| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
06 Jan 2006 11:18:48 AM |
| Object: |
The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
http://web.archive.org/web/20030417144135/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ451.HTM
The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Deo-Atomism ("The Atom-as-God")
Dave Armstrong and Eric Smallwood
Atheists constantly tell us that "the knockout [scientific] proof of
atheism just around the corner." We've heard this grandiose claim for
almost 150 years, about, e.g., (1) the origin of life, (2) the origin
of DNA, (3) all the missing links, and (4) extraterrestrial life. Now
it is asserted that cosmology and the beginning of the universe will be
soon explained comfortably under atheist assumptions, just like all the
other things above have been (???).
Many counter-replies could be given, of course, such as: How did
gravity and quantum mechanics and natural selection come to be in the
first place? They still derive from the Big Bang. How did they evolve?
And what remarkable potentialities were present in the Big Bang itself
to make such a thing occur? What do "most nontheists" believe about how
the universe came to be, and about its seeming "design"?
Well-known cosmologist Stephen Hawking feels "that the beginning of the
universe should be governed by the same laws that held at other times."
Well, he can have this predisposition all he wants, but that is not
science; rather, it is the bias he brings to his science, and a mental
process which has been much written-about by scientific observers /
philosophers of science such as Steven Jay Gould and Thomas Kuhn.
When someone (even a scientist) says that "God caused the Big Bang," I
agree that that is not a scientific statement, but by the same token,
when Hawking and others want to apply uniformitarianism to the Big
Bang, and even "before" it, with no empirical evidence whatever for
such a claim, then they are not doing science either, but rather,
expressing their arbitrary metaphysical preferences. Hawking's god,
then, is uniformitarianism and the potentiality of matter to do
anything and everything with no Ultimate Design superintending it. This
is yet another axiom held in faith. It can't be proven to hold
everywhere and at all times, before and after the Big Bang, etc.
Atheists are currently denying that what they believe about the actions
of matter in a universe without God is "pure chance" or "randomly
colliding atoms," as their earlier forebears might have boldly and
proudly described it. Logical positivism is now decidedly out of
fashion. But this is ultimately only semantics and avoidance of the
relevant philosophical issues. Natural "laws" (themselves metaphysical
abstractions in a large sense, even though they have to do with matter)
still have to attain their remarkable organizing abilities at some
point. One either explains them by natural laws or by humbly bowing to
divine teleology at some point as an explanation every bit as plausible
as a scenario which boils down to materialism any way you cut the cake
(everything is explained by material processes).
Matter becomes god in the atheist/materialist/naturalist view, as far
as I am concerned, and this is patently obvious, because in the godless
universe, matter has the inherent power to do everything by itself,
which Christians believe God caused, by putting these potentialities
and actual characteristics into matter and natural laws, being their
ultimate Creator and even Ongoing Preserver and Sustainer.
Quite obviously, then, since all these marvels which we observe in the
universe are attributed to matter, just as we attribute the same
capacities and designs to God's creative power, from our perspective,
matter is the atheist's god, in which he places extraordinary faith;
more faith even than we place in God, because it is far more difficult
to explain everything that god-matter does by science alone. Yet
atheists manage to believe this anyway because they refuse to
acknowledge a God behind all the Design. Indeed, this is faith of the
most un-rational, childlike kind. It is quite humorous, then, to
observe the constant charge that we Christians have the blind,
childlike, gullible, fideistic faith, rather than "rational,
intellectual, sophisticated" atheists who possess it in far greater
measure.
Such belief is, in effect and in substance, closely-examined, a kind of
poytheistic idolatry of the crudest, most primitive sort, which puts to
shame the pagan worship and incredulities of the ancient Babylonians,
Philistines, Aztecs, and other primitive groups. They believed that
their silver amulets and wooden idols could make the sun shine or
defeat an enemy or cause crops to flourish. The polytheistic
materialist is far, far more religious than that: he thinks that
trillions of his Atom-gods and their distant relatives, the Cell-gods,
can make absolutely everything in the universe occur, of their own
power, possessed eternally either in full or in inevitably-unfolding
potentiality.
One might call this (to coin a phrase) Deo-Atomism ("belief that the
Atom is God"). The omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, ubiquitous (if not
omnipresent) Atom (especially trillions of them) can do absolutely
everything that the Christian God can do, and for little or no reason
which we can understand (i.e., why and how the Atom-God came to possess
such powers in the first place). The Deo-Atomist worships his trillions
of gods unreservedly, with the most perfect, trusting, non-rational
faith imaginable. He is what sociologists call a "true believer."
Oh, and we mustn't forget the Time-goddess as well. She is often
invoked in worshipful, reverential, awe-inspiring terms as the be-all,
end-all explanation for things inexplicable, as if by magic her very
incantation rises to an explanatory level sufficient to shut up any
silly Christian, who is foolish enough to believe in one God rather
than trillions. The Time-goddess might be said to be the highest in the
ranks of the Deo-Atomist's wonderfully-varied hierarchy of gods, since
she is one, rather than trillions (sort of the "Zeus" of Deo-Atomism).
One might call this belief Deo-Temporalism.
Deo-Atomism is a strong, fortress-like faith. It is often said that it
"must be" what it is. How is this at all different from monotheism,
where certain things are taken for granted as basic beliefs? There is
no epistemological difference. The atheist's and materialist's or
positivist's or naturalist's religion is Deo-Atomism; mine is theistic
Christianity. Matter is their god; a Creator Spirit God is mine. The
Deo-Atomist simply reverses the error of the Gnostics. They thought
spirit was great and that matter was evil. Deo-Atomists think matter is
great (and god) and spirit is not only "evil"
(metaphorically-speaking), but beyond that: non-existent. In a certain
remote sense, on one level, the Christian reacts to such profound
religious belief with the thought, "Who am I to endanger by rational
argument such a sublime fideism and Absolute Trust in a Teleological
Argument vis-a-vis trillions of Atom-gods? I can only stand in awe of
such Pure Faith."
Deo-Atomists may and do differ on secondary issues, just as the various
ancient polytheistic cultures differed on quibbling details (which god
could do what, which material made for a better idol, etc.), but
despite all, they inevitably came out on the side of polytheistic
idolatry, with crude material gods, and against spiritual monotheism.
Some Deo-Atomist utterances even have the "ring" of Scriptures, such as
an appropriate humility urged in man's opinion of his own importance,
because the universe is so large, and we are so small, as if material
or spatial largeness itself is some sort of inherently God-like
quality. One Deo-Atomist told me that "order is in the eye of the
beholder." That reminded me of the biblical Proverbs (perhaps he was
the Deo-Atomist equivalent of Solomon).
Of course, in Deo-Atomism, each person is gods too, because he is made
up of trillions of Atom-gods and also lots of Cell-gods, so there are
lots of gods there indeed! When you get trillions of gods all together
in one place, it stands to reason that they can corporately perceive
the order of which any one of them individually is capable of
producing. So within the Deo-Atomist faith-paradigm, this make perfect
sense. But for one outside their circle of religious faith, it may not
(just to warn the devout, faithful Deo-Atomist that others of different
faiths may not think such things as "obvious" as they do). The
Deo-Atomist manages to believe any number of things, in faith, without
mere explanation.
In other words, the "why" questions in the context of Deo-Atomism are
in and of themselves "senseless." And the reason why that is (i.e., for
the Deo-Atomist), is because the question impinges upon the
Impenetrable Fortress of blind faith that the Deo-Atomist possesses. If
the question of "Why does God exist?" is senseless, then it follows
straightforwardly that likewise, the question, "Why do the Atom-gods
and Cell-gods and the Time-goddess exist and eternally possess the
extraordinary powers that they do?" is senseless, meaningless and
oughtn't be put forth. One simply doesn't ask such questions. It is bad
form, and impolite in mixed company. We know how sensitive
overly-religious folk are.
Instead, we are asked to bow to the countless mysteries of Deo-Atomism
in humble adoration and awed silence, dumbstruck, like the Magi at the
baby Jesus' manger, offering our "scientific" and "philosophical"
allegiance like they offered gold and frankincense and myrhh. The very
inquiry is senseless and "intrusive." And so rational examination is
precluded at and from the outset. It is, indeed, an ingenious,
self-contained system: hopelessly irrational and self-defeating;
ultimately incoherent, of course, but ingenious and admirable in its
bold, brilliant intellectual audacity and innovation, if nothing else.
In other words, it is an immensely enjoyable game to play, like much of
modern philosophy-*****-religion.
Evolutionary mutations as Teleology offer a particular example of this
particular religiosity; akin to the Christian Divine Providence.
Occasionally, it is true, a mutation (99.999% of the time harmful) is
beneficial to the organism. Thus, a mistake in a process that is almost
always a mistake is the "stuff" and mechanism and cause of the
"progress" of evolution. The entire spectrum of biological diversity
and evolution begins in such a causal fashion. This is the Deo-Atomist
teleology, and an amazing and faith-filled one it is, as always.
Deo-Atomism might go by many names, but when the rubber meets the road,
it is all pretty much the same: Boundless Faith in Matter-gods,
Cell-gods, and the Time-Goddess.
As an example of a devout, pious Deo-Atomist believer, consider Stephen
Hawking:
"It has been a glorious time to be alive and doing research in
theoretical physics," he told an audience, which included Astronomer
Royal Sir Martin Rees. "Our picture of the universe has changed a great
deal in the last 40 years and I'm happy if I have made a small
contribution. I want to share my excitement and enthusiasm."
He added: "Based on the no boundary proposal, I picture the origin of
the universe as like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling
water. "Quantum fluctuations lead to the spontaneous creation of tiny
universes out of nothing. Most of the universes collapse to nothing,
but a few that reach a critical size will expand in an inflationary
manner and will form galaxies and stars and maybe beings like us."
Hawking's words constitute a fine statement of the pure faith of what I
have been calling Deo-Atomism. But what is the cosmic analogy to water
in his boiling water scenario? And if universes come from nothing, how
is that not absurd and not unthinkable? What is his empirical proof for
such a scenario? By what observation did he arrive at this?
Hawking believes his bubble universe scenario with, admittedly, no
direct scientific evidence (it is merely coherent with other of his
beliefs), and no way to explain it step-by-step in any compelling
matter. It is entirely tentative. So he is exercising the blind faith
of Deo-Atomism. Christians don't claim to have exhaustive explanations
for every process we believe in. But it ain't required because
religious faith is not science.
I find it exceedingly humorous that many scientists and atheists (many,
Deo-Atomists) are so concerned about separating religion and science
(to the extent that science would literally die if a miracle were
acknowledged by a scientist AS a scientist), yet when it comes to
something clearly within the religious, theological, supernatural realm
(a purported miracle), they continue to demand scientific explanation
as if they have forgotten all about their strenuous, Chicken Little
attempts to separate science from God and theology altogether!
I won't bow to this double standard. It is simply one more strain of
the religion of scientism, which is a crucial component and aspect of
Deo-Atomism. I don't worship science or the atom or my own brain. I
worship God. And if God didn't possess some attributes I didn't fully
understand or comprehend, I submit that He wouldn't be God. That would
simply be an idol that I created, that I completely understand, as it
is no higher than what I can conceive it to be: a "God" made in man's
image, rather than vice versa.
If materialist scientists would like to take back their position on
science vs. miracles (an absolute dichotomy), then we can (at least
attempt to) offer scientific explanations of every miraculous
occurrence, as Christianity and science would then comprise one grand,
unified theory of nature.
Until then, Deo-Atomists ought to stop asking for scientific
explanations in the name of theology, when they can't even give
scientific explanations (pertaining to origins and teleology) in the
name of naturalistic science for many of their beliefs, yet
simultaneously claim that this is not merely a matter of religious or
metaphysical belief, and that any other alternative
religious/metaphysical belief (namely, theism and creation) is
impermissible as unscientific. Take the beam out of thine own eye.
Metaphysician; heal thyself . . .
Indeed. This is equivalent to accepting an incoherent idea (some-thing
'from' no-thing) solely on the basis that Hawking said so. Although
Hawking
is a respected physicist, this does not mean that each and every
subject he
speaks about regarding physics is necessarily true or possible or
coherent.
A snippet (quoted in another book) from Hawking, A Brief History of
Time:
I'd like to emphasize that this idea, that time and space should be
finite without boundary, is just a proposal: it cannot be deduced from
some other principle. Like any other scientific theory, it may
initially be put forward for aesthetic or metaphysical reasons, but the
real test is whether it makes predictions that agree with observation.
I don't see how it might not be said that Hawking is making a false
statement by offering that his proposal (which is not deduced from some
other principle and the implication is that it has a metaphysical
foundation) is to be called a "scientific theory." It seems to me that
Hawking is assuming that the subject matter of the proposal qualifies
it as being a scientific theory.
Inventing a concept, such as 'imaginary time', assuming that it is a
credible idea, and utilizing it as a foundational principle in a
theory
doesn't guarantee that the idea or the theory is actually coherent or
'scientific.'
This idea of testing a theory by prediction and observation can be
tenuous,
because this brings up the possibility of catering the theory to the
data,
and assuming that a proposed cause is indeed a cause for an effect,
when
that actual causal relationship hasn't been observed (such as the
proverbial
rooster crow and the rise of the sun).
Hawking's theory is designed to explain the mechanics of the origin of
the universe. A God hypothesis isn't designed to do this. So, to say
that Hawking's theory is "much better" is to confuse the issue. Also,
if a theory is "mathematically consistent," and yet is based on an
incoherent premise, this is hardly an 'advantage'.
The underlying reasoning, in my opinion, for both theories involves a
basic
Kalam Cosmological Argument, where the concept of cause and effect is
interpolated backwards to an ultimate cause for the natural universe,
and that causeis reasoned to be or to involve an other than natural
reality. That cause is eitherimpersonal or personal. A God hypothesis
(GH) proposes that the cause is a personal agent, while Hawking's
hypothesis (HH) proposes that the cause is impersonal quantum
fluctuation and imaginary time. GH doesn't simply propose a
personalagent rather it reasons that an impersonal cause is either
impossible or
implausible. HH merely assumes an impersonal cause 'not' because of
arguing
that a personal cause is impossible or implausible, but because of
having
merely assumed that it's not a viable option.
In other words,
Either A or B
GH: Not B, therefore A
HH: B
At this point, both hypotheses are dealing with philosophical
reasoning
regarding metaphysical concepts. They aren't dealing with scientific
mechanics of universe production. HH attempts to attach an explanation
of
the mechanics 'after' the metaphysical starting point has been
assumed.
I didn't say that HH was based on an incoherent proposition. I said
that IF a hypothesis is based on an incoherent proposition, then it
can
hardly be deemed a 'better' hypothesis. HH merely assumes that quantum
fluctuation plus imaginary time can produce an entire universe, and
once
'that' assumption is in place, it leaves the situation open for him to
propose that multiple universes can be produced like popcorn. But he
hasn't
substantiated his initial assumptions (he hasn't shown that they 'are'
coherent and plausible, he hasn't shown how/why those states of
affairs
would exist in the first place), and he in essence admits this by
offering
that it is grounded in a metaphysical idea.
A theory that speaks of how things operate is a different theory from a
theory concerning the foundation by which anything came to exist in
order to operate. There isn't any 'onus' on a theist to somehow refute
Hawking's theory or to try to prove that a God hypothesis has an
"explanatory advantage." A God hypothesis doesn't explain the mechanics
of creation, but neither does it rule out discovering those mechanics
through the use of theories such as Hawking's.
I think it's simply special pleading to just accept Hawking's ideas of
imaginary time and some-things arising 'from' no-thing, based on the
fact
that he takes these unverified assumptions and couches them in a
theory to
explain the universe apart from God. GH might require HH to offer some
sort of substantiation for its metaphysical starting point, instead of
merely assuming it.
Suppose a personal deity creates a state of quantum factors where
fluctuations can offer as a part of the 'natural order' by which that
state
of affairs was designed to exist. If within that state of affairs some
physical X can be produced, does pointing to the production of X rule
out
the existence of the personal deity? No. Does pointing to the
production of
X explain the existence of the state of quantum factors and it natural
order? No. Does pointing to the production of X prove that the state
of
quantum factors could just happen to exist and that its natural order
could
just happen to exist or could somehow have existed forever or could
have
existed according to some imaginary time? No. Does pointing to the
production of X prove that the quantum factors could produce an entire
universe? No. Does pointing to a theory about 'virtual' X's prove that
any
'actual' X could be the case? No.
But there is no necessity in attempting to disprove HH because it
doesn't by
necessity exclude GH.
The problem isn't with confusing 'imaginary' with 'imagination'
(although
Hawking himself appears to open this door, "the so-called imaginary
time is
really the real time, and that what we call real time is just a
figment of
our imaginations"). The problem is with referring to a concept that is
completely distinct from what is observed, and is unverifiable, and
yet
relying upon that concept to explain what is observed. If Hawking is
allowed
to propose a concept completely distinct from the observed state of
the
universe as a means of ultimately explaining the universe, then the
non-theist who accepts Hawking's assumption loses any ground for
arguing
against a basic Kalam Cosmological Argument, for it contains the very
same concept.
And how solid, how scientific, how empirical and observable, is the
proof of a non-theistically-imagined "Big Bang"? Surfing the Internet,
I found an "Ask the Space Scientist" page (Dr. Sten Odenwald [Raytheon
STX] of the NASA IMAGE/POETRY Education and Public Outreach program).
The answers given to various questions are quite illustrative of the
Profound Faith that a Deo-Atomist would be required to have in his own
brand of creation-without-god:
From: http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11035.html
What sort of quantum field could possibly have triggered the Big Bang
out
of nothingness?
We have no idea. And certainly not one that we can examine and test to
confirm the
theoretical expectations. The best we can say is that the fundamental
field in nature is the gravitational field, and out of this and its
weird quantum properties, the stage was somehow set for everything else
we can identify in the physical world. We do not, however, understand
what the gravitational field 'IS' in any real fundamental way. We know
how it OPERATES but that is not the same as understanding its actual
nature.
From: http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10620.html
Is there any physical explanation for the Big Bang itself?
There are many hypotheses about what these conditions may have been
like, but
absolutely no facts or evidence that confirms that the theoretical
BASIS for these
speculations is on the money. We cannot observe/re-create the Big Bang
itself, but we can hope to test our understanding of high energy
physics UP TO the extreme conditions that were a part of the physics of
the Big Bang. So far, these physics are at 10^19 GeV and we can only
test our theories at energies of a few 1000 GeV.
From: http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11581.html
How could laws have been created AFTER the big bang if the universe
started out as a 'fluctuation' of some kind?
Well...first of all we have no self-consistent theory of gravity which
can predict in a
meaningful way what these initial conditions were like .This requires
understanding
gravity as a quantum field, and we only have prototype theories for how
to do this. At least mathematically, physicists have created 'toy'
universes that start out so hot that even the 'laws' of special
relativity are not manifest in the way the fields interact.
Curiously, as these toy models are cooled...as in the expansion of the
universe...the
underlying principles behind special relativity, particularly Lorentz
Invariance, begin to materialize in the kinds of correlations that
begin to appear. If you can believe 'chaotic gauge theory' as it is
called, some or perhaps even all, of the known physical laws are
emergent features of nature that are not present initially provided the
universe emerges from a very hot state. Quantum fluctuations are, at
their root, completely a-causal, in the sense that cause and effect and
ordering of events in time is not a part of how these fluctuations
work. Because of this, there seem not to be any correlations built into
these kinds of fluctuations because 'law' as we understand the term
requires some kind of cause-and-effect structure to pre- exist.
Quantum fluctuations can precede physical law, but it seems that the
converse is not true. So in the big bang, the establishment of 'law'
came after the event itself, but of course even the concept of time and
causality may not have been quite the same back then as they are now.
From: http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11577.html
Where does space come from?
This is a very complicated question to answer...and frankly we do not
yet fully understand how to answer it. According to Einstein's General
Relativity, which is our premier way of explaining how gravity works,
it makes no formal distinction between the description of what a
gravitational field is, and what space-time is. Essentially, space is
what we refer to as 3 of the 4 dimensions to a more comprehensive
entity called the space-time continuum, and this continuum is itself
just another name for the gravitational field of the universe. If you
take away this gravitational field...space-time itself vanishes! To ask
where space comes from is the same as asking, according to general
relativity, where this gravitational field came from originally, and
that gets us to asking what were the circumstances that caused the Big
Bang itself. We don't really know.
From: http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10920.html
If the Big Bang happened again, would we end up with the same natural
laws?
We absolutely positively have not the slightest idea, nor a single way
to test such a
proposition. Some physicists say that every imaginable combination of
physical law is
manifested by some universe 'out there', or that our universe may get
reprocessed
if/when it recollapses, into a new universe with completely different
selections of
dimensionality and particle types and forces. We just don't know. It is
hard to imagine that science will ever be able to tell us about such
things which are literally beyond ourtime and space.
From: http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10607.html
Where did the ball of particles come from that started the Big Bang?
No one really knows how to describe this event, its physical
properties, or its evolution. We don't even know how to scientifically
test the many mathematical possibilities!
In closing, I shall cite two more Deo-Atomist religious utterances,
followed by three more coherent alternatives, from scientists:
So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose that it had a
creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained,
having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it
would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?
(Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time [London: Bantam, 1988],
140-41)
The only way of explaining the creation is to show that the creator had
absolutely no job at all to do, and so might as well not have existed.
(P.W. Atkins, [Oxford chemist] The Creation [Oxford: Freeman, 1981],
17)
On the quantum fluctuation hypothesis, the universe will only come into
being if there exists an exactly balanced array of fundamental forces,
an exactly specified probability of particular fluctuations occurring
in this array, and existent space-time in which fluctuations can occur.
This is a very complex and finely tuned 'nothing'... So this
universe looks highly contingent after all, and a creator God might
well choose to create a partly probabilistic universe by choosing just
such an origin for it.
(Keith Ward, God, Chance and Necessity [(Oxford: Oneworld, 1996], 40)
Is it easier to believe in a cosmic designer than the multiplicity of
universes necessary for the weak anthropic principle to work? ...
Perhaps future developments in science will lead to more direct
evidence for other universes, but until then, the seemingly miraculous
concurrence of numerical values that nature has assigned to her
fundamental constants must remain the most compelling evidence for
an element of cosmic design.
(Paul Davies, God and the New Physics [Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984],
189)
There are ... certain givens about our universe ... which play an
important part in determining its history... quite small variations in
any of these fundamental specifications of our world would have
rendered it anthropically sterile. They would have condemned it to a
boringly unproductive history... If we accept this view, then a
meta-question arises of why things are this way...
.. . . the 'Moderate Anthropic Principle', which notes the
contingent fruitfulness of the universe as a fact of interest calling
for an explanation... There seems to be the chance of a revised and
revived argument from design... appealing to a Cosmic Planner who has
endowed his world with a potentiality implanted within the delicate
balance of the laws of nature themselves...In short, the claim would be
that the universe is indeed not 'any old world' but the carefully
calculated construct of its Creator.
(Sir John Polkinghorne, Reason and Reality [London: SPCK,1991], 77-78)
.
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
19 Jan 2006 09:33:38 AM |
|
|
Jim07D6 wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> said:
T Wake wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137613374.591780.225640@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
T Wake wrote:
It is especially unlikely that I would believe the eyewitness testimony
if
it had been written down 2000 years ago and translated more times than I
could count, reviewed and "adjusted" by a succession of interested
parties.......
I agree with this. I expect very few to believe on the basis of the
Biblical record alone. I'd be surprised if anyone should think this
sufficient, even if it does often serve as a catalyst.
Do you believe that the dead can walk? Do revenants exist?
You mean vampires or zombies? No, I don't have a strong belief in that
being true.
You mean angels? No, I don't have a strong belief in that being true.
There are certain accounts about a couple of people in particular that
were dead and then alive that I have some trust in, yes. Did I have to
see that in person to believe it? No. Do I have to be able to
reconstruct that event, even in principle, to believe that it happened?
No. (I don't have to do that for the Holocaust or the reign of
Cleopatra, either.)
Are those two examples (the Holocaust and the reign of Cleopatra)
actually comparable, in terms of your not having to see to believe,
to your example of people who were dead and then alive? If so, why?
Pretty much. They're both based on historical records and witness
accounts, with corroborating, circumstantial, physical evidence. There
was little motive for the original witnesses to lie -- in fact, in some
cases persecution resulted from the testimony. Is there something
fundamentally different about them that stands out for you?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
19 Jan 2006 09:50:03 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> said:
T Wake wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137613374.591780.225640@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
T Wake wrote:
It is especially unlikely that I would believe the eyewitness testimony
if
it had been written down 2000 years ago and translated more times than I
could count, reviewed and "adjusted" by a succession of interested
parties.......
I agree with this. I expect very few to believe on the basis of the
Biblical record alone. I'd be surprised if anyone should think this
sufficient, even if it does often serve as a catalyst.
Do you believe that the dead can walk? Do revenants exist?
You mean vampires or zombies? No, I don't have a strong belief in that
being true.
You mean angels? No, I don't have a strong belief in that being true.
There are certain accounts about a couple of people in particular that
were dead and then alive that I have some trust in, yes. Did I have to
see that in person to believe it? No. Do I have to be able to
reconstruct that event, even in principle, to believe that it happened?
No. (I don't have to do that for the Holocaust or the reign of
Cleopatra, either.)
Are those two examples (the Holocaust and the reign of Cleopatra)
actually comparable, in terms of your not having to see to believe,
to your example of people who were dead and then alive? If so, why?
Pretty much. They're both based on historical records and witness
accounts, with corroborating, circumstantial, physical evidence. There
was little motive for the original witnesses to lie -- in fact, in some
cases persecution resulted from the testimony. Is there something
fundamentally different about them that stands out for you?
I didn't know you had some specific case of people that were dead and
then alive, in mind. If you have cases with historical records,
witness accounts and physical evidence that rise to the level of what
exists for the Holocaust or Cleopatra's reign, I'f be interested in
knowing two things:
1. What actual cases of "dead, then alive" do you have in mind, and
2. What reasons do you think explain the fact that so few professional
historians doubt the Holocaust and Cleopatra's reign, but so few
assert that truly dead people have come back to life?
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
19 Jan 2006 03:23:40 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137684818.756841.116250@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Jim07D6 wrote:
Are those two examples (the Holocaust and the reign of Cleopatra)
actually comparable, in terms of your not having to see to believe,
to your example of people who were dead and then alive? If so, why?
Pretty much. They're both based on historical records and witness
accounts, with corroborating, circumstantial, physical evidence. There
was little motive for the original witnesses to lie -- in fact, in some
cases persecution resulted from the testimony. Is there something
fundamentally different about them that stands out for you?
Yet you don't believe the expert testimony of (among hundreds of others)
Professor Sinclair (1684), Abbot Calmet (1751), Henry Moore (1655),
Caesarius of Heisterbach (13th century), William of Newburgh (1170) et al.,
that the dead can rise again and terrorise the local communities?
You have also stated you don't take the bible as gospel, word for word,
which means you are, basically, picking and choosing which bits to think are
true and which aren't.
What do you use as the determinant for this?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
19 Jan 2006 03:33:48 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aKOdnXSjvej8nk3enZ2dnUVZ8tydnZ2d@pipex.net...
| "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| news:1137684818.756841.116250@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > Jim07D6 wrote:
| >> Are those two examples (the Holocaust and the reign of Cleopatra)
| >> actually comparable, in terms of your not having to see to believe,
| >> to your example of people who were dead and then alive? If so, why?
| >>
| >
| > Pretty much. They're both based on historical records and witness
| > accounts, with corroborating, circumstantial, physical evidence. There
| > was little motive for the original witnesses to lie -- in fact, in some
| > cases persecution resulted from the testimony. Is there something
| > fundamentally different about them that stands out for you?
|
| Yet you don't believe the expert testimony of (among hundreds of others)
| Professor Sinclair (1684), Abbot Calmet (1751), Henry Moore (1655),
| Caesarius of Heisterbach (13th century), William of Newburgh (1170) et
al.,
| that the dead can rise again and terrorise the local communities?
Of course he won't believe them, not one of them wrote a theoretical paper
about such.
But, just tell him the dead that rise again are massless, and they fit all
such
theoretical papers using massless energy perfectally. (just like a photon
would)
lol
(sorry, could not resist as usual)
lol
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
19 Jan 2006 11:21:27 AM |
|
|
On 19 Jan 2006 07:33:38 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Jim07D6 wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> said:
sbip
Are those two examples (the Holocaust and the reign of Cleopatra)
actually comparable, in terms of your not having to see to believe,
to your example of people who were dead and then alive? If so, why?
Pretty much. They're both based on historical records and witness
accounts, with corroborating, circumstantial, physical evidence.
If somebody tells me that he saw my cousin in town yesterday, assuming
there is no contradictory information, that would be sufficient reason
to be reasonable certain that my cousin was in town. On the other
hand if my cousin's death had been medically documented and he had
been buried, a great deal more information would be required for a
reasonable person to believe it. Obviously the existence of a person
who ruled over Egypt does not require one to believe in a supernatural
event. The two events are only comparable on the most superficial
level.
There
was little motive for the original witnesses to lie -- in fact, in some
cases persecution resulted from the testimony. Is there something
fundamentally different about them that stands out for you?
See above. I would also think that the differences are glaring. It
is not that one has to be automatically rejected only that reasonable
people would want a lot more information.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
19 Jan 2006 01:45:19 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137632874.434415.25050@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
T Wake wrote:
Do you believe that the dead can walk? Do revenants exist?
You mean vampires or zombies? No, I don't have a strong belief in that
being true.
Why not? For best part of 1500 years the whole Christian doctrine supported
the existence of the living dead. The idea of bodies resurrecting themselves
only came about with the Protestant abandonment of the doctrine of
Purgatory.
There is expert testimony, over about 500 years, that the dead have
reanimated and demonic possessions have occurred. As recently as 1751 the
Benedictine Abbot Augustine Calmet described the body of a child coming back
to life as the result of demonic possession.
How can you dismiss this eyewitness evidence?
You mean angels? No, I don't have a strong belief in that being true.
Why not?
There are certain accounts about a couple of people in particular that
were dead and then alive that I have some trust in, yes.
What is there that gives you reason to place more trust in that than, say
the reports by Professor George Sinclair (Glasgow University) who in 1684
wrote of the corpse of a dead man coming to life?
Do you place more emphasis on something written longer ago?
Did I have to
see that in person to believe it? No. Do I have to be able to
reconstruct that event, even in principle, to believe that it happened?
No. (I don't have to do that for the Holocaust or the reign of
Cleopatra, either.)
It would be interesting to learn how you differentiate between what you will
believe and what you wont. For example, 2500 years ago there were vast
amounts of writing on the activities of Zeus, Athene etc., yet you obviously
don't think they existed as Gods (there can be but one God ...), more
recently people have written about angels and the re-animation of the dead
and you don't believe in that either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
19 Jan 2006 10:14:41 AM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8-WdnW6cm6wK3lLeRVnyig@pipex.net...
snip
There is expert testimony, over about 500 years, that the dead have
reanimated and demonic possessions have occurred. As recently as 1751 the
Benedictine Abbot Augustine Calmet described the body of a child coming
back to life as the result of demonic possession.
How can you dismiss this eyewitness evidence?
LOL, you have GOT to be kidding.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lizz Holmans" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
13 Jan 2006 06:15:13 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:10:01 GMT, Brian Henderson
<BrianL.Henderson@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote:
On 11 Jan 2006 14:59:51 -0800, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Such beliefs should always be held in an open hand. Why does an
Atheist find it so hard to "change your beliefs?"
Atheists don't. If you want an atheist to change beliefs, present
solid, verifiable, objective evidence. Unfortunately, theists simply
cannot and do not do so, they make empty claims, demand that they are
right, and are somehow surprised that atheists don't take them
seriously.
Sometimes an atheist can have God thrust upon hir, but convert one?
Why would I want to try?
Lizz 'I prefer to be taken molto allegro' Holmans
--
I was too far out all my life
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
11 Jan 2006 05:05:05 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:35:18 -0500, Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote:
When you follow the Truth, the Truth leads and you follow wherever it
leads.
Evidence leads to truth and when evidence fails to support your
beliefs you are, if you have a modicum of intelligence, obliged to
change your beliefs.
Religious belief is based on wishful thinking not evidence.
Actually, you got it backwards, mad dog. All evidence demands the existence of
God. There is NO evidence that suggests there is no God.
So when
a person relies solely on religious faith he has deny any evidence
which contradicts that faith. This is why science is in total conflict
with religion and the massive evidence for evolution drives theists
bananas.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
11 Jan 2006 05:22:38 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1n3bs1tf1738md8s2a0gh5jd5ojataup9u@4ax.com...
Actually, you got it backwards, mad dog. All evidence demands the
existence of
God.
Really? What evidence?
And, generally speaking evidence makes no demands it simply exists. At best,
your interpretation of said evidence, based on your belief structure, may
lead to you assume it is evidence for the existence of God.
Belief, generally, is thinking something is true despite the lack of
evidence. You are convoluting a belief with fact. They are not the same.
There is NO evidence that suggests there is no God.
There is no evidence to suggest that there are no fairies either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
13 Jan 2006 06:22:27 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:22:38 -0000, "T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote:
Really? What evidence?
From the origins of the universe to the human body as blue print for all man's
inventions.
And, generally speaking evidence makes no demands it simply exists. At best,
your interpretation of said evidence, based on your belief structure, may
lead to you assume it is evidence for the existence of God.
It exists, and there is no evidence that there is no God.
Belief, generally, is thinking something is true despite the lack of
evidence. You are convoluting a belief with fact. They are not the same.
Nope. Faith is not belief based on no evidence. Rather, faith is belief based
on no proof. You see, there is evidence galore for the existence of God.
There is NO evidence that suggests there is no God.
There is no evidence to suggest that there are no fairies either.
But only you atheists believe in fairies.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
13 Jan 2006 07:28:38 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fqggs1hsk7u74siu8crjrmo8jeabdlh4sq@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:22:38 -0000, "T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Really? What evidence?
From the origins of the universe to the human body as blue print for all
man's
inventions.
How is this evidence of the existence of God?
And, generally speaking evidence makes no demands it simply exists. At
best,
your interpretation of said evidence, based on your belief structure, may
lead to you assume it is evidence for the existence of God.
It exists, and there is no evidence that there is no God.
I agree that there is no evidence that there is no God. There is no evidence
for the existence of God either. At best you can produce a spin on the facts
to imply there is a god - nothing to prove it is a single god or the
Christian God.
Likewise, there is no evidence that fairies don't exist, or evidence that
invisible unicorns flying through the atmosphere cause storms.
Do you place an equal level of belief on these ideas?
don't, generally, is thinking something is true despite the lack of
evidence. You are convoluting a belief with fact. They are not the same.
Nope. Faith is not belief based on no evidence. Rather, faith is belief
based
on no proof. You see, there is evidence galore for the existence of God.
It is only evidence to people who already have faith.
There is NO evidence that suggests there is no God.
There is no evidence to suggest that there are no fairies either.
But only you atheists believe in fairies.
Really? Actually I don't believe in fairies but based on your rather loose
approach to evidence and proof I would have thought you were a firm
believer.
Why on Earth do you think atheist's believe in fairies?
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
13 Jan 2006 07:52:11 PM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fqggs1hsk7u74siu8crjrmo8jeabdlh4sq@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:22:38 -0000, "T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Really? What evidence?
From the origins of the universe to the human body as blue print for
all man's
inventions.
How is this evidence of the existence of God?
And, generally speaking evidence makes no demands it simply exists. At
best,
your interpretation of said evidence, based on your belief structure,
may lead to you assume it is evidence for the existence of God.
It exists, and there is no evidence that there is no God.
I agree that there is no evidence that there is no God.
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible
gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
--
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with
a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I
willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better
myself by learning how to fly airplanes."
-- George W. Bush - [Houston Chronicle, 5/8/94]
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
13 Jan 2006 07:55:49 PM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11sgmd2589e3532@corp.supernews.com...
T Wake wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fqggs1hsk7u74siu8crjrmo8jeabdlh4sq@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:22:38 -0000, "T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Really? What evidence?
From the origins of the universe to the human body as blue print for
all man's
inventions.
How is this evidence of the existence of God?
And, generally speaking evidence makes no demands it simply exists. At
best,
your interpretation of said evidence, based on your belief structure,
may lead to you assume it is evidence for the existence of God.
It exists, and there is no evidence that there is no God.
I agree that there is no evidence that there is no God.
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
Sadly, simple logic tends to be ignored by the more.... devout....people and
no matter how you explain things they continue to believe in the
non-evidence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
13 Jan 2006 07:23:35 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:22:27 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
Nope. Faith is not belief based on no evidence. Rather, faith is belief based
on no proof. You see, there is evidence galore for the existence of God.
And with all the gas you have produced you still can't show a shred of
evidence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
11 Jan 2006 05:25:25 PM |
|
|
In article <1n3bs1tf1738md8s2a0gh5jd5ojataup9u@4ax.com> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:35:18 -0500, Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote:
When you follow the Truth, the Truth leads and you follow wherever it
leads.
Evidence leads to truth and when evidence fails to support your
beliefs you are, if you have a modicum of intelligence, obliged to
change your beliefs.
Religious belief is based on wishful thinking not evidence.
Actually, you got it backwards, mad dog. All evidence demands the existence of
God. There is NO evidence that suggests there is no God.
I hereby place "Duke" in exhibit as such evidence. Let the court
so record.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
13 Jan 2006 06:22:52 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:25:25 +0000 (UTC), (Cary
Kittrell) wrote:
Actually, you got it backwards, mad dog. All evidence demands the existence of
God. There is NO evidence that suggests there is no God.
I hereby place "Duke" in exhibit as such evidence. Let the court
so record.
Accepted.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
13 Jan 2006 07:26:00 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:22:52 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:25:25 +0000 (UTC), (Cary
Kittrell) wrote:
Actually, you got it backwards, mad dog. All evidence demands the existence of
God. There is NO evidence that suggests there is no God.
I hereby place "Duke" in exhibit as such evidence. Let the court
so record.
Accepted.
duke
and that's all you'll hear from this guy
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Nothing fails like prayer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
13 Jan 2006 09:22:56 PM |
|
|
Mani Deli wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:22:52 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:25:25 +0000 (UTC), (Cary
Kittrell) wrote:
Actually, you got it backwards, mad dog. All evidence demands the existence of
God. There is NO evidence that suggests there is no God.
I hereby place "Duke" in exhibit as such evidence. Let the court
so record.
Accepted.
duke
and that's all you'll hear from this guy
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Nothing fails like prayer.
Actually, there is evidence that there is no God. All one has to do is
take the very natural step of being a Pantheist, that the Universe and
God are absolutely identical. A moment's reflection will reveal that
this is exactly the same as atheism; the benefit of pantheism is that
it's not such a charged word and people will not to become so upset
over it. Once pantheism is accepted into your life, then one realizes
that science is equal to religion, making for a unified worldview.
Also, it really cuts down on having to give money to begging preachers,
for it states that one dissociates into Eternal Nothingness (EN)
without facing the horror of an eternity of existence. Eternity.
Forever. No end. Cantorian infinity. No way out no way out no way
out no way out forever and ever and ever....
.......forever.....eternity.....give me EN any day, ma'am.
Nice talking to you. Have a nice eternity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
13 Jan 2006 07:57:23 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:25:25 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
Actually, you got it backwards, mad dog. All evidence demands the
existence of
God. There is NO evidence that suggests there is no God.
I hereby place "Duke" in exhibit as such evidence. Let the court
so record.
Accepted.
Duke would be evidence of the same malevolent source of
misquitos, rats and herpes viruses.
--
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with
a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I
willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better
myself by learning how to fly airplanes."
-- George W. Bush - [Houston Chronicle, 5/8/94]
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
11 Jan 2006 07:48:55 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:05:05 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
Actually, you got it backwards, mad dog. All evidence demands the existence of
God. There is NO evidence that suggests there is no God.
And there is no evidence to suggest there is no Santa Claus.
God is the immature man's Santa Claus
So when
a person relies solely on religious faith he has deny any evidence
which contradicts that faith. This is why science is in total conflict
with religion and the massive evidence for evolution drives theists
bananas.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Nothing fails like prayer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
13 Jan 2006 06:24:18 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:48:55 -0500, Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote:
And there is no evidence to suggest there is no Santa Claus.
God is the immature man's Santa Claus
Atheists believe in santa claus, not Christians.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
13 Jan 2006 07:29:23 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:u4hgs1dn6uj8vslclgva8kuq54itd3cdvd@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:48:55 -0500, Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote:
And there is no evidence to suggest there is no Santa Claus.
God is the immature man's Santa Claus
Atheists believe in santa claus, not Christians.
You like your broad brush generalisations don't you. Prove Santa doesn't
exist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anthony Lindemann" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
11 Jan 2006 05:26:59 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:05:05 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:35:18 -0500, Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote:
When you follow the Truth, the Truth leads and you follow wherever it
leads.
Evidence leads to truth and when evidence fails to support your
beliefs you are, if you have a modicum of intelligence, obliged to
change your beliefs.
Religious belief is based on wishful thinking not evidence.
Actually, you got it backwards, mad dog. All evidence demands the existence of
God. There is NO evidence that suggests there is no God.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
dumbass.... the atheist is under no logical obligation to prove that
there is no god.... it is the theist that has to come up with proof
for the existance of their god.... and there is no proof that such an
imaginary creature exists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
13 Jan 2006 06:23:52 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:26:59 -0600, Anthony Lindemann <anthony76@pdq.net> wrote:
dumbass.... the atheist is under no logical obligation to prove that
there is no god.... it is the theist that has to come up with proof
for the existance of their god.... and there is no proof that such an
imaginary creature exists.
But there is evidence galore for the existence of God. You stand alone with no
evidence to support your idea that there is no God.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
13 Jan 2006 07:55:06 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:26:59 -0600, Anthony Lindemann
<anthony76@pdq.net> wrote:
dumbass.... the atheist is under no logical obligation to prove that
there is no god.... it is the theist that has to come up with proof
for the existance of their god.... and there is no proof that such an
imaginary creature exists.
But there is evidence galore for the existence of God. You stand alone
with no evidence to support your idea that there is no God.
There is not one shred of hard evidence for the existance
of god.
------------------
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible
gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
--
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with
a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I
willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better
myself by learning how to fly airplanes."
-- George W. Bush - [Houston Chronicle, 5/8/94]
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
14 Jan 2006 07:54:11 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:55:06 -0600, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <11sgmj8g7h5i7b9@corp.supernews.com>
duke wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:26:59 -0600, Anthony Lindemann
<anthony76@pdq.net> wrote:
dumbass.... the atheist is under no logical obligation to prove that
there is no god.... it is the theist that has to come up with proof
for the existance of their god.... and there is no proof that such an
imaginary creature exists.
But there is evidence galore for the existence of God. You stand alone
with no evidence to support your idea that there is no God.
There is not one shred of hard evidence for the existance
of god.
:
Nor any "soft" evidence, either.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: The Theist's Boundless Faith in stupidity |
11 Jan 2006 11:54:08 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
There is NO evidence that suggests there is no God.
Logic really isn't your strong suit, is it?
duke
*****
"The ***** is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul LXIX
*****
.
|
|
| | |
