| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| 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: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
07 Jan 2006 11:45:51 AM |
|
|
In <1136567928.413778.212150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "words of
truth" <truth760@lycos.com> wrote:
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,
But only from the voices in your heads...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "george" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
08 Jan 2006 12:28:29 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1136567928.413778.212150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "words of
truth" <truth760@lycos.com> wrote:
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,
But only from the voices in your heads...
Poor devil.
Having to rely on a 2000year old much edited book of Jewish genealogy,
travel ,local legends and tall stories for his solace.
They've been saying for thousands of years that the 'gods' are gonna
save us and this lot say JC is about due to get back. ROTFL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
07 Jan 2006 05:34:34 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1136567928.413778.212150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "words of
truth" <truth760@lycos.com> wrote:
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,
But only from the voices in your heads...
(Piggybacking)
Words of goofiness can have that proof right now.
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.
***********
--
"A dead religion is like a dead cat -- the stiffer and
more rotten it is, the better it is as a missile weapon."
- H.G. Wells
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "rugged individuals" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
09 Jan 2006 12:01:50 AM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote
in a way that demonstrates that a finite mind cannot fathom the Infinite
God. (Just consider the impossibility of fitting a really big box into a
little speck of a box, then think how infinitely harder it would be to fit
an infinitely big box inside the same speck of a box.)
As I've pointed out to you before, on at least some of the many occasions
that you've posted your little disproof of God, your argument is based on
bad definitions, unwarranted assumptions derived from the definitions, AND a
limited understanding of One without Limits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
09 Jan 2006 09:09:53 AM |
|
|
In <pZidnR4h-5rPYVzeRVn-tg@comcast.com>, "rugged individuals"
<websterbenson@comcast.com> wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote
in a way that demonstrates that a finite mind cannot fathom the Infinite
God. (Just consider the impossibility of fitting a really big box into a
little speck of a box, then think how infinitely harder it would be to fit
an infinitely big box inside the same speck of a box.)
As I've pointed out to you before, on at least some of the many occasions
that you've posted your little disproof of God, your argument is based on
bad definitions, unwarranted assumptions derived from the definitions, AND
a limited understanding of One without Limits.
Huh. Another one that says "god" can't be understand and claims to
understand...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
09 Jan 2006 02:07:58 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 01:01:50 -0500, "rugged individuals"
<websterbenson@comcast.com> wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote
in a way that demonstrates that a finite mind cannot fathom the Infinite
God. (Just consider the impossibility of fitting a really big box into a
little speck of a box, then think how infinitely harder it would be to fit
an infinitely big box inside the same speck of a box.)
As I've pointed out to you before, on at least some of the many occasions
that you've posted your little disproof of God, your argument is based on
bad definitions, unwarranted assumptions derived from the definitions, AND a
limited understanding of One without Limits.
Your stupidity is without limits.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
09 Jan 2006 12:07:25 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 01:01:50 -0500, in alt.atheism
"rugged individuals" <websterbenson@comcast.com> wrote in
<pZidnR4h-5rPYVzeRVn-tg@comcast.com>:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote
in a way that demonstrates that a finite mind cannot fathom the Infinite
God. (Just consider the impossibility of fitting a really big box into a
little speck of a box, then think how infinitely harder it would be to fit
an infinitely big box inside the same speck of a box.)
As I've pointed out to you before, on at least some of the many occasions
that you've posted your little disproof of God, your argument is based on
bad definitions, unwarranted assumptions derived from the definitions, AND a
limited understanding of One without Limits.
Even if you are right, no evidence at all exists for the existence of
any gods, nor does any evidence exist to help us sort out which of these
possible gods might exist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
09 Jan 2006 09:13:55 PM |
|
|
rugged individuals wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote
in a way that demonstrates that a finite mind cannot fathom the
Infinite God. (Just consider the impossibility of fitting a really big
box into a little speck of a box, then think how infinitely harder it
would be to fit an infinitely big box inside the same speck of a box.)
As I've pointed out to you before, on at least some of the many
occasions that you've posted your little disproof of God, your argument
is based on bad definitions, unwarranted assumptions derived from the
definitions, AND a limited understanding of One without Limits.
Sorry, you lose again.
Not a single bad definition (none of them are mine),
no unwarranted assumptions (all I use are dogmas of
world religions.)
Your god has the ultimate limit, it doesn't exist.
You have no evidence for god, merely assertions.
These assertions contradict each other. God cannot exist.
Sorry.
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.
***********
--
"A dead religion is like a dead cat -- the stiffer and
more rotten it is, the better it is as a missile weapon."
- H.G. Wells
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
08 Jan 2006 09:04:46 PM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1136567928.413778.212150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "words of
truth" <truth760@lycos.com> wrote:
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,
But only from the voices in your heads...
(Piggybacking)
Words of goofiness can have that proof right now.
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.
I really have to say, after having seen this posted SO many times,
that there is NO WAY that omnibenevolence can be logically derived from
omnipotence. Omnipotence requires that God be able to do that which
can be perceived as good AND do that which can be perceived as evil.
Otherwise, the possible actions of the omnipotent God are reduced by
half. This completely destroys the proof AGAINST God's existence, as
presented here, because it relies on omnibenvolence as an attribute of
God when it is a false premiss and will only lead to false conclusions.
Can you offer a "proof" against God's existence that does NOT rely on
omnibenevolence as an attribute of God?
Note that I did not say that God does evil but that some of his
actions might be perceived as such. Unless one is also has
omniscience, which IS a legitimate attribute of Deity, one cannot
possibly know the ultimate reasons for events and will possibly
perceive an evil intent when, in fact, there may have been no intent
either good or evil.
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.
***********
--
"A dead religion is like a dead cat -- the stiffer and
more rotten it is, the better it is as a missile weapon."
- H.G. Wells
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Helmut Wabnig" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
07 Jan 2006 03:04:59 AM |
|
|
On 6 Jan 2006 09:18:48 -0800, "words of stupidity"
<truth760@lycos.com> wrote:
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."
Never would a reasonable man say that, never, only journalists do.
Journalists live from selling garbage.
......snip
From: http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10620.html
Is there any physical explanation for the Big Bang itself?
You bet, (if BB happenes to be true at all), just we don't know it.
The theist's pseudo explanation is:
God (whatever that is) created himself,
then He created Big Bang etc. pp.
Don't laugh.
This is beeing told by catholic and protestant priests
to the Great Unwashed, I witnessed with my own ears.
w.
http://www.luigicascioli.it/home_eng.php
--
Thank God that I am an Atheist!
Gottseidank bin ich ein Atheist!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
07 Jan 2006 03:18:30 AM |
|
|
Both Evolution Theory and Creationism are two sides of the same
swindle.
One claims ancestors are bacteria who "made it"
other claims a deity from Canaan made the worlds
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
08 Jan 2006 10:57:04 AM |
|
|
On 7 Jan 2006 01:18:30 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote in
<1136625510.364532.167720@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Both Evolution Theory and Creationism are two sides of the same
swindle.
One claims ancestors are bacteria who "made it"
other claims a deity from Canaan made the worlds
You are still silly.
Why don't you spend some time learning rather than making incredibly
stupid comments about something you are ignorant of.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Happy Hippy" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
08 Jan 2006 12:04:45 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
On 7 Jan 2006 01:18:30 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote in
<1136625510.364532.167720@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Both Evolution Theory and Creationism are two sides of the same
swindle.
One claims ancestors are bacteria who "made it"
other claims a deity from Canaan made the worlds
You are still silly.
Why don't you spend some time learning rather than making incredibly
stupid comments about something you are ignorant of.
I thought that statement was very precise.
Except it isn't really a swindle; most believe in the side
they've chosen- as long as it brings in the bacon.
Then there are those who have no bacon who can see
a little more clearly but have no say (except the
net).
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
08 Jan 2006 12:22:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 12:04:45 -0600, in alt.atheism
Happy Hippy <J0HN@accesscomm.ca> wrote in
<43c1541e$1@news.accesscomm.ca>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 7 Jan 2006 01:18:30 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote in
<1136625510.364532.167720@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Both Evolution Theory and Creationism are two sides of the same
swindle.
One claims ancestors are bacteria who "made it"
other claims a deity from Canaan made the worlds
You are still silly.
Why don't you spend some time learning rather than making incredibly
stupid comments about something you are ignorant of.
I thought that statement was very precise.
It's nonsense.
Except it isn't really a swindle; most believe in the side
they've chosen- as long as it brings in the bacon.
Equating a scientific theory and religious doctrine is neither logically
valid nor is is honest.
Then there are those who have no bacon who can see
a little more clearly but have no say (except the
net).
That means nothing to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rugged individuals" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
08 Jan 2006 11:39:02 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote
Equating a scientific theory and religious doctrine is neither logically
valid nor is is honest.
Let's be honest and admit that you are turning scientific theory INTO
religious doctrine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
09 Jan 2006 10:18:35 AM |
|
|
"rugged individuals" <websterbenson@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:XpGdnXELiP5ka1zenZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote
Equating a scientific theory and religious doctrine is neither logically
valid nor is is honest.
Let's be honest and admit that you are turning scientific theory INTO
religious doctrine.
Let's be honest. You're an *****.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
09 Jan 2006 03:15:00 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 00:39:02 -0500, "rugged individuals"
<websterbenson@comcast.com> wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote
Equating a scientific theory and religious doctrine is neither logically
valid nor is is honest.
Let's be honest and admit that you are turning scientific theory INTO
religious doctrine.
no, you're just stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
09 Jan 2006 04:33:17 PM |
|
|
Mani Deli wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 00:39:02 -0500, "rugged individuals"
<websterbenson@comcast.com> wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote
Equating a scientific theory and religious doctrine is neither logically
valid nor is is honest.
Let's be honest and admit that you are turning scientific theory INTO
religious doctrine.
no, you're just stupid.
You have no sense of history. Every belief system is thought by the
adherents to have the only truth, while all the others are seen as
delusions. That is the simplicity.
Do you really imagine that all your recent theories about the Big Bang,
etc. will be the final word that Humanity will have on the subject?
You dream. A thousand years from now, there will be other theories and
beliefs, and yours will be a source of laughter, if it is even
remembered. Even a hundred years from now, your beliefs will be the
curiosities of antiquity.
You have latched onto your ideas with the same fervency experienced by
everyone who comes newly to a faith. "He was starving in some deep
mystery like a man who is sure what is true," sang Leonard Cohen. And
you ARE sure what is true, aren't you?
Science is a process; Science is NOT a set of correct beliefs. If you
don't use the process, as Evolution and Astrophysics has not used the
process, you don't have science.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
10 Jan 2006 01:32:09 PM |
|
|
On 9 Jan 2006 14:33:17 -0800, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Do you really imagine that all your recent theories about the Big Bang,
etc. will be the final word that Humanity will have on the subject?
It may or may not be correct depending on evidence. Many scientists
believe that the evidence supports the big bang. If you doubt it
submit a paper on it. Take note, that if you do, no one will persecute
you for you doubts or punish you for insulting science.
You dream. A thousand years from now, there will be other theories and
beliefs, and yours will be a source of laughter, if it is even
remembered. Even a hundred years from now, your beliefs will be the
curiosities of antiquity.
I believe that in a hundred years sky god theories will be a defunct
as countless other religious hypothesis.
You have latched onto your ideas with the same fervency experienced by
everyone who comes newly to a faith.
if you don't understand science.
Science is a process; Science is NOT a set of correct beliefs.
Science is both. Try acting against the basic laws of physics and tell
us how far you get.
As science advances religion retreats.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
10 Jan 2006 02:54:54 PM |
|
|
Mani Deli wrote:
On 9 Jan 2006 14:33:17 -0800, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Do you really imagine that all your recent theories about the Big Bang,
etc. will be the final word that Humanity will have on the subject?
It may or may not be correct depending on evidence. Many scientists
believe that the evidence supports the big bang. If you doubt it
submit a paper on it. Take note, that if you do, no one will persecute
you for you doubts or punish you for insulting science.
You dream. A thousand years from now, there will be other theories and
beliefs, and yours will be a source of laughter, if it is even
remembered. Even a hundred years from now, your beliefs will be the
curiosities of antiquity.
I believe that in a hundred years sky god theories will be a defunct
as countless other religious hypothesis.
You have latched onto your ideas with the same fervency experienced by
everyone who comes newly to a faith.
if you don't understand science.
Science is a process; Science is NOT a set of correct beliefs.
Science is both. Try acting against the basic laws of physics and tell
us how far you get.
As science advances religion retreats.
Aristotle was an atheist, but Newton was staunch Christian. Will you
tell us that Aristotle was a better scientist than Newton?
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Dominey" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
11 Jan 2006 06:35:53 PM |
|
|
In <1136926494.852599.300960@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Terry
Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote:
Aristotle was an atheist, but Newton was staunch Christian. Will you
tell us that Aristotle was a better scientist than Newton?
I see you know as much about history as you do about paleontology.
Newton denied the Trinity, making him a heretic by orthodox Christian
standards.
--
"I'm gonna act grown up/That's my plan"
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
R.I.P. Bob Denver
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
11 Jan 2006 06:39:40 PM |
|
|
Jack Dominey wrote:
In <1136926494.852599.300960@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Terry
Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote:
Aristotle was an atheist, but Newton was staunch Christian. Will you
tell us that Aristotle was a better scientist than Newton?
I see you know as much about history as you do about paleontology.
Newton denied the Trinity, making him a heretic by orthodox Christian
standards.
Interesting, but essentially useless without a cite. And irrelevant to
the point at hand.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
11 Jan 2006 08:01:00 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jan 2006 16:39:40 -0800, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Jack Dominey wrote:
In <1136926494.852599.300960@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Terry
Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote:
Aristotle was an atheist, but Newton was staunch Christian. Will you
tell us that Aristotle was a better scientist than Newton?
I see you know as much about history as you do about paleontology.
Newton denied the Trinity, making him a heretic by orthodox Christian
standards.
Interesting, but essentially useless without a cite.
Why don't you look it up you lazy lump.
And irrelevant to the point at hand.
Yes, to the point I originally made.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
11 Jan 2006 11:01:01 PM |
|
|
Mani Deli wrote:
On 11 Jan 2006 16:39:40 -0800, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Jack Dominey wrote:
In <1136926494.852599.300960@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Terry
Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote:
Aristotle was an atheist, but Newton was staunch Christian. Will you
tell us that Aristotle was a better scientist than Newton?
I see you know as much about history as you do about paleontology.
Newton denied the Trinity, making him a heretic by orthodox Christian
standards.
Interesting, but essentially useless without a cite.
Why don't you look it up you lazy lump.
And irrelevant to the point at hand.
Yes, to the point I originally made.
In refutation to your statement that as Science advances, religion
retreats:
The issue is Newton's stand with regard to religion, not his stand with
regard to the conventional church of his day. Aristotle was an
Atheist, Newton was a staunch Christian. Was Aristotle a better
Scientist that Newton?
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
12 Jan 2006 09:55:03 AM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> said:
<to Mani>
In refutation to your statement that as Science advances, religion
retreats:
The issue is Newton's stand with regard to religion, not his stand with
regard to the conventional church of his day. Aristotle was an
Atheist, Newton was a staunch Christian. <...>
So Aristotle's argument for the Unmoved Mover was not an argument for
existence of a god?
http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/PhilRel/Aristotle.htm
Maybe what you mean is that Aristotle was not a Christian (although
under Universalism, he is one now, or will eventually be one).
"According to Aristotle, the unmoved mover, now identified as God (ho
theos), eternally does one thing (but this is not self-movement),
which is the best thing: God thinks. Likewise, God thinks about the
best thing, which is thought (since thinking is the best of
activities), so that thought and its object are the same: God's
thinking about his own thinking. In addition, Aristotle says that,
because God thinks, God is alive: "And life also belongs to God; for
the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God's
self-dependent actuality is life most good and eternal" (kai zôê de ge
huparchei: hê gar nou energeia zôê, ekeinos de hê energeia: energeia
de hê kath' hautên ekeinou zôê aristê kai aïdios) (Metaphysics 12.7;
1072b 25-27). What Aristotle means by life's being the actuality of
thought is that only living substances can think, so that, if he
actually thinks, God must be alive. What it means for God to be
alive—apart from the fact that God thinks—is not , however, clarified;
certainly, for God to be alive is different for other substances to be
alive, since God has no matter. Aristotle concludes, "We say therefore
that God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and
duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God"
(phamen dê ton theon einai zôion aïdion ariston, hôste zôê kai aiôn
sunechês) (Metaphysics 12.7; 1072b 28-29)."
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
12 Jan 2006 04:59:43 AM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137039600.216074.126540@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
In refutation to your statement that as Science advances, religion
retreats:
The issue is Newton's stand with regard to religion, not his stand with
regard to the conventional church of his day. Aristotle was an
Atheist, Newton was a staunch Christian. Was Aristotle a better
Scientist that Newton?
How do you determine Aristotle as an Atheist?
How do you define "better" scientist?
Does belief in the Christian God cause them to be a better scientist or is
it just an irrelevant aside?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Atoms |
12 Jan 2006 10:49:33 AM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hot | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
