Religions > Atheism > Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon,argues ad ignorantiam AGAIN!
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Virgil" |
| Date: |
20 Nov 2004 09:46:00 PM |
| Object: |
Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon,argues ad ignorantiam AGAIN! |
In article <LaTnd.75252$5K2.8684@attbi_s03>, X <x@nospam.net> wrote:
You used a lot of words just to say "things do not need a cause" and
"god's are not needed".
False. I used a lot of words to point out the SPECIAL PLEADING, as
Russell points out, that the very idea of God, the hypothetical first
cause, has a logically fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in it,
so there cannot be such a thing.
Wrong! Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon,uses lots of word to hide the
fact that Russell never points out any such thing.
And does Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, assert that special
pleading for a thing can make it impossible?
In all the logic works that I have seen, special pleading for a thing
fails to prove that thing true, but it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam
to claim that failure to prove true proves false.
So Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon,argues ad ignorantiam AGAIN!
.
|
|
| User: "xeno" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon,argues ad ignorantiam AGAIN! |
21 Nov 2004 12:07:41 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, Virgil wrote:
You used a lot of words just to say "things do not need a cause" and
"god's are not needed".
False. I used a lot of words to point out the SPECIAL PLEADING, as
Russell points out, that the very idea of God, the hypothetical first
cause, has a logically fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in it,
so there cannot be such a thing.
Wrong! Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon,uses lots of word to hide the
fact that Russell never points out any such thing.
Forget about Russell, you clown. We don't need to appeal to authority to
point out that assertions about God needing this & wanting that are pure
speculations about a thing nobody has any evidence for. If you think
otherwise, then provide that evidence.
And does Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, assert that special
pleading for a thing can make it impossible?
Show that God is an actuality, not just a mere wish that misguided boobs
have a death grip on.
In all the logic works that I have seen, special pleading for a thing
fails to prove that thing true, but it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam
to claim that failure to prove true proves false.
But it's not an argument from ignorance to say that there is no evident
God. The only way you can dispute that is to provide the evidence to the
contrary. Rots of Ruck.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon,argues ad ignorantiam AGAIN! |
21 Nov 2004 01:38:41 AM |
|
|
In article <20041120214558.J12060@synergy.transbay.net>,
xeno <xeno@transbay.net> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, Virgil wrote:
You used a lot of words just to say "things do not need a cause" and
"god's are not needed".
False. I used a lot of words to point out the SPECIAL PLEADING, as
Russell points out, that the very idea of God, the hypothetical first
cause, has a logically fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in it,
so there cannot be such a thing.
Wrong! Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon,uses lots of word to hide the
fact that Russell never points out any such thing.
Forget about Russell, you clown. We don't need to appeal to authority to
point out that assertions about God needing this & wanting that are pure
speculations about a thing nobody has any evidence for. If you think
otherwise, then provide that evidence.
And does Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, assert that special
pleading for a thing can make it impossible?
Show that God is an actuality, not just a mere wish that misguided boobs
have a death grip on.
In all the logic works that I have seen, special pleading for a thing
fails to prove that thing true, but it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam
to claim that failure to prove true proves false.
But it's not an argument from ignorance to say that there is no evident
God. The only way you can dispute that is to provide the evidence to the
contrary. Rots of Ruck.
The point is that I have never claimed that there actually is a god,
despite all of Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon's assertions. All I
point out is that, though there seems to me no good reason for assuming
that there are any gods, there is equally no good reason to decalre that
we can be absolutely certain that there aren't any, either.
And, at least to me, those that claim certainty in either direction are
as misguided as those proclaiming it in the opposite direction. I find
no virtue in claims of certainty in the absence of strong suppporting
evidence, which is the irresponsible position of both extremes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon,argues ad ignorantiam AGAIN! |
21 Nov 2004 10:11:54 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <20041120214558.J12060@synergy.transbay.net>,
xeno <xeno@transbay.net> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, Virgil wrote:
You used a lot of words just to say "things do not need a cause" and
"god's are not needed".
False. I used a lot of words to point out the SPECIAL PLEADING, as
Russell points out, that the very idea of God, the hypothetical first
cause, has a logically fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in
it, so there cannot be such a thing.
Wrong! Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon,uses lots of word to hide the
fact that Russell never points out any such thing.
Forget about Russell, you clown. We don't need to appeal to authority to
point out that assertions about God needing this & wanting that are pure
speculations about a thing nobody has any evidence for. If you think
otherwise, then provide that evidence.
And does Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, assert that special
pleading for a thing can make it impossible?
Show that God is an actuality, not just a mere wish that misguided boobs
have a death grip on.
In all the logic works that I have seen, special pleading for a thing
fails to prove that thing true, but it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam
to claim that failure to prove true proves false.
But it's not an argument from ignorance to say that there is no evident
God. The only way you can dispute that is to provide the evidence to the
contrary. Rots of Ruck.
The point is that I have never claimed that there actually is a god,
But you claimed there is no proof god does not exist though there is.
Having denied that, yoiu have been running ever since from the very proof I
ram up your snout almost weekly.
God disproved.
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.
9. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.
10. It should be noted, theologians have stated god himself
may not do evil, but that this does not mean god is not
omnipotent, because it is god's nature to be good.
Thus they do not account this inability to do evil
as limiting god's free will either. Thus the idea of
man being unable to do evil should likewise not be
allowed as an argument, if they refuse to apply the
same standards and reasoning to god, that would be
special pleading.
11. Free will in man is insisted upon as a dodge by
theology the absolve god of the charge of allowing
evil,evil is necessary to allow for free will,
but that dodge is not acceptale in a world where
man explicitly has free will and a nature where doing
moral evil is impossible. It can't be used here.
12. God is said to be the most pwerful thing that can
be imagined,the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make teh 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.
13. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these are all
thus falsified.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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 Uinverse tht contained evil only because
he chose to crteate a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.
17. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 250 BCE. god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. he either camnnot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent.
18. 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.
19. Thus not only is god as so defined 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.
20. Being failed, attempts to patch up the problems
pointed out here cannot be allowed to continue
using a failed methodology, making empty assertions,
special pleading, double standards and failing to
adequately test assertions rigorously, accepting
assertions not proven one way or another and in
the final anaylsis, often avoiding reason all
together with rhetorical questions "How can limited
man hope to understand an infinte god?". These
sorts of statments are simply indications that the
person in question is not going to be rational or
reasonable or change his or her mind faced with
facts.
21. By doing so, one loses the argument and all
expectations of respect for one's claims, that
person has abandoned reason and intellectual
honesty for obscurantism and superstition.
22. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?
23. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws ofthe Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycsm chemisty, astronomy and other
sciences.
24. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for dissembodied 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.
25. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
Much less the Grand God of theological tradition.
26. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing so, since
as demonstrated above, that is a failure as a
methodology.
27. At early times, man had no notion of a supernatural
versus a natural worl, but as the idea of a natural
world has evolved, the idea of a supernatual world
has faded away. All is seen to be a natural world
of matter, energy, physics, no sign of supernatural
worlds or entities can be found.
28. All claims thus based on the idea a supernatural
world or entities might exist are unproven, and
it is the burden of anyone making such a claim
to prove such a thing does in fact exist, before
attempting to use claims of the existance of a
supernatural realm as a theoretical bassis for
existance of god. And by prove, I mean to produce
good, hard evidencefor such a supernatural world,
not assertions that may or may not be true.
This is the failed theological methodology and is
no longer acceptable.
24. There is a difference between making theoretical
claims a god may exist, and actually showing hard
evidence a god exists. Claiming god exists based
on deeper unproven assertions, existance of a
supernatural world, is not acceptable as evidence.
One may not stack up mere assertions and claim it
is hard evidence. Arranging assertions in a manner
that proof or disproof is impossible because it
involves a general disproof of a negative is not
acceptable as a methodology for providing hard
evidence of a god.
25. Since to save god's omni-benevolence, one must
admit that god did not create the rules and laws
and logic of the Universe, we know that these things
are beyond and outside god. But theology cannot
tell us we what these things are,and where they come
from. Since these things must limit god, failure to
be able to tell us anything about these laws and rules
in the setting of theological claims about god, this
means until theology handles this honestly and
adequately, theology cannot tell us anything about
god, even theoretically.
26. Theology must do this if it is to make further
claims about god in an attempt to save the concept
of god by making further assertions or claims.
One cannot describe god apart from a world in which
god must operate and exist with existing features
preceeding and outside and limiting or constraining
any possible god.
27. Possible alternative gods.
A believer might criticize this as it does not
disprove all types of gods, but, as this does
disprovethe dogmatic god of major religous systems,
that claim does not saves this god. And indeed it
is possible to disprove other god concepts.
28. Example, older Roman and Greek religions and
numerous other older polytheistic ancient religions
were basically built on the idea of nature gods,
that these gods are responsible for features
of the world, for rainfall, fertility of wives,
cattle and fields, for important activities like
growing wheat. But today, science explains these
things without any signs of a god or any other
supernatural entities or phenomenon being found,
and technology has solved many of the problems
that prompted creation of such gods that were
created in hopes offinding some force to propitiate
to assure success in agriculture, producing offspring
and avoiding or curing sickness and ill health.
These gods are thus failed and disprovable and
were so disproven and abandoned by most mankind
some 2000 years ago.
29. Other basic ideas about gods were explored long
ago by Greek thinkers and the basic claims are
similar to the Judeo-Christian theological god
and suceptible to similar disconfirmations.
stoic and neo-Platonist thinkers long wrestled
with these problems. Epicurus noted the problem
of evil long before Christianity. Stoics tried
to explain things by positing all is matter but
souls and gods and such are made of a finer grade
of matter. Which ideas are based on unproven claims
of doubtful nature and are thus disprovable.
These systems also created impossible contradictions,
argumenst about pre-destination vs free will that
were never solved when Christianiy overtook them
and left these arguments unresolved, as these
religions faded away.
30. Other arguments, an imminent god versus a
transcedent god, god beyond and outside of time,
a world that does not exist outside the mind of god
and other variations and kinds of gods introduce
a rich soure of further debunkable claims.
31. Example: a god outside of time sees the world
differently from us as a one big now without actual
past nor future. Thus god see the future and can
know the future with exactitude. But such a god
that interacts with the world is part of it, at
such a point that he so acts, the world and god
are frozen in the big now of the Universe, god
thus is frozen embedded in the Universe and thus
like us, has no free will. All is determined
strongly and already is. Since theology demands
god has free will dogmatically, this god out of time
claim must be false.
32. Finally, any empty assertion, unproven, is only that,
unproven. Many claims made for god are just that.
Merely pointing this out when appropriate is the
equivalent of showing that claim is not acceptable
because if is not backed by hard evidence it is true.
Gods based on mere assertions and related concepts
based on mere assertions cannot be said to be true
and are disproven by pointing out they are based
solely on unproven or unprovable or unlikely
assertions.
End
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon,argues ad ignorantiam AGAIN! |
22 Nov 2004 09:03:23 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:11:54 -0500, wbarwell
<wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <20041120214558.J12060@synergy.transbay.net>,
xeno <xeno@transbay.net> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, Virgil wrote:
You used a lot of words just to say "things do not need a cause" and
"god's are not needed".
False. I used a lot of words to point out the SPECIAL PLEADING, as
Russell points out, that the very idea of God, the hypothetical first
cause, has a logically fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in
it, so there cannot be such a thing.
Wrong! Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon,uses lots of word to hide the
fact that Russell never points out any such thing.
Forget about Russell, you clown. We don't need to appeal to authority to
point out that assertions about God needing this & wanting that are pure
speculations about a thing nobody has any evidence for. If you think
otherwise, then provide that evidence.
And does Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, assert that special
pleading for a thing can make it impossible?
Show that God is an actuality, not just a mere wish that misguided boobs
have a death grip on.
In all the logic works that I have seen, special pleading for a thing
fails to prove that thing true, but it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam
to claim that failure to prove true proves false.
But it's not an argument from ignorance to say that there is no evident
God. The only way you can dispute that is to provide the evidence to the
contrary. Rots of Ruck.
The point is that I have never claimed that there actually is a god,
But you claimed there is no proof god does not exist though there is.
Having denied that, yoiu have been running ever since from the very proof I
ram up your snout almost weekly.
God disproved.
1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
We are the ones who defined a Triange as an object
with three sides. Whatever TCG creates we will still call it
"triangle" if it has three sides, Similarly we define a circle
but then we have exceptions even to that rule!
A boxing ring is square!
Nice try. Next!
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon,argues ad ignorantiam AGAIN! |
22 Nov 2004 11:00:56 AM |
|
|
Les Hellawell wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:11:54 -0500, wbarwell
<wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <20041120214558.J12060@synergy.transbay.net>,
xeno <xeno@transbay.net> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, Virgil wrote:
You used a lot of words just to say "things do not need a cause"
and
"god's are not needed".
False. I used a lot of words to point out the SPECIAL PLEADING, as
Russell points out, that the very idea of God, the hypothetical
first cause, has a logically fatal problem (special pleading)
inherent in it, so there cannot be such a thing.
Wrong! Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon,uses lots of word to hide
the fact that Russell never points out any such thing.
Forget about Russell, you clown. We don't need to appeal to authority
to point out that assertions about God needing this & wanting that are
pure speculations about a thing nobody has any evidence for. If you
think otherwise, then provide that evidence.
And does Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, assert that special
pleading for a thing can make it impossible?
Show that God is an actuality, not just a mere wish that misguided
boobs have a death grip on.
In all the logic works that I have seen, special pleading for a thing
fails to prove that thing true, but it is an argumentum ad
ignorantiam to claim that failure to prove true proves false.
But it's not an argument from ignorance to say that there is no evident
God. The only way you can dispute that is to provide the evidence to
the contrary. Rots of Ruck.
The point is that I have never claimed that there actually is a god,
But you claimed there is no proof god does not exist though there is.
Having denied that, yoiu have been running ever since from the very proof
I ram up your snout almost weekly.
God disproved.
1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
We are the ones who defined a Triange as an object
with three sides. Whatever TCG creates we will still call it
"triangle" if it has three sides, Similarly we define a circle
but then we have exceptions even to that rule!
Errr, no, we didn't creat triangles by defining them,
we notice them and we give them names and name
their parts, three sides, three vertexes. We define
degree and notice that a triangle has 180 degrees
total in all three angles.
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
