"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12cgg291p4d5q37@corp.supernews.com...
codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:
IS THERE A GOD? NO.
Strong Atheism's answer.
Part 1.
1. First of all, this proof "God" does not exist
is aimed at an entire class of gods, not particular
gods.
This remark alone is an explict admission that you've been lying up to
this point.
No, its just an admission I underestimated the intelligence
of SOME of my audience.
That's a lie. You explicitly stated originally that you had a simple proof
that no god can exist.
So now you're lying about it after failing to demonstrate such a proof.
This is the class of gods that are
omni-everything and creator of all. If I can
disprove an entire class of gods, all particular gods
that belong to that class are collectively disproven
too. This is an efficient, and sensible approach to
disproving god, by which I mean the god of major
religious and theological traditions.
No, it is not. Since your argument aims at attributes of God, not at the
existence of god per se. The god of the major traditions might still
exist apart from the attributes the theologians have ascribed to that
god.
1. Tom is a doctor.
2. Tom has never been to college and is illiterate
3. Since doctors are literate and have to attend college, Tom
is obviously not a doctor as claimed.
So what?
1. Bill exists.
2. It is said that Bill never picks his nose.
3. But Bill does pick his nose.j
4. Hence Bill does not exist????
Your argument fails. No single attribute or group of attributes necessarily
implies existence would be possible were it proved those attributes were
false.
What I do is point out that the class of omni-everything gods
similarly contains claims that disprove each other.
When are you actually going to do that? You've failed to prove, for example
that omniscience cannot exist without omnipotence.
You keep making claims about what you're going to do, but you never actually
do it.
Naturally, all claim specific examples of that class likewise
are impossible.
Do you even know what the above sentence means?
A class of gods is said to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and
creator of all.
Said by who? You? Who made you the decider of what a "class of gods" is
going to consist of.
And even if we give you your homegrown class of gods, you fail to prove
anything by it. The fact remains that any god within this class of gods
could still exist were it shown that one or a combination of the assertions
made about that god is not true.
Once again....
1. Bill Smith exists.
2. It is said by his admirers that Bill Smith always tells the truth.
3. But Bill Smith cannot always tell the truth.
4. Hence Bills Smith does not exist?????
If god creates all, and is omniscient, he knows what his creations will do
in the future. Any possible god must then examine each potential act and
all it to come to pass or something else to be substituted. he and olny
he creates or decides what is created.
Not necessarily. A creator god could know exactly what's going to happen in
a deterministic universe by simply knowing the beginning position of all
molecules and physical entities. That does not mean that god has to examine
each potential act and 'will it' to come to pass. Foreknowledge is not the
same as actively forcing everything to a particular end.
Free will cannot exist for man. Man can decide exactly nothing at all.
So? The same holds true in the deterministic world of the scientific
materialist.
Thus all evil is god's doing, personally and knowingly, all evils from
greatest to smallest.
Absurd. Foreknowledge does not imply personal responsibility. You presume
that omnipotence has to be a part of the mix. It doesn't. There's no
logical law that insists that a creator god must be all powerful.
Evil =/= omnibenevolent as explicitly claimed.
Claimed but nowhere proven. There's nothing about being all good that
implies that god can will evil out of existence. Again, you presume that
god must be omnipotent, but there's no logical necessity for this
conclusion.
All gods that are said to be omniscient and creator of all are thus
contradictory
Nope. You're utterly wrong. Omniscience nowhere implies creation, and both
together are not at all contradictory. You can assert it but you can't
prove it.
Omnipotence. Omnipotence mean all powerful. That means not
affected by other forces or powers. Time is does not affect god.
That presumes that Time is a "power." You have no justification in making
such a claim. Like most of your claims, it's rhetorical. Time could be
just as real for an omnipotent being as it is for any other being. Once
again, all you do in your argument is make assertions you can't backup and
assertions that are not implied by the argument.
God is outside and transcedent to time.
Why? Again, an unsupported assertion.
Time does not affect god so
theer is thus no past, present, future. To god all is now.
Thus god created all at once in all its particulars to the smallest
physical
degree.
Not necessary and going way too far as a presumption. According to
materialistic determinism, the closest thing to a dogma in science, the only
thing necessary to bring all things to their present state is to arrange
them in a particular sequence at the beginning. Everything follows from
that. Hence God need not know the smallest physical particular of
everything, nor did everything have to be created at once.
Thus again, there is no free will and all evil acts are thus god's
doing.
There may in fact be no free will, but that is not necessarily god's doing.
All things that occur happen because of the initial state. If god is not
omnipotent, god is as powerless to prevent evil as anyone else. God may in
fact have foreknowledge, but that does not imply control. So you've failed
to show that evil is due to god or that god can be held liable for evil.
Thus the class of all gods that are said to be omnipotent, are thus
transcedent to time, not bound by time, and thus free will cannot exist
mthus evil is all god's doing.
You haven't shown this. Omnipotence does not imply transcendence to time
because you haven't shown how time is a "power."
You fail again.
Do you see where you're going wrong yet?
All gods of the class of god that are omnipotent are thus all evil.
That may be true, but you haven't actually shown that or even addressed the
issue. You've
talked about the supposed contradiction of omnibenevolence and omniscience
while leaving omnipotence essentially untouched.
Thus the concept of a class of creators gods that are
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent is impossible.
You haven't shown that. This is where you seem to forget that you were
supposed to be stating an argument. Since you want desperately to make the
above assertion, you just stick it in without supporting it with any logical
structure.
An obvious absurdity.
And so your argument fails. The fact that God cannot logically be
omnipotent in the extreme sense that the Christian tradition insists,
does
not in itself prove that God does not exist.
It does show the god that is indeed dogmatically claimed to be omnipotent
cannot exist.
Obviously.
Only in your preselected strawman universe. And as I've shown, you've
failed miserably even to prove your own handpuppet argument.
If you can't even prove a pre-selected, skewed strawman argument, how are
you possibly going to attack the real article, Barwell?
"Extreme sense" is your strawman.
For example Aquinas states god is only omnipotent in regards to real
thhings, not say bad definitiions like "unmarried batchelors".
I don't have to pick a strawman extreme omnipotence to do the job.
As demonstrated above, you flop before you even make it to omnipotence.
Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Brahamnistic Hinduism.
Some have complained that this does not disprove all
gods. True, but this is not meant to, it is meant
only to deal with the gods that are the main problem
for this world,
Another unsupported assertion. Nowhere does your original argument prove
this universal claim. Religion in general has caused tremendous
suffering
in the world, but your argument nowhere addresses this particular
problem.
the gods of 4 1/2 billion believers.
The god that is the source of fundamentalism,
bigotry, fanaticism, anti-intellectualism and
backwardness. There are a few other classes of gods
but numerically by believers, these are not that
widespread or important.
According to whom? You may be competent to recognize what is
'widespread'
but who are you to decide what is "important?"
for example, without religious idiots in the US would we be having
problems with creationists assaulting science teaching in schools, and in
may cases, all but gutting science education in backard states and cities?
I repeat...who are YOU to decide what is important?
But it is possible to sort
them into a few classes of gods and likewise disprove
each class.
Which you have not done and cannot do. Hence, another lie on your part.
Here I am primarily looking at the class
of omni-everything creator gods. This does not mean
other classes of gods cannot also be likewise disproven.
And it doesn't mean they can be.
Or are totally unimportant. But basically the
omni-everything class of gods is so far above any
other god that once it is debunked, its hard to
step down to distinctly second rate gods.
Why is this so and why should it be so? 100s of years ago, the vast bulk
of
humanity believed that space was filled with an ether. Did this make the
fact that it was not filled with ether "unimportant?"
1. You havne't succeeded in debunking your class of gods.
2. You haven't demonstrated why those particular gods are the only important
ones.
3. You haven't offered any rational basis upon which a god becomes "second
rate."
2. A BASIC DEFINITION THE CLASS OF GOD,
OMNI-EVERYTHING AND CREATOR OF ALL
Also known here as the Grand God of Grand Theology.
There is no evidence whatsover for god. All we
have to work from is claims, or assertions made
about god. I have chosen the following 8 as they are
all part of all great and large religions and
theological traditions of the world.
But mostly because you've decided that they are the weakest factors. In
other words, you still haven't attacked the assertion of God's existence,
only assertions concerning God's attributes.
I need only weak factors to work with and basically all basic claims of
this
class of god are indeed, weak,
Sorry, thems just the facts. All we have are weak assertions.
You've made one honest statement above. William Barwell NEEDS weak factors
to work with. This is the case because you can't handle stronger factors.
I mean, what facts are there that save omnipotence, omnibenevolnece
and omniscience, free will and this class of gods.
Nothing. Nothing at all.
Real existence is hardly "nothing." And, as noted, you've flopped trying to
debunk everything save omnipotence, and THAT is only because you've never
actually attempted to deal with it.
Most of 4 1/2
billion believers will agree with most of these,
and these are all dogmatic to most main religions.
Fallacy of composition. Not even all Christians agree with these points.
We will fid a few wimpy newage type salad bar christians and so on.
But conservatives, evangelicals, fundies and moslems mostly agree god is
omni-everything. Sorry.
Fallacy of *argumentum ad numerum*. I don't give much of a damn what most
people think. I give a damn about whether a logical proof is a logical
proof.
When are you going to come up with one.
If we can show these create contradictions, we can show that
the class omni-everything creator gods, the Grand God,
cannot exist.
No, you cannot. All you can prove is that any particular attribute is
illogical within that particular argument.
We can. You simply are wrong. As usual.
But you can't demonstrate why. Again, Barwell runs away from defending his
own argument.
All we have to work with are assertions
and logic.
Get on with it, Barlow.
Read faster.
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.
1. you're utterly wrong about the beliefs that form Hinduism and
obviously
have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
2. Judaism is NOT Christianity, and you're attributing to the one what is
strictly true only of the other.
I didn't say it was, did I?.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
You lied again.,
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.
No they aren't and you can't prove that they are. There is no logical
reason that a being could not be omnibenevolent without being omnipotent.
The same is true of omniscience. Neither knowledge nor goodness are
power, hence neither omnibenevolence nor omniscience are Omnipotence.
Since being evil is by all accounts of theology a defect, god cannot have
defects because then he is not all powerful.
Circular argument. Plus being flat out wrong.
1. All accounts of theology do not account evil as a defect in god, only in
man. Many accounts of god attribute the direct creation of evil to god.
2. Evil is considered a defect in man by the major theologies, not a defect
in god.
This is old dogma.
Dogma that you have no understanding of judging from your arguments.
We're beginning to see that your argument is as fallacious in its details
as it was in its major presumption.
3. We can abstract a class of gods, omni-everything,
creator gods from these 8 characteristics.
Except that you haven't proved the 8 characteristics at this point.
You are obviously a goofball.
1. God is personal, god has conciousness and will
2. God is intelligent
3. God has free will
4. God created all
5. God is omnipotent
6. God is omniscient
7. God is omnibenevolent
8. God is that which is so great, nothing greater
can be imagined.
All are dogmatic among these basic religious traditions.
1. No they aren't.
2. No one of them, nor any group of them has anything to do with the
possible existence of a God.
Let's go back to our analogous argument.
1. Bill Smith exists.
2. It is said by his admirers that Bill Smith always tells the truth.
3. But Bill Smith cannot always tell the truth.
4. Hence Bills Smith does not exist?????
This is your basic problem. Even a malicious creep like Martin McPhillips
could see it. You're attempting to prove something about the EXISTENCE of
god by making a mess of attacking arguments ABOUT God.
5. CLASSES OF GODS
It is important to note here in 2. that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods. This is key to this disproof
which is general in nature.
Except that your list is both incomplete and internally illogical as I've
shown.
6. If we disprove the entire class of gods by examining
the logical implications of a few claims, all secondary
claims are also destroyed.
1. That's not necessarily true.
2. You haven't disproved the entire class.
We need not examine claims of god's simplicity or whether
god is immanent or transcendent or other similar claims.
Which you can't begin to do.
I could, its for another time.
Classes of transcedent or immanent gods go away when
they are claimed to be of class of omni-everything anyway.
Other problems go away automatically, following them in flames
the hole of bad ideas.
You haven't shown this to be the case as demonstrated above. Since you
haven't succeeded in dealing with the 8 points you mention, you obviously
can't dismiss derivative claims.
We need not break down omnibenevolence into secondary
associated claims such as such as mercy, justice, or
implied claims, though we might mention their destruction
in passing when appropriate, and damage done to such
concepts of damnation, or punishment or sin.
Such destruction as you have NOT caused, due to the flaws mentioned
above.
7. If we disprove a class of gods,
But so far you haven't.
9. 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.
Hinduism does not. It is not Christianity or Judaism or Islam. Islam is
not Christianity. Christianity is not Judaism. Their claims about god are
distinctly different. And even if we assume that your 8 points about god
are representative of SOMETHING, you haven't made a successful claim about
any one of them much less all of them.
But I've shown that they do not hold to the god you've constructed, nor
are they equivalent to each other.
I chose these since the majority of
believers 4 1/2 billion approximately belong to these
traditions and related religions and sects.
Fallacy of *argumentum ad numeran* It makes no difference how many
people
believe what. A proof is supposed to address truth, not popular opinion.
At this point, you've failed to even accurately describe what the major
beliefs believe in. You're certainly in no position to make statements
about the importance of those beliefs taken as an illigitimate group.
I see that you agree that you've committed the *argumentum ad numeran* as
you offer not even an ad hom in its defense.
10. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
It is found in Christian writer Lactantius's
Treatise on the Anger of God.
A basic formulation is:
A. God is defined as powerful
B. God is defined as as good.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not powerful as claimed.
E. Or God is not good as claimed.
F. Or god is neither powerful or
good.
G. Or god is not existant.
Not a true representation of the argument. The argument does not prove
that
god does not exist UNLESS god must be powerful and good as asserted. And
even then, even assuming that god must be either good or powerful, god
might
not be the one and still be the other. Therefore the argument from evil,
which reaches its most powerful form much later than the pre-socratics
that
you seem to be limited to, does not prove the non-existence of god. It
only
proves that god cannot be both ALL-powerful and all good. If god were
simply powerful, god might not be powerful enough to eliminate evil. The
true argument claims that god is omnipotent, that god could unilaterally
prevent the occurance of evil in the world if god wanted to. The further
assumption that god must be infinitely good creates a god that MUST want
to create a world in which no actual evil exists.
Hence, the original form of the argument does not prove a thing. The
final form of the argument only proves that IF a god MUST be, by
definition BOTH infinitely good and infinitely powerful, then such a god
is a logical contradiction.
[argument from free will clipped since it derives from your fallacious
presentation of the argument from evil]
I see that you agree with my criticism of your lame argument from evil,
since you offer no defence.
13 OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
FREE WILL DISPROVEN PART 2.
Obviously you bow to my criticisms in the remainder of your screed, as you
offer no defense.
God is defined as creator of all in these
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
Not in all of the religions you've named. Thus your argument fails right
here.
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.
In some traditions.
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.
This is not omniscience vs. creatorhood. There is no necessary reason
that a creator logically must also know the full details of all possible
futures.
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.
Non sequitur. An omniscient god that is not omnipotent might not have a
choice as to whether to allow evil or not.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
Non sequitur. You haven't proved that evil necessarily exists due to
god's
choice. If god is not omnipotent, evil may exist regardless.
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.
Non sequitur. Mere knowledge does not imply control. God might know
everything that is knowable and still not know the future, or god might
know everything including all possible futures [though I doubt it].
Nevertheless, the fact that god knows everything does not logically imply
that God denies free will to actors in the world. In a purely
deterministic universe, which is a scientific materialistic assumption,
there is also no
such thing as true 'free will'. What does god's foreknowledge of such a
universe have to do with the actual precluding of free will? Simply
knowing that the universe is predetermined is to know that there can be
no
such thing as true free will, but knowing and causing are two different
things. Your argument implies that if a scientist believes that the
universe is deterministic and the scientist is right, then the scientist
is responsible
for destroying free will. That's an absurdity.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying,
Not from what you've shown.
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.
Actually, you've been as wordy as you can be in order to cover the
numerous logical flaws in your argument.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
As I've shown, it does not.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed.
As I've shown, free will or its absence need have nothing to do with god
one way or another.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence
No they don't, as I've shown. In fact, as I've shown, they have nothing
to do with one another.
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man.
If this is true, it need have nothing to do with god.
All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
You haven't even begun to show that. You haven't even addressed it.
Hence, I can only presume that you've pulled that claim out of thin air.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Again, you havne't demonstrated that.
14. GOD AND TIME.
Both Augustine and Boethius described god as being
transcendent to time, outside and beyond it.
Thus there is no past, present, or future to god,
all is now. Since all is now, god must have
create all things at once at once.
Again, you're conflating terms. Here you conflate timelessness and
creation when you haven't proved that both must be necessary attributes
of
a god.
Any explicit claims of omniscience, and creatorship of god
doom free will and more. Any claim god is outside of time
forces us to the claim god is effectively omniscient.
1. you haven't doomed free will.
2. Being outside of time is not a necessary corollary much less a cause
of
omniscience.
15. If evil exists, god is evil.
Another assertion out of left field. Please show your proof of this
assertion. You've not even addressed this question to this point.
We have no free will which
means secondary attributes of God such as mercy, love, justice
are pretty meaningless in face of a god that creates many
of us morally evil.
If such a god existed, that might be true. But you offer no evidence to
suggest that god must have had a choice in the fine details of creation.
I.e., you haven't offered proof that god must be omnipotent. Hence, your
derived assumptions that he must not be merciful, loving or just, are
what
is truly meaningless here.
Heaven, hell, damnation, sin, punishment,
salvation, nothing much makes with such an omniscient god.
How so? How does Omniscience imply any of the above?
Augustine's free will defense of God in face of Epicurus's
problem of evil is utterly undone by his claim god is sovereign
over time because he is all powerful.
You haven't shown this to be the case.
16. TIME AND GOD'S CREATION OF ALL.
If we say god is omnipotent, all powerful, he is outside
of time and free will is impossible and all else is simply an
Universe utterly alien, incoherent and mad and most certainly
not anything the great theological traditions tell it it is.
That does not follow. The fact that Augustine said that god is all
powerful and outside of time, does not mean that god is either all
powerful or outside of time, OR that either of these attributes are
necessary attributes
of god. Omnipotence does not imply being outside of time. Being outside
of time does not imply omnipotence.
And if to avoid this we say god is not outside of time, this
implies time is outside and beyond god and he cannot have
created it. Thus contradicting claims of being the creator of
all. Especially ex nihilo as many religions claim.
Not all religions make a ex nihilo claim.
17. Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed.
Apparently not, since you haven't made an argument that would lead to
such
a collapse.
As has Grand Theology.
1. Only the Grand Theology that you deliberately made up out of a
patchwork, skewed selection of elements would be impacted by even that
small part of your lengthy argument that was actually valid.
2. Since no such theology exists save in your skewed list, it cannot be
said that you've said much of anything about the major tenets of Western
Theology.
3. Your argument seems to be an argument about what you think is most
popular in most of theology.
4. Since what you think is most popular is not even representative of all
the world's MAJOR theologies [you haven't even touched the dogma of
hinduism] your argument is at best a strawman.
5. As has been shown, you're points are mostly non-sequiturs even against
the trumped up list you've created.
In short, your argument is a strawman, and you haven't even succeeded in
debunking your own strawman.
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 hanging off this class of gods in any way.
18. If a this entire class of omni-everything creator gods
cannot exist as defined, specific gods cannot
Once again, you're attempting to slip in a general statement about any
specific god when you haven't even made a successful argument against the
strawman god you've created.
Your argument fails, even in this altered version, in both its specific
and its general claims.
In summary of part 1, your argument fails on every level, Barwell.
Regardless of
whether you zero in on particular attributes of god, or you move out to a
general view, you've failed to prove your assertion that ANY class of god
can be disproven by anything you've come up with to this point.
DOES GOD EXIST? STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - NO.
1. OMNIGENESIS, DETERMINISM, FREE WILL,
METAPHYSICAL CHAOS AND THEOLOGICAL NIHILISM.
Omni - all, genesis - creation.
Omnigenesis = creation of all.
Here I shall coin a word for further discussion.
Omnigenesis means creation of all, to the smallest
physical detail.
Actually it doesn't. It means simply all creation. As thus, it doesn't
imply a god per se.
Also it doesn't imply anything beyond creation. Many native myths and
religions are also based on a creator god who is not omnipotent, omniscient,
and so on.
If god is in any way omniscient,
and creator of all, then he in fact creates all
Translation: If god creates all, god creates all.
Not terribly insightful, Mr. Barwell.
, omnigenesis,
to the smallest detail,
Non sequitur. God does not have to create the smallest detail of all things
in order to "create all." Even taking god completely out of the picture,
the big bang is one theory on how initial conditions could begin a process
that includes the present condition of the universe. It would be absurd to
assert that the big bang created all in the finest detail, although it would
not be absurd [if the big bang existed] to assert that the big bang created
all.
Your argument therefore fails at this point in the following manner.
1. God creates all.
2. God is omniscient.
3. If god creates all, god must create every detail of everything created.
The argument above does not follow logically.
all of creation to the smallest
quantum level material, to the smallest Planck quantum
distance, Planck quantum time, dimensions, fields,
everything, all of it. All that is, was, and shall be and can be.
At higher levels emergent qualities arising from these
basics create our physical world and us. It creates us,
our actions, our consciousness, feelings, nature, mental
inclinations and surrounding environment. One man may
be a lawyer in California, another an illiterate peasant
in Bangladesh. One man may be good, another an evil
psychopath. Omnigenesis means god creates all things
and all of this and all men's actions and existance
to the smallest details.
Since I've already demonstrated that the above is not a logical implication
of 'creation' as creation, the only thing you're left with is the "argument
by assertion," the fallacy that contends that an argument consists of merely
repeating unsupported or illogical assertions.
In other words, what you're really saying is God created everything down to
the finest detail because Barwell says that god created everything down to
the finest detail.
It removes all possibility of free will.
Of course it doesn't. It doesn't remove all possibility of free will,
because it is not a logical consequence of creation.
At this point you're tacking free will as another assertion onto your
original argument by assertion.
Since your original argument is illogical and does not follow from the
initial premise, this additional conclusion does not follow either.
2. THE OMNISCIENT, CREATOR GOD
God creates all, all our acts, inclinations, personalty,
to the smallest detail. This is extreme determinism.
No it's not. Hard determinism does not require god at all.
3. Omnigenesis destroys free will utterly and totally.
As I've shown, that does not follow from your initial premise. A god that
creates all does not logically imply a god that creates every detail.
This destroys compatibilism,
This could only be written by someone who has no understanding of
compatibilism. Even if your argument were valid, which it is not, classic
compatibilism does not deal with anything other than external constraint.
Unless your creator god restrains his creation physically from performing
actions, this god does not undermine classic compatibilism.
Therefore free will does not mean what you evidently believe it means,
because "will" is not effected by classic arguments of compatibilism and
determinism.
the doctrine god creates
all but we have free will, and even though god knows what
we do, he does not interfere with our free will to choose
what we do. Many people hold this doctrine is incoherent
and impossible that knowing what we do destroys free will.
Another argument by assertion. "Many people" hold many things to be true.
Interested students should note that this is a recurring theme in weak
arguments. The proponent of the argument states that many people assert
that something is true and then attempts to move on, hoping that the
objection has been dealt with. It is in effect the Appeal to Popular
Opinion in one of its forms. Mr. Barwell, would have to actually explain
how these "many people" have made a valid argument to uphold his assertion.
As always, assertions are not arguments.
But omnigenesis makes that argument moot anyway, we can
have no sort of free will at all and thus no sort of
compatibilism can be true. Compatibilism is now irrelevant
and meaningless as a dodge to exlain way free will
vs God's foreknowlege of the future.
But, as has been demonstrated before,
1. God or no god, compatibilism is problematic to modern notions of "free
will." Hence, god need have nothing to do with "free will"
2. Your entire argument to this point is flawed, hence, your so-called
"omnigenesis" has nothing to do with free will because there is no such
thing as omnigenesis as you've described it.
God knows the future because he knowingly creates its every
tinyest detail.
Unsupported and uncalled for assertion based on your own initial premesis.
4. THERE ARE 3 ASPECTS OF CREATOR GODS
OMNIGENESIS FORCES US TO CONSIDER.
Since omnigenesis as it occurs in your argument is a fallacious concept, it
doesn't "force us" to consider anything.
A. The Clock maker, determinate universe, and foreknowledge
This is idea that god is omniscient, has foreknowledge
of the future because the universe is determinate.
That god somehow winds up the Universe and lets it go
and it goes on unfolding in a determinate manner.
Laplace's demon is said to be able to know the future
relying on determinism like this. God is theorized
as just a sort of Laplacian demon here. This god created a
determinate Universe and knows the future since he can
calculate the future state of the Universe from a starting
state due specifically to the determinate quality of
the Universe.
But omnigenesis means there is no wind up universe
that unfolds,
And omnigenesis is unproven because your argument is flawed, hence the
'deist' god of the clockwork universe is quite possible.
B. God and omnipotence and time.
If god is omnipotent,or even just magnipotent, greatly
powerful, he is beyond being affected by mundane
things. Time does not affect god,
What forces "Time" to be a "mundane thing" ?
If time is not a mundane thing, how is it that you can know that time cannot
effect God?
But again its omnigenesis. God creates all. And there
is no past, future all is now. Thus all is created at
once, now, in all its finest details. We are back to
omnigenesis as above.
And omnigenesis cannot be true according to your own initial premises.
We are driven there
Only by your repeated assertions, not by logical necessity. That is why
your argument fails.
C. Omnigenesis - Creator of all and Omniscience
As seen above in 2., a god that is simple said to
be creator of all and omniscient even with no
particular theory how he knows all, out of time,
or creates a determinate word that unfolds, no
theory as to how he knows all, also dooms free will
in the strongest manner possible. Just the fact this
god is omniscience and creates all is sufficient
to create omnigenesis and doom all free will.
But the doom of free will isn't necessitated by the existence of any kind of
god.
Here again, your argument fails to account for how god directly needs to be
involved in the failure of free will in a logical sense. Since it is not
necessary for god to create all particulars in order to create all, it is
not necessary for god to have anything to do with free will.
D. Three theories of creation, omniscience
1. Deterministic, clock maker style Universe.
The theoretical deterministic prime mover's world.
2. Omniscient - creator god.
3. Omnipotent god transcendent to time.
All 3 theories lead to total omnigenesis.
Of course they don't. Your theory of omnigenesis is flawed. Therefore
nothing but your own flawed thinking "leads to it."
5. OMNIGENESIS AND METAPHYSICAL NIHILISM
God is alleged all good, totally good, omniscient,
creator of all. And the omni-everything creator
class of gods including the gods of Judaism, Islam,
Christianity and others have these attributes explicitly,
and also have other attributes.
1. Your class of gods has already been proven not to exist in anything other
than your mind in many other essays.
2. Significant differences exist in the beliefs you list as to the
attributes of god.
3. Since your theory doesn't work concerning "omnigenesis," if follows that
your theory won't work for a class of gods anymore than it works for a
single god. It does not work for any single god, even the one you've
attempted to invent. Therefore, it does not work for any class of gods
other than the class of gods that contains exactly one god, which is the god
you invented.
Heaven, hell, sin, salvation, damnation lose all
coherent sense and meaning. Where is love in
creating one man evil and many his victims?
How can that be loving, merciful or just?
The above is a pale attempt at summoning the ghost of the Argument from
Evil. Nothing you've written above is implied by your flawed theory of
'omnigenesis' even if your theory was correct.
Again, you've essentially constructed an argument by assertion alone.
Arguments consist of more than assertion, Mr. Barwell.
6. SOULS
And supposedly this god creates souls,
Which is also unnecessary from the premises leading to 'omnigenesis.'
Hence your remarks on souls do not follow from your premises.
7. CHAOS, NIHILISM, IRRATIONALITY, UNREALITY OF ALL
We achieve then total, absolute, furious metaphysical nihilism.
Not in any fashion you've described.
1. Your argument does not imply nihilism as a conclusion.
2. God is not necessary for nihilism to exist.
This is In the end, taken to their logical ends are all
theology religion, and omni-everything, creator god class
religion can possibly hope to achieve.
Actually, nothing that you've written implies these ends. Furthermore,
quite a few atheists end up embracing nihilism, Mr. Barwell. Your argument
does not speak to the rather evident truth that the emergence and growth of
nihilism parallels the historical lapse of belief in god in both Europe and
the United States.
Though I do not consider this historical fact an argument for religion in
general, it certainly cannot be construed as an argument for the salutory
benefits of anti-theism.
Materialism must be true, the only truth possible.
You have not even begun to demonstrate that the above is true, Mr. Barwell.
Your omnigenesis argument, is hopeless flawed on its face. And you
certainly have not shown that materialism is the only alternative to a
belief in the god you've created for your argument.
In summary.
1. Your argument is flawed due to non-sequiturs [creation does not imply
creation of each and every particular element of reality] and the argument
by assertion [the assertion of omniscience, the assertion of freedom from
time, the assertion of the necessity of souls, and so on...none of which
have you supported with logical arguments].
2. Materialism is not the only alternative to your argument.
Hence, omnigenesis leads to nothing because omnigenesis as you've described
it does not exist. And materialism is not the only alternative to your
argument, hence it is not the only possible truth.
In the end, we have two stark choices, sane materialism, or
total metaphysical nihilsm. There is really then, only one choice.
A crowning end to your typical lack of rationality.
If we have indeed only one choice, we do not logically have a choice.
.
