, I have also NEVER said I do not believe
in
god. Check my past posts.
So why are you bothering to post at all?
No-one. At all. Cares.
Really.
So just go and *kill yourself*, all right? Preferably in a really
entertaining and vividly splattery manner.
'Cos otherwise, no-one is even gonna fucking *notice you*...
Nettiquette!! And it really bad form to get personal.
It's even poorer netiquette to be a troll.
Who's being a troll?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 07:02:30 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 May 2005 00:54:20 GMT, "Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote:
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.
Look, Alfred: no-one gives a ***** about what you think, or about how you lie
about it afterwards when someone calls you on it. No-one cares.
No-one. At all. Cares.
Really.
At least you could try to get the story straight before you embarrass yourself.
So just go and *kill yourself*, all right? Preferably in a really
entertaining and vividly splattery manner.
'Cos otherwise, no-one is even gonna fucking *notice you*...
Okay?
Thanks!
Katt.
Guess you don't know this is a discussion group.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
29 May 2005 03:56:13 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 May 2005 07:02:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2005 00:54:20 GMT, "Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote:
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.
Look, Alfred: no-one gives a ***** about what you think, or about how you lie
about it afterwards when someone calls you on it. No-one cares.
No-one. At all. Cares.
Really.
At least you could try to get the story straight before you embarrass yourself.
Don't worry, your record is in no danger.
So just go and *kill yourself*, all right? Preferably in a really
entertaining and vividly splattery manner.
'Cos otherwise, no-one is even gonna fucking *notice you*...
Okay?
Thanks!
Katt.
Guess you don't know this is a discussion group.
Yea. OUR discussion group.
--
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 04:30:16 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 May 2005 20:56:13 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
At least you could try to get the story straight before you embarrass yourself.
Don't worry, your record is in no danger.
That's right - rock solid - no retraction. You atheists are really so easy.
So just go and *kill yourself*, all right? Preferably in a really
entertaining and vividly splattery manner.
'Cos otherwise, no-one is even gonna fucking *notice you*...
Okay?
Thanks!
Katt.
Guess you don't know this is a discussion group.
Yea. OUR discussion group.
So you prefer to languish in ignorance rather than learn the truth?
Besides, it isn't "YOUR" discussion group.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 08:43:41 AM |
|
|
"Alfred" <dot@dot.com> wrote in message
news:h9Ple.3787$rf4.729@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"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.
Piece of ***** if you're dealing with someone who believes the bible is
literal. Course they'll just think you're satan there to trick them
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 10:08:40 AM |
|
|
Alfred wrote:
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.
******************************************************
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: "Alfred" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 07:53:05 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:119h1rhlo8qc9a9@corp.supernews.com...
Alfred wrote:
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.
******************************************************
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
Agreed
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.
Agreed
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.
Agreed
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.
No argument there.
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.
Agreed
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.
Agreed
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.
By whose definition is Smith evil? Yours or Gods? And whose morality
determines good and evil in your reasoing?
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.
By this reasoning, God made you an atheist.
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.
If god writes the script, then actual definitions of good and evil are his
alone.
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.
Who is to say he did not, see above.
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.
In our opinion only, not necessarily god's
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.
This 'proof' for the non-existance of god, is not based on evidence but on
assmption and opinion.
16. If such a god existed, free will cannot exist.
It says somewhre in the bible that god created man with freewill. The
previous statement assumes that the bible is true. And like your arguement
is based on a fallacious assumption. Somewhere, in this newsgroup, Katt
highlights the contradictions to be found in the bible. The creation myth is
an example of the bible being just plain wrong.
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.
So god has a warped sense of humour.
(End)
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
29 May 2005 10:06:40 PM |
|
|
Alfred wrote:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:119h1rhlo8qc9a9@corp.supernews.com...
Alfred wrote:
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.
******************************************************
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
Agreed
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.
Agreed
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.
Agreed
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.
No argument there.
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.
Agreed
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.
Agreed
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.
By whose definition is Smith evil? Yours or Gods? And whose morality
determines good and evil in your reasoing?
Obviously god does. If Smith is to be evil, god knows
that, allows that and personally and knowingly allows
evil to exist. Now, since all acts of ours are known and allowe or
disallowed by god tobthe minutest possible physical level, all the time,
and each littke fleeting subconcious flicker of a thought,
free will in nobway can exist.
So free will is no copout for god.
Only god decides these things. All of it.
Now, supposedly god punishes the evil.
But if there is no evil, god would not punish the evil.
But all the religous books that give you this bad idea
there is a god also tell us that evil exists and is punished.
This makes these books stupid.
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.
By this reasoning, God made you an atheist.
No *****, Sherlock! Now, go read Romans 11:3-11.
Why do the Jews reject Jesus. Because God has hardened
their hearts to do so!
God does bnot value free will.
See Romans 8 and 9. All is predetermined, who is damned
and who is elect.
The Quran repeatedly says Atheists and unbelievers exist
because god so willed them to not believe.
God hardens hearts left and right in the OT, including Pharoah
and the Cannanites who try to make peace with the invading Israelies.
See Joshua 11:20
There is no free will in the Bible.
Romans 8 - 9 shows us Paul realized a god that is
omniscient and creator of all would have to
preordain all that happens.
After all, Stoics philosphers hotly debated the
nature of fate and determinsm two centuries up
to the time of Christ.
This isn't totally new.
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.
If god writes the script, then actual definitions of good and evil are his
alone.
And the problem is, all these religous books telling us
what evil is and isn't
What you are saying is, ignoring these books, is
if there is evil, god decides what is evil. But if so,
either what god creates is evil he has defined, or no
evil has ever been done since god creates no evil.
So why whine about abortion, or mass murder, or genocide,
or anything at all.
After all, if it exists, god created it and god never
creates anything evil.
Still thd problem is you have now agreed free will does
not exist, so all evil is still god's.
But there is another problem.
Does god make the rules, the laws, the logic of the
Universe? If so, god could make man with free will
and man who freely chooses only to do good.
If he can and does not, evil exists because he allows it,
he is the creator and sustaining cause of all evil.
So no. If not, where does these rules and laws
and logic and reality of the Universe come from?
The must be outside and beyond him and thus
he cannot have created them.
So he cannot have created the Universe as claimed.
And evil and good are not something he gets to
decide. Because they are part and parcel of that
Universe, its laws, rules, logic and reality.
If god is creator of all, omniscient, No free will
can exist. If free will exists, you have god creating
evil, or nothing god creates is evil, including the holocaust.
If you try to state god makes the rules and laws and logic
of the Universe we are right back to evil. If we deny he does,
he is not creator of all as first proclaimed, and thus obviously
not as claimed omnipotent.
We have a series of interconnected claims and dodges that
in a paper, rock, scissors manner mutully self destroy
each other.
The idea that god creates nothing evil, and that all
these things we see, genocide and mass murder are not evil
as god defines these things as good as they exist, so he
may allow them to exist is just monstrous and insane.
This is moral relativism to extremes to prop up a doubtful
claim about a doubtful entity called god that goes against all major
theological traditions and books.
And giving that up, you still haven't saved god.
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.
Who is to say he did not, see above.
Because we see moral evil.
If you are going to tell me, that whatever god allows is good,
and that thus, savage rapes, mass murder, torturing children,
genocide, and other atrociities are good because men do them
and god does not allow men to do morally evil things, you have
just lost the debate.
We start with a bad idea, god, given to us by the bible
and end up with you telling us that this god who repeatedly
denounces sin and evil now allows all these evils?
Think not.
Antony Flew once wrote of the religous claim that dies
the slow death of 1000 qualifications.
I think here we have a good example of that.
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.
In our opinion only, not necessarily god's
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.
This 'proof' for the non-existance of god, is not based on evidence but on
assmption and opinion.
16. If such a god existed, free will cannot exist.
It says somewhre in the bible that god created man with freewill. The
previous statement assumes that the bible is true. And like your arguement
is based on a fallacious assumption. Somewhere, in this newsgroup, Katt
highlights the contradictions to be found in the bible. The creation myth
is an example of the bible being just plain wrong.
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.
So god has a warped sense of humour.
(End)
--
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? |
27 May 2005 10:03:00 PM |
|
|
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.
Sounds like someone hasn't been around the atheism NGs enough...
Skeptics have nothing to prove. "There is no proof there is no god" is
argumentum ad ignorantiam and a logical fallacy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Loadnlock" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 08:10:58 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" :
Skeptics have nothing to prove. "There is no proof there is no god" is
argumentum ad ignorantiam and a logical fallacy.
Right.
Careful though, or you will have Virgil stalking you. 8^)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 12:36:38 PM |
|
|
In article <5sidndfrk_p88AXfRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
"Loadnlock" <loadnlock@nospam.com> wrote:
"DanielSan" :
Skeptics have nothing to prove. "There is no proof there is no god" is
argumentum ad ignorantiam and a logical fallacy.
Right.
Careful though, or you will have Virgil stalking you. 8^)
Does either DanielSan or Simple Septic dare to deny that "There is no
proof there is no god" is a statement of fact and is true?
If so they obligate themselves to provide proof of such proof or be
labeled liars.
And arguing, as they do, that a true satement is a fallacy is itself a
fallacy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 12:40:05 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <5sidndfrk_p88AXfRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
"Loadnlock" <loadnlock@nospam.com> wrote:
"DanielSan" :
Skeptics have nothing to prove. "There is no proof there is no god" is
argumentum ad ignorantiam and a logical fallacy.
Right.
Careful though, or you will have Virgil stalking you. 8^)
Does either DanielSan or Simple Septic dare to deny that "There is no
proof there is no god" is a statement of fact and is true?
I do not deny that the statement is factual and true. It is factual and
true. There is no proof that there is no god. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 10:20:35 AM |
|
|
Loadnlock wrote:
"DanielSan" :
Skeptics have nothing to prove. "There is no proof there is no god" is
argumentum ad ignorantiam and a logical fallacy.
Right.
Careful though, or you will have Virgil stalking you. 8^)
Virgil never stalks one who easily beats him like
tied up dog.
He kill files that sort of person and just repeates his
debunked lies ad nauseum.
The most cowardly and dishonest man on the net.
Prove to him god cannot exist and he will killfile
you in a nanosecond.
**************************************************
God disproven #1 Short Version
W.C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************
By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology,
the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the most
powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of
all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having
conciousness, and will. I mean this in the general
overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
2. 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?
3. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.
4. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.
5. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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 false also.
14. 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 tht 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.
15. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the problem of evil
in 250 BCE. If 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
23. 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: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 08:46:51 AM |
|
|
Loadnlock wrote:
"DanielSan" :
Skeptics have nothing to prove. "There is no proof there is no god" is
argumentum ad ignorantiam and a logical fallacy.
Right.
Careful though, or you will have Virgil stalking you. 8^)
I have no gripe with Virgil.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sasha" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 02:02:56 AM |
|
|
Besides, why would we have to prove that there is no God? Wouldn't the
burden of proof be on the individuals who claim the existence of
something?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Black Wibble" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 05:16:52 AM |
|
|
"Sasha" <scironi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117263776.107206.237380@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Besides, why would we have to prove that there is no God? Wouldn't the
burden of proof be on the individuals who claim the existence of
something?
It would. The theist would first have to logically deduce the existence of
the supernatural realm from the natural one before he can even begin to
deduce God's existence. That is a mite impossible because people have no
sensory apparatus for perceiving any other realm separate from the natural
one in which they exist. All knowledge and proof is ultimately derived from
what is perceivable.
As a rational atheist (at least I try to be rational) I ~assert~ God does
not exist by comparing what God is claimed to be and what He is claimed to
have done against want we know is true about the natural world. For example,
uttering stuff like "Let there be Light" "Let there be a dome in the midst
of the waters..." "Let the Earth put forth vegetation...." yadda yadda etc
etc -- can not in fact create light, an atmosphere, nor vegetation. Words
don't have that power. Jesus is said to have walked on water which
contradicts what we know about water, the human body, and the physical laws
under which both operate. Rational atheists have the gamut of knowledge
derived from the perceivable universe on their side. Theists have nothng.
Tony.
--
'Disrespect for the Holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it
ever be, tolerated by the United States."--Condoleeza Rice
"To the extent [My Resolution Regarding Relgious (sic) Intolerance] mentions
the Quran and Islam specifically, that is obviously to respond to those who
believe our nation would tolerate disrespect of that religion or its holy
book. Clearly we should not, at least in my opinion."-- John Conyers Jr;
Democrat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
29 May 2005 09:55:25 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 May 2005 22:16:52 +1200, "The Black Wibble"
<scanner@free.org.nz> wrote:
"Sasha" <scironi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117263776.107206.237380@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Besides, why would we have to prove that there is no God? Wouldn't the
burden of proof be on the individuals who claim the existence of
something?
It would. The theist would first have to logically deduce the existence of
the supernatural realm from the natural one before he can even begin to
deduce God's existence.
Once would first have to have a definition for the g-o-d letter
string. Effectively, the letter string is undefined. What is put
forth as a 'definition;' begs myraid questions, handwaves furiously,
answers nothing, and provides zero information (specifying) and
there's, literally, nothing to look for or examine.
That is a mite impossible because people have no
sensory apparatus for perceiving any other realm separate from the natural
one in which they exist. All knowledge and proof is ultimately derived from
what is perceivable.
As a rational atheist (at least I try to be rational) I ~assert~ God does
not exist by comparing what God is claimed to be and what He is claimed to
have done against want we know is true about the natural world.
The statement can be made and supported. It's also said no
differently than "There is no Santa Claus" and other flights of fancy.
It's all merely something someone else believes.
For example,
uttering stuff like "Let there be Light" "Let there be a dome in the midst
of the waters..." "Let the Earth put forth vegetation...." yadda yadda etc
etc -- can not in fact create light, an atmosphere, nor vegetation. Words
don't have that power. Jesus is said to have walked on water which
contradicts what we know about water, the human body, and the physical laws
under which both operate. Rational atheists have the gamut of knowledge
derived from the perceivable universe on their side. Theists have nothng.
Other than fear.
Tony.
--
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: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
29 May 2005 09:51:12 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 May 2005 03:03:00 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
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.
Sounds like someone hasn't been around the atheism NGs enough...
Skeptics have nothing to prove. "There is no proof there is no god" is
argumentum ad ignorantiam and a logical fallacy.
Superstition hasn't squat to do with logic, reason, coherance, or
anything even remotely connected to the cerebral cortex. Superstition
resides in the reptillian section.
--
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: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 07:22:31 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 May 2005 03:03:00 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
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.
Sounds like someone hasn't been around the atheism NGs enough...
Skeptics have nothing to prove. "There is no proof there is no god" is
argumentum ad ignorantiam and a logical fallacy.
I've no idea why they keep doing this - it's just plain stupid.
Especially when they say it outside their religion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrichs effort" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
28 May 2005 09:41:57 AM |
|
|
Alfred wrote:
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.
Great. Then you understand there's no legitimate reason for atheists
to believe in theistic fairy tales.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "D-word" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
29 May 2005 09:59:37 PM |
|
|
Alfred wrote:
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.
Who needs faith?
Actually, the presence of a proof for the existence of god is at least
a logical possibility. This is not to say that god exists, only that
"proof of existence" is logically possible. The presence of a proof
for non-existence is not logically possible. How can one prove
non-existence?
One proves existence with evidence that something exists. The simplest
proof ever written, "I think therefore I am."
As for faith being "destroyed" by such proof, not only is it nonsense,
it is irrelevant. The concept behind faith is irrational belief. What
purpose would faith have in the face of evidence?
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
31 May 2005 09:29:55 AM |
|
|
On 29 May 2005 19:59:37 -0700, "D-word" <yank_ees_suck@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Alfred wrote:
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.
Who needs faith?
Actually, the presence of a proof for the existence of god is at least
a logical possibility. This is not to say that god exists, only that
"proof of existence" is logically possible. The presence of a proof
for non-existence is not logically possible. How can one prove
non-existence?
One proves existence with evidence that something exists. The simplest
proof ever written, "I think therefore I am."
As for faith being "destroyed" by such proof, not only is it nonsense,
it is irrelevant. The concept behind faith is irrational belief. What
purpose would faith have in the face of evidence?
The reduction of terror to the point where the victim regains some
measure of operational status.
--
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: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there any proof that there is no God? |
31 May 2005 02:56:49 PM |
|
|
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 infinitessim | | |
