| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Bill M" |
| Date: |
09 Sep 2006 03:10:39 PM |
| Object: |
WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?
There are many different religions and literally thousands of God beliefs.
There many religions such as Judaism, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims,
Shintoists, Confusions, Christians, Catholics etc.. There are thousands of
variations in the beliefs of each of these religions and hundreds of minor
religions.
No real god has ever announced directly from his heaven that he is the real
god and all the others are fakes or even that the variations of beliefs
within his own religion are false. There are a plentitude of different
religious documents that proclaim the validity of various Gods.
WHICH IF ANY ARE CORRECT???
Major religious texts and documents;
Baha'i Sacrid writtings
Life of Buddha - Dhammapada - Pali cannon
The Bible - Christian religious documents - 18 English versions alone.
No originals of the old or new testaments exist.
The Book of Mormon - Church of Latter Day Saints
The Analects - Confuscianism
The Eddas and Sagas - Icelandic beliefs
Wicca - Neo paganism of Greece and Rome
Bhagavgita and Rig Veda - Hinduism
Qur'an - Islam
Adi Granth and Dasam Granth - canonical scripture of the Sikhs
Tanakh - Jewism
Tao-Te-Ching - Taoism
Nag Hammadi - Gnostics
Zhuan Falun - Falun Gong
Of all these different Gods and belief systems which is the TRUE one, if
any, and which are fakes? Non of these documents are any objective evidence.
They are all documents written, hand copied, modified and further copied,
over the centuries, by errant men with their own personal and selfish
motivations. All of these documents, except the Book of Morman, were hand
written and hand copied over the centuries before the invention of the
printing press. There is no way to determine authenticity or accuracy of any
of these. The objective evidence is that they are a mixture of inaccurate
history, myth, folklore and legends.
Man can directly communicate with the whole world via TV, the Internet,
Phone and Radio. If there is a real God, why does he not announce to the
whole world from his heaven, by at least an equally effective means, that he
is the real God and all the others are fakes? And why does he not tell us
clearly and directly what he expects from us instead of using hundreds of
vague, ancient, contradictory, unoriginal documents compiled by dozens of
different religions and hundreds of unauthenticated men.
The real objective evidence is that no Gods CREATED MAN but quite the
opposite; that man created gods!
.
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
10 Sep 2006 08:43:15 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 16:10:39 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?
Are you one of those that believes that unsupported myth that there is no
almighty God?
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wood" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
20 Sep 2006 11:21:16 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6i58g2pau3lbq212fsp1nqflph286taklh@4ax.com...
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 16:10:39 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?
Are you one of those that believes that unsupported myth that there is no
almighty God?
I would rather live my life as if there is a God and at the end go into
oblivion because there is no God, rather than live my life as if there
is no God and at the end find out that there is a God.
Dan Wood
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
21 Sep 2006 12:20:19 AM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Dan Wood (danwood34@gmail.com)
made the light shine upon us with this:
I would rather live my life as if there is a God and at the end go into
oblivion because there is no God, rather than live my life as if there
is no God and at the end find out that there is a God.
Sigh. Pascal's Wager rears its ugly head once again. What happens if you
live your life as if there is a God, and you find out in the end that the
god only saves people who think for themselves, and don't throw their lives
away chasing an illogical pipe dream?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
10 Sep 2006 09:40:53 AM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6i58g2pau3lbq212fsp1nqflph286taklh@4ax.com...
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 16:10:39 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?
Are you one of those that believes that unsupported myth that there is no
almighty God?
duke, American-American
Your god has not blessed you with understandable English.
I do believe, based on evidence, that god beliefs are pure myth.
Children typically believe in myths and fables. What is your age?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
11 Sep 2006 08:23:46 AM |
|
|
"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:FtVMg.2698$726.858@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6i58g2pau3lbq212fsp1nqflph286taklh@4ax.com...
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 16:10:39 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?
Are you one of those that believes that unsupported myth that there is no
almighty God?
duke, American-American
Your god has not blessed you with understandable English.
I do believe, based on evidence, that god beliefs are pure myth.
Children typically believe in myths and fables. What is your age?
NOBODY believes in YOUR god Bill! Get used to it already. The god of
your definition doesn't exist. You are only chanting nonsense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
11 Sep 2006 11:25:02 PM |
|
|
Pastor Frank wrote:
"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:FtVMg.2698$726.858@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6i58g2pau3lbq212fsp1nqflph286taklh@4ax.com...
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 16:10:39 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?
Are you one of those that believes that unsupported myth that there is no
almighty God?
duke, American-American
Your god has not blessed you with understandable English.
I do believe, based on evidence, that god beliefs are pure myth.
Children typically believe in myths and fables. What is your age?
NOBODY believes in YOUR god Bill! Get used to it already. The god of
your definition doesn't exist. You are only chanting nonsense.
Are you incapable of grasping the fact Frank
that not all people have ot have an imaginary god.
some of us prefer living in the real world
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
10 Sep 2006 01:53:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:40:53 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?
Are you one of those that believes that unsupported myth that there is no
almighty God?
Your god has not blessed you with understandable English.
I do believe, based on evidence, that god beliefs are pure myth.
Like I said, are you one of those that believes that unsupported myth that there
is no almighty God?
Children typically believe in myths and fables. What is your age?
You're playing in myths and fables.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
10 Sep 2006 02:57:12 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:vmn8g2pna5d6tsa6cnvtu8hg6762jdbr5o@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:40:53 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?
Are you one of those that believes that unsupported myth that there is
no
almighty God?
Your god has not blessed you with understandable English.
I do believe, based on evidence, that god beliefs are pure myth.
Like I said, are you one of those that believes that unsupported myth that
there
is no almighty God?
Duke, please take a basic course in 'logic' before posting your nonsense.
There is no such thing as an 'unsupported myth that there is no almighty
god'. THERE IS NO - NADA OBJECTIVE
EVIDENCE THAT ANY ALMIGHTY OR OTHER GOD EXISTS!
Children typically believe in myths and fables. What is your age?
You're playing in myths and fables.
No, I just don't base my beliefs on 'myths and fable'. Only children and the
menatlly deficient
believe in myths and fables.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
11 Sep 2006 10:15:40 AM |
|
|
"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:d6_Mg.17437$Ca4.17126@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:vmn8g2pna5d6tsa6cnvtu8hg6762jdbr5o@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:40:53 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?
Are you one of those that believes that unsupported myth that there is
no
almighty God?
Your god has not blessed you with understandable English.
I do believe, based on evidence, that god beliefs are pure myth.
Like I said, are you one of those that believes that unsupported myth
that there
is no almighty God?
Duke, please take a basic course in 'logic' before posting your nonsense.
There is no such thing as an 'unsupported myth that there is no almighty
god'. THERE IS NO - NADA OBJECTIVE
EVIDENCE THAT ANY ALMIGHTY OR OTHER GOD EXISTS!
Children typically believe in myths and fables. What is your age?
You're playing in myths and fables.
No, I just don't base my beliefs on 'myths and fable'. Only children and
the mentally deficient believe in myths and fables.
"No," only atheists bother to disbelieve myths and fables, the rest of
us all know how to read myths and fables and find the meaning in them which
kept them memorable.
Ask Christ into your life and give Him space to work His miracle, and He
will open your eyes to the truth.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Father Haskell" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
10 Sep 2006 06:04:01 PM |
|
|
Bill M wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:vmn8g2pna5d6tsa6cnvtu8hg6762jdbr5o@4ax.com...
You're playing in myths and fables.
No, I just don't base my beliefs on 'myths and fable'. Only children and the
menatlly deficient
believe in myths and fables.
Nothing wrong with fables in and of themselves, since they're
by definition universally understood to be pure literary inventions.
In fact, many of them teach useful lessons by analogy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
10 Sep 2006 03:22:58 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:57:12 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Like I said, are you one of those that believes that unsupported myth that
there
is no almighty God?
Duke, please take a basic course in 'logic' before posting your nonsense.
There is no such thing as an 'unsupported myth that there is no almighty
god'. THERE IS NO - NADA OBJECTIVE
EVIDENCE THAT ANY ALMIGHTY OR OTHER GOD EXISTS!
You wish I restate it? OK. All evidence demands the existence of God.
Children typically believe in myths and fables. What is your age?
You're playing in myths and fables.
No, I just don't base my beliefs on 'myths and fable'.
Sure you do. All evidence demands the existence of God. You're playing games
with your head suggesting there is no God. There is no evidence to support such
a fable.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
11 Sep 2006 01:48:47 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ess8g29gs116bkfb9l9c36usfvuu8r7neg@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:57:12 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Like I said, are you one of those that believes that unsupported myth
that
there
is no almighty God?
Duke, please take a basic course in 'logic' before posting your nonsense.
There is no such thing as an 'unsupported myth that there is no almighty
god'. THERE IS NO - NADA OBJECTIVE
EVIDENCE THAT ANY ALMIGHTY OR OTHER GOD EXISTS!
You wish I restate it? OK. All evidence demands the existence of God.
You have made this statement dozens of time but have never suppied ANY
asctual evidence.
Where is your objective verifiable evidence???
Children typically believe in myths and fables. What is your age?
You're playing in myths and fables.
No, I just don't base my beliefs on 'myths and fable'.
Sure you do. All evidence demands the existence of God. You're playing
games
with your head suggesting there is no God. There is no evidence to
support such
a fable.
There you go again twisting your logic into pure nonsense. I posted NO
FABLE. I stated
there is no objective verifiable evidence that your god exists. You keep
claiming "All evidence
demands the existence of God".
When are you going to supply the objective verifiable evidence instead of
just engaging in
avoidence and nonsensical statements?
Were still waiting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
16 Sep 2006 06:35:40 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:48:47 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
You wish I restate it? OK. All evidence demands the existence of God.
You have made this statement dozens of time but have never suppied ANY
asctual evidence.
Where is your objective verifiable evidence???
Where is your evidence, neither objective or verifiable required, that there is
no almighty God?
All evidence demands the existence of God.
There you go again twisting your logic into pure nonsense. I posted NO
FABLE. I stated there is no objective verifiable evidence that your god exists. You keep
claiming "All evidence demands the existence of God".
Because there is no evidence for the nonexistence of God, because all evidence
demands the existence of God.
Were still waiting.
If you want nothing to do with God in this life, I'm sure he'll grant you your
wish for all eternity.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
16 Sep 2006 12:50:08 PM |
|
|
In article <07ong2lckd6aeaqdhg8mjeghdo9nd5vv1q@4ax.com>,
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
All evidence demands the existence of God.
Even if so, not all demands are met.
--
655321
"Heed the message served with every Republican banquet speech -- that the
private interest precedes the public interest, that money is good for rich
people, bad for poor people -- and who can say that the war in Iraq has proven
to be anything other than the transformation of a godforsaken desert into a
defense contractor's Garden of Eden?" -- Lewis Lapham
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
17 Sep 2006 01:22:03 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:48:47 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
You wish I restate it? OK. All evidence demands the existence of God.
You have made this statement dozens of time but have never suppied ANY
asctual evidence.
Where is your objective verifiable evidence???
Where is your evidence, neither objective or verifiable required, that there is
no almighty God?
Eeeerm you do not claim do you that you are not bordering on insanity?
All evidence demands the existence of God.
There you go again twisting your logic into pure nonsense. I posted NO
FABLE. I stated there is no objective verifiable evidence that your god exists. You keep
claiming "All evidence demands the existence of God".
Because there is no evidence for the nonexistence of God, because all evidence
demands the existence of God.
Were still waiting.
If you want nothing to do with God in this life, I'm sure he'll grant you your
wish for all eternity.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
16 Sep 2006 02:28:28 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
Where is your evidence, neither objective or verifiable required, that
there is no almighty God?
DOES GOD EXIST? STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - NO.
1. OMNIGENESIS, DETERMINISM, FREE WILL, METAPHYSICAL
CHAOS AND THEOLOGICAL NIHILISM.
4.3 billion people believe in religions that have a god
that is claimed to have created all, and is omniscient
and omnipotent. Omni-everything creator class gods (OEC).
After OEC god religions, non-theistic religions like
Buddhism are the largest religions. Non-OEC gods are also
easily shown impossible, but these are not very numerous
nor important religions. This essay disproves the OEC
class gods that make up the largest number of today's
important religions and represent the vast bulk of
religious believers.
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. If god is in any way omniscient,
and creator of all, then he in fact creates all,
omnigenesis, to the smallest detail, 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. All physics we know of and much
physics we do not as yet understand. And this god creates,
at higher levels, emergent qualities arising from these
basics that create our physical world and us. This god
than, creates us, our actions, our consciousness, feelings,
nature, mental inclinations and surrounding environment.
One man may be created a lawyer in California, another
an illiterate peasant in Bangladesh. One man may be good,
another an evil psychopath. Omnigenesis means god creates
all these things all men's actions, and existence to the
smallest details. All we are and all we do to the smallest
detail possible is created knowingly, and purposefully to
the smallest possible degree by God.
Omnigenesis, if true, removes all possibility of free will.
2. THE OMNISCIENT, CREATOR GOD
The claims that that god of Bible, Vedas, or Quran is
omniscient, and creator of all means these gods are
essentially driven to omnigenesis, creation of all.
Free will is impossible with a god that creates all
and is omniscient. OEC class god are claimed to be
creator of all and omniscient. That includes knowing
the full future which is important to religious claims
(Christian and Quran especially) of revelation and
prophecy of future events.
God at the start of creation must look at what his
considered creation will create and decide, "Do I allow
this or that to happen?"
"Do I make John Smith 13 billion years into the future
a man who is evil and damned or good and saved to life
eternal in heaven?" All acts Smith does are decided by god.
"Do I allow Smith at 10:23 June 24, 1999 commit rape-murder
or not?"
God must look at that future and say yes, or no and then
create the world that will generate that future he has
personally and purposefully decided on. All acts of all
sentient beings are decided on and created in the smallest
possible detail, knowing, and purposefully by this omniscient
creator God from the beginning of creation.
3. OMNIGENESIS DESTROYS FREE WILL AND COMPATIBALISM.
This destroys compatibilism, the doctrine god creates
all but we have free will, and even though god knows what
we do in the future, 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, the future is set.
In Christian theology, compatibilism has been the Roman
Catholic Church's dogmatic stance, which came out of
St Augustine's writings on free will. (1) Augustine
attempted to harmonize god's foreknowledge and our free will.
Opposing this are Calvinist claims of double predestination.
Calvinism claims man had free will and lost it with original sin.
But omnigenesis makes these arguments moot. We can
have no sort of free will at all if god creates all to
the smallest detail, and thus no sort of compatibilism
can be true. Hard incompatiblism, the claim that free
will is impossible if god foreknows the future is closer
to the facts. God creates the future in all detail, not
just knows it. Compatibilism is now irrelevant and meaningless
as a dodge to explain way free will vs God's foreknowledge
of the future. God knows the future not because he is
mysteriously omniscient and all knowing, but because he
knowingly creates the Universe, all of it, to the tiniest
details. All is created after personal consideration and
personal approval of all details. If on June 24, 1999
John Smth does indeed commit murder-rape, God saw that the
Universe he considered creating would contain this act of
Smith's if he created this Universe, and he made a decision
to allow this rape and subsequent murder to occur.
That universe with this murder - rape was actualized
by god purposefuly and knowingly.
4. THERE ARE 3 ASPECTS OF CREATOR GODS
OMNIGENESIS FORCES US TO CONSIDER.
A. THE CLOCKMAKER GOD, FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE FUTURE
AND AN EXPLICITLY DETERMINATE UNIVERSE.
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, the
Deist god. The God of some natural theologies. The so
called clock maker God.
Laplace's demon is a thought experiment, a conceptual idea
invented by Pierre-Simon Laplace, the French Astronomer,
in 1820 (2)
Laplace's demon is said to be able to know the future
relying on the Universe's explicit determinism to calculate
the future. God has been theorized as just a sort of
Laplacian demon. 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. Since this
god creates the initial state of the Universe, all futures
states unfold from that and god can control future states
by choosing the appropriate initial starting state
of the Universe. Thus we have omnigenesis. By controlling
the initial conditions of the Universe all is controlled
including future states.
Here, in a determinate Universe we can have no free
will, not even in principle.
A determinate, clock maker Universe that unwinds in a
determinate manner from a god created initial state
precludes all possibility of free will. All is determined.
Omnigenesis, all parts of a future Universe and all
our future acts are controlled by the god created
initial conditions of an explcitly determinate Universe.
B. GOD, OMNIPOTENCE AND TIME.
If god is omnipotent, he is beyond being affected by
mundane things. Time does not affect god, he created time
and God controls time, time does not control or affect
God. For God there is no past, present, future, just now.
This is God as explained by Augustine and Boethius. (3)
God out of time, transcendent to time, is a standard
theological claim because of these thinkers. If god were
controlled and subject to time, he could not be as claimed,
all powerful, omnipotent.
But again it's omnigenesis. God creates all. There
is no past, or future, all is one big now. Thus all is
created at once, now, in all its finest details. We are
back to omnigenesis as above.
We are driven there starting with claims god is
omnipotent and considering an omnipotent god who
created all and that god's relation to mundane time.
Omnipotence implies sovereignty over time which
drives us to total omni-genesis. Omnipotence and
omniscience both destroy and possibility of free will
in the very strongest manner possible.
C. OMNISCIENCE, GOD - CREATOR OF ALL, AND
OMNIGENESIS.
As seen above in 2. "The Omniscient, creator god",
a god that is simple said to be creator of all and
omniscient. No particular theory how he knows
all, is given, it is just claimed god is omniscient.
A God with no explicit theory as to how he knows all
still dooms free will in the strongest manner possible.
Just the fact this god is omniscience and creates all
is sufficient to create a states of universal omnigenesis.
D. Thus we have three theories of creation, omniscience
1. Deterministic, clock maker style Universe.
The theoretical deterministic prime mover's world.
2. Omnipotent god transcendent to time.
3. Omniscient - creator god.
All 3 theories lead to omnigenesis.
All 3 theories destroy any possible free will
totally in the strongest manner possible.
5. OMNIGENESIS AND METAPHYSICAL NIHILISM
A. 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.
B. These specific attributes are to be found in various
alleged revelations, Quran, Bible Vedas, et al. Proof
texts are used to make specific claims, god is merciful,
just, God loves us, God wants us to be saved and other
similar claims. Plus claims such as God created hell
and heaven, and that some men are to spend eternity in
eternal torment for their sins and acts.
C. God is just, merciful, he loves us and wants us to
be good and to be saved. God hates sin, evil and
punishes evil men for their acts, including eternal
damnation. And so on. Different religions may have
slightly different variations and emphasis on this
or that aspect of their god's abilities. Also involved
are more metaphysical considerations. God's perfection,
God as source of all morality, god's immutability.
But OMNIGENESIS destroys all of this. Since God
creates all to the smallest atom, act, and inclination,
there is no room for love or mercy. Why create one
man good, saved and to have eternal life in heaven,
and the next man evil, damned and tortured in eternal
torment in the flames of hell for all eternity for
acts that god decided, planned and created in all
their minute details to the lowliest quark?
Why that then, if god loves us all is just and merciful?
Since free will means nothing in the strongest manner
imaginable, a god that loves us would create us all
saved, and good and to have life eternal in heaven
if that god is as claimed merciful, just and loving
and omnibenevolent. Since we have no free will its
all one and the same. Thus we would expect a world
where all are good, and moral evil is never done by man
if in fact there was a god who creates all such that all
is decided by god to the finest details.
Heaven, hell, sin, salvation, damnation lose all
coherent sense and meaning. Where is love in
creating one man evil and allow him to torment many
innocent victims? How can that be loving, merciful or
just?
Theologians have created many half-baked excuses, suffering
creates character, evils allow second order goods to exist,
a kindness done to a fellow victim of a genocidal murderer
like Hilter perhaps.
That all dissolves into a meaningless, incoherent nihilism,
a bewildering meaninglessness far beyond the supposed
meaninglessness of a materialistic, Atheistic world
without god, which many theists assert is the logical
end point of Atheism.
Here god is creator of grotesquely meaningless chaos.
A world without any meaning, a surreal Hieronymus
Bosch world of demons and angels and the damned,
heavens and hells with lakes of molten sulfur and
fiery flames and unrelenting torture for men who
were only toys of a relentlessly mad, and meaningless
monster god who created them damned, for reasons unknown,
and unknowable, and irrational to nihilistic extremes.
6. SOULS
And supposedly this god creates souls, which somehow,
are attached to our physical bodies and minds and are
part of the heart of our very existence. Then again,
along with our bodies, our minds, our acts, our inclinations,
god must have created these souls. But he also must have
created them in relationship to our physical body and its
created acts, acts created by god to the smallest details.
It is the soul that allegedly is damned or saved and lives
for ever, or some such, but again, all acts of ours are
created by omnigenesis to the smallest quark so god either also
creates a corresponding soul, damned or saved in parallel.
Or maybe not, who can tell with such an incoherent chaotic,
senseless, irrational system?
The doctrine of souls, confusing enough as is, now becomes
impossible to explain in any fashion. It makes no sense
in a physical world that is determinate to the most
exacting omnigenesistic manner, how does a soul fit
into that world?
With omnigenesis all bets are off, all supposed knowledge
is impossible and incoherent to extremes.
7. CHAOS, NIHILISM, IRRATIONALITY, UNREALITY OF ALL
We achieve then total, absolute, furious metaphysical nihilism.
God is mad, and nothing in reality, or metaphysics or any possible
afterlife can be trusted. All supposed systems of metaphysics,
philosophy, religion, theology and reality are destroyed until
the rubble of it all is sucked into a chaotic surreal abyss of
irrational metaphysics undreamed of by thinking man. Theism
at bottom is nihilism so total it is obviously wrong in all its
particulars.
Good, evil, sin, salvation, damnation, sin, souls, heaven,
hell, love, mercy, justice, theodicy, teleology, ontology,
all makes no sense in the strongest terms. the class of
omni-everything, creator Gods destroys everything
with corrosive finality.
Theology, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, philosophy,
science, nothing makes the slightest sense in an omnigenesis
world, with a god that destroys all it touches if we claim
this personal, concious god is all knowing and creates all.
God then is perfect intellectual nihilism.
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. Utter madness
and total incoherence. Compared to this atheistic
materialism is mankind's only rational hope.
Materialism must be true, the only truth possible. The Grand
Gods of Grand Theologies not only self destruct, but destroy
everything else with such incredible thoroughness and totality
that they cannot possibly be truth or reality. The class of
creator, omni-everything gods are impossible in the strongest
terms.
In the end, we have two stark and plain choices, sane
materialism, or total theological/metaphysical nihilism.
There is really then, only one choice to which we are driven
by logic and rationality.
God as creator of all, and omni-everything is impossible.
(1) Augustine (CE 388-395) De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio
(2) Pierre-Simon Laplace - "Essai Philosophique sur
les Probabilites" 1820.
(3) St. Augustine "Confessions" Book XI
(4) Boethius "Consolations of Philosophy" Book V
(End)
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD: Barwell DEBUNKED |
16 Sep 2006 04:26:36 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gok4b4iim0sdd@corp.supernews.com...
I am now rewriting my Omnigenesis essay and sharpening it up rather
considerably.
Possible Translation: You mean this time it will actually be logically
valid?
Simplified, some what less confusing, still basically the same
truth
Well, since your original argument was fundamentally flawed and NOT true,
you're probably still in the intellectual bog you began in.
you are mentally incapable of understanding.
Yadda, yadda.
You are a totally ignorant, unthinking fool.
Cough up the argument, save the taunts for your S&M friends.
Again, OEC gods are claimed to be creators of all, all knowing
via revelation.
Define revelation. In most modern religions, revelation is considered to be
an ongoing aspect of the church. It's not confined to the OT prophets.
This logically creates omnigenesis and that creates
metaphysical nihilism.
How does revelation imply creation? If I tell Fred what I plan on doing
next Tuesday and I don't tell Sally, I can be said to have revealed
something to Fred. Fred might even decide to call himself the prophet of
Gandalf. That doesn't mean I created the universe.
On the other hand, if your claiming that literally....." .....OEC gods are
claimed to be creators of all, all knowing via revelation," then all you're
saying is that the gods that are in the class of gods that are claimed to be
'omni-everything' [to use your pre-confabulated term], are in fact claimed
to be all knowing. And since 'all-knowingness' is already a part of your
'omni-everything class,' the only thing you're telling us is that the gods
that are claimed to be omni-everything are claimed to be omni-everything.
Redundant as well as being a strawman, since it's already been demonstrated
to you that
1. Modern religions do not all claim that God is omnipotent and omniscient
and neither did the original Hebrew texts state that God was omnipotent and
omniscient without internal contradiction.
2. Not all modern religions believe in revelation through holy texts
3. Not all modern religions believe that revelation is closed.
4. Not all modern religions believe that revelation is open.
Which leads us to wonder why or how revelation has anything to do with
anything.
-----
DOES GOD EXIST? STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - NO.
1. OMNIGENESIS, DETERMINISM, FREE WILL, METAPHYSICAL
CHAOS AND THEOLOGICAL NIHILISM.
4.3 billion people believe in religions that have a god
that is claimed to have created all, and is omniscient
and omnipotent.
Which leaves a whole lot of people who don't believe that but still believe
in a god. Which leaves your original claim that 'god is easy to disprove'
totally without support.
Omni-everything creator class gods (OEC).
After OEC god religions, non-theistic religions like
Buddhism are the largest religions. Non-OEC gods are also
easily shown impossible
Apparently they aren't "easily shown impossible". Out of the piles of horse
manure you've served up to the group, you haven't come up with a single
argument that has succeeded in doing that so far. I doubt that there are
many people here who will have forgotten that the best you could do on that
subject was to offer a personal opinion that Non-OEC gods 'weren't very
important." Quite a proof.
, but these are not very numerous
nor important religions.
And true to form, there you go again. Two problems with the comment.
1. YOU don't get to decide what's important.
2. Commenting that a particular god of a particular belief or group of
beliefs is not 'important' is not PROOF that they cannot exist. Cheap
brush-offs don't equal valid conclusions.
You've stated:
Non-OEC gods are also
easily shown impossible
So prove it right here, right now. I think most of the readers are tired of
watching the BillyBob version of The Rehashed Theological Arguments on Revue
show. The recognizably logical parts of any of your articles aren't yours.
They're antique arguments that worked better before you started skewing
them. YOU, on the other hand, have shown NOTHING that's new, and NOTHING
that's shown that Non-omnipotent gods are "impossible."
You can pull your pseudo arguments out of the trash, you can re-edit them,
you can reword them, or even put sequins on them and they're still going to
be garbage, Barwell. They still don't prove that no god can possibly exist,
which is what YOU claimed you could do. Everything from then to now has
been you tapdancing around your original fraudulent claim that you could
disprove the existence of any possible god. All the sheer tonnage of your
piles of crap has been an effort on your part to avoid the truth that you
don't have one damned clue as to how to disprove the existence of any
possible god. All your manure and the only thing you have to show for it is
'well, if god exists, god isn't very important.'
Omni - all, genesis - creation.
Omnigenesis = creation of all.
No it doesn't. It means "all creation"
Here I shall coin a word for further discussion.
Translation: Here you shall mutilate some words to try to disguise the fact
that you've got no game.
Omnigenesis means creation of all, to the smallest
physical detail. If god is in any way omniscient,
and creator of all, then he in fact creates all,
omnigenesis, to the smallest detail, all of creation
to the smallest quantum level material, to the smallest
Planck quantum distance, Planck quantum time, dimensions,
fields, everything, all of it.
Sorry, but you flop right here, as usual. If the Big Bang were the creator
of all, there is no logical necessity that the Big Bang would have to
manufacture everything in the universe down to the smallest detail. There
is no valid logic that necessitates that a first cause must create
everything in detail.
The rest of your argument is fatally flawed by your first and fatal mistake.
In short, it's the same garbage argument, propped up with more sophistry.
If you've got an argument that disproves the existence of any god, cough it
up, Barney. The majority of readers here have read better disproofs of the
orthodox god of Xianity than anything you could possibly come up with. If
you've got something new, trot it out or take a hike.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dichard Rawkins" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
10 Sep 2006 04:37:00 PM |
|
|
duke <dumbgucko32@cox.net> wrote in message
<ess8g29gs116bkfb9l9c36usfvuu8r7neg@4ax.com>
You wish I restate it? OK. All evidence demands the existence of God.
Children typically believe in myths and fables. What is your age?
You're playing in myths and fables.
No, I just don't base my beliefs on 'myths and fable'.
Sure you do. All evidence demands the existence of God.
LOL. I guess that falls under the same category as the verse that says even
the stones cry out the existence of god. It is just religious intellectual
imperialism, the vain conceit of the fool who thinks he can just declare truth
by fiat, instead of having to earn it through reason, logic and trial and error
corrective processes. It is an imbecile's delight to just declare God by fiat.
You're playing games
with your head suggesting there is no God. There is no evidence to support such
a fable.
Of course there is evidence disproving the Christian god. Only a fool or
immoral sleaze would think otherwise. The Christian god is supposedly perfectly
all powerful and omnipresent. So when a child is walking home and a pedophile
lies in wait, the Christian god would be there and watching everything, but he
does not interfere and distract the little child away from the pedophile, but
lets him be kidnapped and then tortured, raped and eventually killed in a
gruesome manner, watching the whole thing closely but doing not a thing to stop
it. Sure, he could have interfered without interrupting anyone's free will,
being omnipotent and all, but he doesn't. Well, that is not a good being. If
such a being existed he would be nothing more than a psychotic, twisted pervert
deserving of only disgust and a good swift kick in the *****. His so-called
scriptures would deserve nothing less than to be used as toilet paper.
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.4.2769
[ Followup-To: alt.bible ]
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
16 Sep 2006 06:32:40 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:37:00 GMT, "Dichard Rawkins" <God?JustSayNo@large.com>
wrote:
Of course there is evidence disproving the Christian god. Only a fool or
immoral sleaze would think otherwise. The Christian god is supposedly perfectly
all powerful and omnipresent. So when a child is walking home and a pedophile
lies in wait, the Christian god would be there and watching everything, but he
does not interfere and distract the little child away from the pedophile, but
lets him be kidnapped and then tortured, raped and eventually killed in a
gruesome manner, watching the whole thing closely but doing not a thing to stop
it. Sure, he could have interfered without interrupting anyone's free will,
being omnipotent and all, but he doesn't. Well, that is not a good being. If
such a being existed he would be nothing more than a psychotic, twisted pervert
deserving of only disgust and a good swift kick in the *****. His so-called
scriptures would deserve nothing less than to be used as toilet paper.
There would have been no pedophile had it not been for man's propensity to sin.
God lets it happen. It is a choice - God or satan.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dichard Rawkins" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
16 Sep 2006 05:03:05 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
<q3ong29ljultk0cvvatjvif5vhe5q5rhh1@4ax.com>
There would have been no pedophile had it not been for man's propensity to sin.
God lets it happen.
Which makes God a voyeur and sadist (if he existed that is).
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.4.2791
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
10 Sep 2006 11:27:01 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:57:12 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Like I said, are you one of those that believes that unsupported myth that
there
is no almighty God?
Duke, please take a basic course in 'logic' before posting your nonsense.
There is no such thing as an 'unsupported myth that there is no almighty
god'. THERE IS NO - NADA OBJECTIVE
EVIDENCE THAT ANY ALMIGHTY OR OTHER GOD EXISTS!
You wish I restate it? OK. All evidence demands the existence of God.
Children typically believe in myths and fables. What is your age?
You're playing in myths and fables.
No, I just don't base my beliefs on 'myths and fable'.
Sure you do. All evidence demands the existence of God.
Like I said - you are cracking up.
Get help
and I don't mean from a priest
You're playing games
with your head suggesting there is no God. There is no evidence to support such
a fable.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
10 Sep 2006 11:26:02 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:40:53 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?
Are you one of those that believes that unsupported myth that there is no
almighty God?
Your god has not blessed you with understandable English.
I do believe, based on evidence, that god beliefs are pure myth.
Like I said, are you one of those that believes that unsupported myth that there
is no almighty God?
Dook you have been struggling to support that imaginary deity for so long now you
are beginning to crack up.
The existence or otherwise of the tens of thousand of recorded gods is a matter of
logic and common sense. If you wish to exist in a world devoid of these attributes
that is your problem, but, sorry, I for one am not prepared to play your silly
games. The ssue of religions and what they do to the humans that make them up is a
far too serious matter.
Thailand, Indonesia, Southern Philippines all lands with Muslim, Buddhist and
Christians trying to exist side by side. Living so close by here in hong kong we
hear almost weekly of atrocities committed by fearful humans who feel threatened
by the 'other' religion
It is not the gods that do the threeatening, by the way, only man - the gods are
simply imaginary
Bob
Children typically believe in myths and fables. What is your age?
You're playing in myths and fables.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dichard Rawkins" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
10 Sep 2006 12:22:13 PM |
|
|
duke <dumbgucko32@cox.net> wrote in message
<6i58g2pau3lbq212fsp1nqflph286taklh@4ax.com>
Are you one of those that believes that unsupported myth that there is no
almighty God?
It is highly supported. You just refuse to accept that fact, even though it is
has been shown to you repeatedly here on usenet.
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.4.2769
[ Followup-To: alt.bible ]
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
10 Sep 2006 01:55:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 17:22:13 GMT, "Dichard Rawkins" <God?JustSayNo@large.com>
wrote:
Are you one of those that believes that unsupported myth that there is no
almighty God?
It is highly supported.
Where?
You just refuse to accept that fact, even though it is
has been shown to you repeatedly here on usenet.
No it hasn't. In fact, all evidence to be offered demands the existence of God.
There is nothing but unsupported fables and myths that God does not exist.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
10 Sep 2006 03:06:44 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:npn8g214424tf0o3damic8jjhta3sfh2v3@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 17:22:13 GMT, "Dichard Rawkins"
<God?JustSayNo@large.com>
wrote:
Are you one of those that believes that unsupported myth that there is
no
almighty God?
It is highly supported.
Where?
You just refuse to accept that fact, even though it is
has been shown to you repeatedly here on usenet.
No it hasn't. In fact, all evidence to be offered demands the existence
of God.
Duke you keep making this claim but NEVER supply the evidence.
There is nothing but unsupported fables and myths that God does not exist.
Typical religious illogic. It is the total lack of objective verifiable
evidence for the existence
of ANY gods that supports the conclusion there are non. This is not myth or
fable but 'fact'.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
10 Sep 2006 03:24:23 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 16:06:44 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
No it hasn't. In fact, all evidence to be offered demands the existence
of God.
Duke you keep making this claim but NEVER supply the evidence.
Start with the big bang, buddy. Something from nothing.
There is nothing but unsupported fables and myths that God does not exist.
Typical religious illogic. It is the total lack of objective verifiable
evidence for the existence of ANY gods that supports the conclusion there are non. This is not myth or
fable but 'fact'.
And your beliefs totally lack objective verifiable evidence.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dichard Rawkins" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
10 Sep 2006 04:15:43 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
<b1t8g29agi5csomtc0tb2asshq4rusd7vr@4ax.com>
There is nothing but unsupported fables and myths that God does not exist.
Typical religious illogic. It is the total lack of objective verifiable
evidence for the existence of ANY gods that supports the conclusion there are non. This is not myth or
fable but 'fact'.
And your beliefs totally lack objective verifiable evidence.
You must be omitting the Christian god then. There is a ton of evidence that no
such beast actually exists, like the existence of childhood rape, torture and
murder, or the obvious illogic of a supposedly "good" god accepting the death
of an innocent for the crimes of someone else.
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.4.2769
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dichard Rawkins" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
11 Sep 2006 08:31:16 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
<npn8g214424tf0o3damic8jjhta3sfh2v3@4ax.com>
You just refuse to accept that fact, even though it is
has been shown to you repeatedly here on usenet.
No it hasn't. In fact, all evidence to be offered demands the existence of God.
There is nothing but unsupported fables and myths that God does not exist.
Actually all the evidence in the universe farts and shits on the idea that god
exists. Even the stones cry out that it is a farce and only a fool would
believe. Just yesterday Mount Everest said that the Bible is ***** and
Christianity sucks pagan *****.
[Just a bit of your own medicine, fool]
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.4.2770
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dichard Rawkins" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
10 Sep 2006 04:40:24 PM |
|
|
duke <dumbgucko32@cox.net> wrote in message
<npn8g214424tf0o3damic8jjhta3sfh2v3@4ax.com>
It is highly supported.
Where?
You just refuse to accept that fact, even though it is
has been shown to you repeatedly here on usenet.
No it hasn't.
Yes it has. We've gone through the disproofs several times. One of them was the
child-rape-torture-murder problem, whereby an omnipotent omnipresent god would
be watching every single time a child is raped, tortured and murdered, without
doing anything to stop it. You and no other believer has ever offered an
adequate counter-argument to that disproof.
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.4.2769
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
10 Sep 2006 03:08:25 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 17:22:13 GMT, "Dichard Rawkins" <God?JustSayNo@large.com>
wrote:
Are you one of those that believes that unsupported myth that there is no
almighty God?
It is highly supported.
Where?
You just refuse to accept that fact, even though it is
has been shown to you repeatedly here on usenet.
No it hasn't. In fact, all evidence to be offered demands the existence of God.
There is nothing but unsupported fables and myths that God does not exist.
===>Ah, poor baby Duckie!
You cannot prove your Invisible Friend exists,
so you demand that others must prove he does not.
FUNNEEEE! -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
