Re: How strong/weak an atheist are you? Barwell DEBUNKED
Gandalf Grey
"wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12frunb...@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?
> DOES GOD EXIST? STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - NO.
I guess not. Same old crap.
> DOES GOD EXIST? STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - NO.
>
> 1. OMNIGENESIS, DETERMINISM, FREE WILL,
> METAPHYSICAL CHAOS AND THEOLOGICAL NIHILISM.
>
> Omni - all, genesis - creation.
> Omnigenesis = creation of all.
>
> Here I shall coin a word for further discussion.
> Omnigenesis means creation of all, to the smallest
> physical detail.
Actually it doesn't. It means simply all creation. As thus, it doesn't
imply a god per se.
Also it doesn't imply anything beyond creation. Many native myths and
religions are also based on a creator god who is not omnipotent, omniscient,
and so on.
> If god is in any way omniscient,
> and creator of all, then he in fact creates all
Translation: If god creates all, god creates all.
Not terribly insightful, Mr. Barwell.
> , omnigenesis,
> to the smallest detail,
Non sequitur. God does not have to create the smallest detail of all things
in order to "create all." Even taking god completely out of the picture,
the big bang is one theory on how initial conditions could begin a process
that includes the present condition of the universe. It would be absurd to
assert that the big bang created all in the finest detail, although it would
not be absurd [if the big bang existed] to assert that the big bang created
all.
Your argument therefore fails at this point in the following manner.
1. God creates all.
2. God is omniscient.
3. If god creates all, god must create every detail of everything created.
The argument above does not follow logically.
all of creation to the smallest
> quantum level material, to the smallest Planck quantum
> distance, Planck quantum time, dimensions, fields,
> everything, all of it. All that is, was, and shall be and can be.
> At higher levels emergent qualities arising from these
> basics create our physical world and us. It creates us,
> our actions, our consciousness, feelings, nature, mental
> inclinations and surrounding environment. One man may
> be a lawyer in California, another an illiterate peasant
> in Bangladesh. One man may be good, another an evil
> psychopath. Omnigenesis means god creates all things
> and all of this and all men's actions and existance
> to the smallest details.
Since I've already demonstrated that the above is not a logical implication
of 'creation' as creation, the only thing you're left with is the "argument
by assertion," the fallacy that contends that an argument consists of merely
repeating unsupported or illogical assertions.
In other words, what you're really saying is God created everything down to
the finest detail because Barwell says that god created everything down to
the finest detail.
>
> It removes all possibility of free will.
Of course it doesn't. It doesn't remove all possibility of free will,
because it is not a logical consequence of creation.
At this point you're tacking free will as another assertion onto your
original argument by assertion.
Since your original argument is illogical and does not follow from the
initial premise, this additional conclusion does not follow either.
>
> 2. THE OMNISCIENT, CREATOR GOD
>
> God creates all, all our acts, inclinations, personalty,
> to the smallest detail. This is extreme determinism.
No it's not. Hard determinism does not require god at all.
> 3. Omnigenesis destroys free will utterly and totally.
As I've shown, that does not follow from your initial premise. A god that
creates all does not logically imply a god that creates every detail.
>
> This destroys compatibilism,
This could only be written by someone who has no understanding of
compatibilism. Even if your argument were valid, which it is not, classic
compatibilism does not deal with anything other than external constraint.
Unless your creator god restrains his creation physically from performing
actions, this god does not undermine classic compatibilism.
Therefore free will does not mean what you evidently believe it means,
because "will" is not effected by classic arguments of compatibilism and
determinism.
> the doctrine god creates
> all but we have free will, and even though god knows what
> we do, he does not interfere with our free will to choose
> what we do. Many people hold this doctrine is incoherent
> and impossible that knowing what we do destroys free will.
Another argument by assertion. "Many people" hold many things to be true.
Interested students should note that this is a recurring theme in weak
arguments. The proponent of the argument states that many people assert
that something is true and then attempts to move on, hoping that the
objection has been dealt with. It is in effect the Appeal to Popular
Opinion in one of its forms. Mr. Barwell, would have to actually explain
how these "many people" have made a valid argument to uphold his assertion.
As always, assertions are not arguments.
>
> But omnigenesis makes that argument moot anyway, we can
> have no sort of free will at all and thus no sort of
> compatibilism can be true. Compatibilism is now irrelevant
> and meaningless as a dodge to exlain way free will
> vs God's foreknowlege of the future.
But, as has been demonstrated before,
1. God or no god, compatibilism is problematic to modern notions of "free
will." Hence, god need have nothing to do with "free will"
2. Your entire argument to this point is flawed, hence, your so-called
"omnigenesis" has nothing to do with free will because there is no such
thing as omnigenesis as you've described it.
> God knows the future because he knowingly creates its every
> tinyest detail.
Unsupported and uncalled for assertion based on your own initial premesis.
>
> 4. THERE ARE 3 ASPECTS OF CREATOR GODS
> OMNIGENESIS FORCES US TO CONSIDER.
Since omnigenesis as it occurs in your argument is a fallacious concept, it
doesn't "force us" to consider anything.
>
> A. The Clock maker, determinate universe, and foreknowledge
>
> This is idea that god is omniscient, has foreknowledge
> of the future because the universe is determinate.
> That god somehow winds up the Universe and lets it go
> and it goes on unfolding in a determinate manner.
> Laplace's demon is said to be able to know the future
> relying on determinism like this. God is theorized
> as just a sort of Laplacian demon here. This god created a
> determinate Universe and knows the future since he can
> calculate the future state of the Universe from a starting
> state due specifically to the determinate quality of
> the Universe.
>
> But omnigenesis means there is no wind up universe
> that unfolds,
And omnigenesis is unproven because your argument is flawed, hence the
'deist' god of the clockwork universe is quite possible.
> B. God and omnipotence and time.
>
> If god is omnipotent,or even just magnipotent, greatly
> powerful, he is beyond being affected by mundane
> things. Time does not affect god,
What forces "Time" to be a "mundane thing" ?
If time is not a mundane thing, how is it that you can know that time cannot
effect God?
> But again its omnigenesis. God creates all. And there
> is no past, future all is now. Thus all is created at
> once, now, in all its finest details. We are back to
> omnigenesis as above.
And omnigenesis cannot be true according to your own initial premises.
>
> We are driven there
Only by your repeated assertions, not by logical necessity. That is why
your argument fails.
> C. Omnigenesis - Creator of all and Omniscience
> As seen above in 2., a god that is simple said to
> be creator of all and omniscient even with no
> particular theory how he knows all, out of time,
> or creates a determinate word that unfolds, no
> theory as to how he knows all, also dooms free will
> in the strongest manner possible. Just the fact this
> god is omniscience and creates all is sufficient
> to create omnigenesis and doom all free will.
But the doom of free will isn't necessitated by the existence of any kind of
god.
Here again, your argument fails to account for how god directly needs to be
involved in the failure of free will in a logical sense. Since it is not
necessary for god to create all particulars in order to create all, it is
not necessary for god to have anything to do with free will.
>
> D. Three theories of creation, omniscience
> 1. Deterministic, clock maker style Universe.
> The theoretical deterministic prime mover's world.
> 2. Omniscient - creator god.
> 3. Omnipotent god transcendent to time.
>
> All 3 theories lead to total omnigenesis.
Of course they don't. Your theory of omnigenesis is flawed. Therefore
nothing but your own flawed thinking "leads to it."
> 5. OMNIGENESIS AND METAPHYSICAL NIHILISM
>
> God is alleged all good, totally good, omniscient,
> creator of all. And the omni-everything creator
> class of gods including the gods of Judaism, Islam,
> Christianity and others have these attributes explicitly,
> and also have other attributes.
1. Your class of gods has already been proven not to exist in anything other
than your mind in many other essays.
2. Significant differences exist in the beliefs you list as to the
attributes of god.
3. Since your theory doesn't work concerning "omnigenesis," if follows that
your theory won't work for a class of gods anymore than it works for a
single god. It does not work for any single god, even the one you've
attempted to invent. Therefore, it does not work for any class of gods
other than the class of gods that contains exactly one god, which is the god
you invented.
> Heaven, hell, sin, salvation, damnation lose all
> coherent sense and meaning. Where is love in
> creating one man evil and many his victims?
> How can that be loving, merciful or just?
The above is a pale attempt at summoning the ghost of the Argument from
Evil. Nothing you've written above is implied by your flawed theory of
'omnigenesis' even if your theory was correct.
Again, you've essentially constructed an argument by assertion alone.
Arguments consist of more than assertion, Mr. Barwell.
> 6. SOULS
>
> And supposedly this god creates souls,
Which is also unnecessary from the premises leading to 'omnigenesis.'
Hence your remarks on souls do not follow from your premises.
> 7. CHAOS, NIHILISM, IRRATIONALITY, UNREALITY OF ALL
>
> We achieve then total, absolute, furious metaphysical nihilism.
Not in any fashion you've described.
1. Your argument does not imply nihilism as a conclusion.
2. God is not necessary for nihilism to exist.
> This is In the end, taken to their logical ends are all
> theology religion, and omni-everything, creator god class
> religion can possibly hope to achieve.
Actually, nothing that you've written implies these ends. Furthermore,
quite a few atheists end up embracing nihilism, Mr. Barwell. Your argument
does not speak to the rather evident truth that the emergence and growth of
nihilism parallels the historical lapse of belief in god in both Europe and
the United States.
Though I do not consider this historical fact an argument for religion in
general, it certainly cannot be construed as an argument for the salutory
benefits of anti-theism.
> Materialism must be true, the only truth possible.
You have not even begun to demonstrate that the above is true, Mr. Barwell.
Your omnigenesis argument, is hopeless flawed on its face. And you
certainly have not shown that materialism is the only alternative to a
belief in the god you've created for your argument.
In summary.
1. Your argument is flawed due to non-sequiturs [creation does not imply
creation of each and every particular element of reality] and the argument
by assertion [the assertion of omniscience, the assertion of freedom from
time, the assertion of the necessity of souls, and so on...none of which
have you supported with logical arguments].
2. Materialism is not the only alternative to your argument.
Hence, omnigenesis leads to nothing because omnigenesis as you've described
it does not exist. And materialism is not the only alternative to your
argument, hence it is not the only possible truth.
> In the end, we have two stark choices, sane materialism, or
> total metaphysical nihilsm. There is really then, only one choice.
A crowning end to your typical lack of rationality.
If we have indeed only one choice, we do not logically have a choice.
wcb
>
>> 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 you are mentally incapable of understanding.
You are a totally ignorant, unthinking fool.
Again, OEC gods are claimed to be creators of all, all knowing
via revelation.
This logically creates omnigenesis and that creates
metaphysical nihilism.
-----
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
Gandalf Grey
>>
>>> 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.
wcb
>
> Well, since your original argument was fundamentally flawed and NOT true,
> you're probably still in the intellectual bog you began in.
>
It is totally true. Omnigenesis destroys OEC class gods.
The only flaws are in your lack of mental capability.
Your sophistry, logic dyslexia, intellectual dishonesty, and
ignorance.
Sorry, you are a net kook only, about like Duke, Chung, Lorr,
Jabriol, and other losers.
---------------------------------------------
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,
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, since your original argument was fundamentally flawed and NOT true,
>> you're probably still in the intellectual bog you began in.
>>
> It is totally true. Omnigenesis destroys OEC class gods.
Omnigenesis is a strawman AND it doesn't destroy 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
wcb
Barwell:
>>>> I am now rewriting my Omnigenesis essay and sharpening it up rather
>>>> considerably.
Barwell:
>> 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.
Revealed books, OT, NT, Quran, et al.
God is omni-everything. The revelations that contain the claims
that are dogmatic definitions of god for 4.3 billion people.
>> This logically creates omnigenesis and that creates
>> metaphysical nihilism.
>
Gandy"
> How does revelation imply creation?
You cdannot be this stupid! Well,yes you can! Wasily.
When did I say that relevalation implied creation.
IT'S EXPLICIT! Genesis! See the Quran where its
explicit again and again!
Thinking isn't your best talent, is it?
Gandy:
> 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.
>
Damn you are STUPID!
Creation of all is explicit.
All powerful is explicit.
All knowing is explicit.
All are seperate relevations,numerous proof texts!
I wish people would read you above to see how incrediblely
chaotic and nonsensical you attempts at thinking are!
> 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
The religions of 4.3 billion people do.
Most religions are ancient, not 'modern' balderdash
like Process gibberish!
You are so specious, dishonest and wrong here it is breathtaking!
Are you tekking us Islam with 1.2 billion believers is modern and that all
these Quranic claims of all powerful Allah are no longer believed?
Liar!
Are you telling us we are all modern religionists now and
all these old bible verses about god being all powerful,
all knowing, all good and creator of all are simple abandoned
by all people and churches? These are no longer RCC dogmas, no longer
dogmas of Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans and Baptists?
Lies, all lies! Why do you think lying like this gets you anywhere!?
Liar! I have never met a more dishonest man on the net and that is saying
something.!
> and omniscient without internal contradiction.
> 2. Not all modern religions believe in revelation through holy texts
Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam do.
These are religions representing 4.3 billion belivers.
You lie and lie and lie and lies and lie!
Do you think I am going to accept such brazen out-and-out lies?
> 3. Not all modern religions believe that revelation is closed.
> 4. Not all modern religions believe that revelation is open.
Irrelevant to the fact that 4.3 billion Christians and Moslems and Hindus
believe in revelation, and that from revealed books, have accepted that god
is creator of all, omnipotent, all good and all knowing.
This based on books going back in some cases 3500 years.
Irrelevant lies, all lies! Again withe the sophistries, errors, out and out
lies, halfbaked theorizing, and abject idiocy!
> Which leads us to wonder why or how revelation has anything to do with
> anything.
>
4.3 billion believers disagree with your brain damaged sophistry.
1.2 billion Moslems, .9 billion Hindus, 2.2 billion Christians,
Catholics, protestants, orthodox and others.
It has everything to do with religion, from the Vedas which
are revealed books, to the Quran, to the OT, NT and revealed
books that proclaim Jesus is son of God.
You can't be this stupid, can you? I forget!
You are Richard Handon, stupidest man on the net!
Revelation is heart of Islam and Christianity!
>> -----
>> 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.
>
We are here, debunking the OEC god.
You being dishonest think if you conveniently 'forget'
that I show other god classes are debunkable, that other
people will forget that.
Again, soooo, dishonest.
And stupid!
Your precious process gods have been debunked.
So have nature gods, and Deist gods andpanthesim.
And more!
But here, we are working explicitly on OEC gods.
Why did you try to divert attention form the subject at hand.
Dishonest and an incapable thinker.
>> 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".
Yes, they are. I went through this in the past and you
sat there going duhhhhhhh". As usual.
I gutted your precious process theology gods, nature
gods, myth cycle gods and more
>
>>, 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.
>
You do not get to define squawt. 4.3 million believers do.
They have spoken.
--
wcb
>> 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."
>
CLASSES OF GODS
Consider a god that is alleged to have the attributes
A, B, and C. If A and B create contradictions, and so do
A and C, its obvious that this god cannot exist because
of these contradictions between claimed attributes.
If we have gods M, N, and O that all share the same attributes,
obviously, none of them can exist for the same reasons.
We can abstract that out to a class of gods. Gods that
have the attributes A, B, and C cannot exist because of
the fact these attributes contradict each other. Any god
we see has attributes A, B, and C, cannot exist. And
belongs to that class of gods X. We now know that this class
is impossible and that gods with these attributes cannot exist
and that includes gods we know that have these attributes
and possible gods we do not know particularly.
Now that we have a class X we know is impossible, we know that
any gods with characteristics A, B, and C are impossible because
of these characteristics and we can ignore other secondary
characteristics. We need not consider attributes G, H, and I,
though they may indeed be contradictory, that is simply extra
proof above and beyond what we need. It may be all gods of class
X have A, B, and C, but only some have G, H, or I.
We can also ignore tertiary claims, that this god is to
be found in this or that 'holy' book, or that this or that myth
happened involving this god, that a given god sent prophecies and
so on. If the god in question is impossible, all these sorts of
mythological claims, or claims of revelation are utterly
irrelevant.
Where does one find these claims, attributes, A, B, and C?
Gods can generally be divided into two classes. Gods that
are alleged to have been revealed by prophets or books.
The Bible god, Allah, and so on.
And metaphysical gods, gods that are defined from basic principles.
Process theology is a good example, a metaphysical system that
was created by the late 20's by philosopher Alfred North Whitehead.
The god in Whitehead's Process Metaphysics was defined. Though
obviously in some cases inspired by the biblical god, it avoided
certain claims that have proven problematical for more popular type
gods, problems between free will and foreknowledge of the future
for example. The speculative gods of early Greek philosophers
such as Plato and Aristotle were metaphysical rather than revealed
gods.
Some god concepts and classes are metaphysical modified gods,
for example Deism partially modified the god concept of the bible.
God is distant and does not interfere with day to day workings
of the universe. Unlike a god that in theory responds to prayer.
Other concepts are derived from revealed sources. Bible, Quran,
Vedas and other revealed books that claim to have revealed knowledge
of god and his nature.
These books usually have proof texts, that is verses that make specific
claims, overt or implied. God is personal, all powerful, knows the
future and send prophecies to mankind via his chosen prophets. Many
of these are overt, but sometimes more implicit, and may be modified
by considering several proof texts. God in the Bible is said to be
good, and also to be perfect. This has been used to make the claim
that if god is good, his goodness must be perfect and complete.
If god is all powerful, and created all, he must be transcendent
and outside time, because if he was subject to time, he would not
be all powerful as proof texts plainly assert.
So we can talk of explicit claims and implicit claims and derived
or deduced claims.
Most major religions have created rather involved theologies full
of derived and deduced claims, often somewhat contradictory.
For example, many Christian religions do not hold that things
have been strictly predestined as per Romans 8 - 11. Calvinists
hold to double predestination, god predestinates the elect (Romans 8)
and the damned (Romans 9), while Lutherans only hold to predestined
elect and not predestinated damned.
For the creation of a class of gods then, picking and choosing carefully
among basic claims is the key. Problems of predestination should be
avoided,
they are specific to sects not to god over all.
A good useful claim should encompass as many religious postures
as possible and incorporate the most problematic and wide spread claims.
For the class of omni-everything, creator gods of the Bible, Vedas and
Quran, the following list makes and excellent list of class attributes.
1. God is personal, god has consciousness and will
2. God is intelligent
3. God has free will
4. God created all
5. God is omnipotent
6. God is omniscient
7. God is omnibenevolent
8. God is that which is so great, nothing greater
can be imagined.
God in Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam is a personal,
god, not a mere force of nature. 1 - 3 apply to almost all
major religions, save Buddhism, Jainism, and a few similar
religions that are mainly atheistic.
That God created all is rather explicit in Bible, Vedas, Quran and so on.
5 - 7 are explicit in the religions of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and
Judaism, 4.3 billion believers. The vast majority of large religions are
rather
on this point.
These are drawn from numerous proof texts.
One possible problem here used by quibblers and intellectually dishonest
people is to claim that not all above claims are relevant, for example,
Judges 1;19 tells us that God was with Judah and Judah was successful in
the mountains, but not the valleys because the Canaanites had chariots of
iron. But traditionally proof texts making expansive claims, god is all
powerful have become standard theological dogmas, verses like Judges 1:19
are brushed aside with various apologisms. Almost any book of apologisms
for "difficult verses" of the bible will handle these specific claims, and
there are more overarching apologisms. Such as claims fallible man wrote
the bible and not all verses can be taken literally, we must make allowances
for men who did not long ago have the concepts and language to be more
literally exacting. What matters here then is what has become dogmas
of large denominations over centuries.
This is not to say these bible or Quran difficulties are not important,
often, examined carefully that are fatal to claims of Christianity and
other religions. And the bad apologisms offered for these things are often
themselves rather dishonest and illogical.
But by giving these religions their claims, god is all powerful, all good,
all knowing, they are given enough rope to hang their own gods. Which is
the goal here, to disprove this class of gods, simply, efficiently and
with as few attributes as possible, spread across as many religions and
theologies
as possible.
The entire idea here is to avoid quibbles, secondary issues, issues
particular
to a given god or sect, ideas and claims made broadly and dogmatically by
as many religions and believers as possible. Give them their claims and
show the claims do not work as made.
Thus, the strong atheist goal of disproving god becomes easier, more
efficient
and most important, simpler. Simplification is the goal.
Basically, strong atheism's goal is active disproof of god(s).
Gods can be disproven is the basic assertion that is central to
strong atheism.
God concepts are pretty heirarchial, and the way to deal with this is
to start with classes of gods at the top and work down.
OEC Gods as per the list of 8 assertions above make up the bulk
of gods worshipped today, about 4.3 billion believe in Judaism,
Christianity, Brahamanistic Hinduism, Islam. Following up are
atheistic religions, mainly Buddhism, and Jainism, and Taoism.
Then animistic religions, Voodoo, native African religions
and derivatives, Macumba, et al, some Chinese folk religions,
some kinds of theistic Taosim, and theistic Buddhism. But these are
not very numerous, important, nor influential.
The OEC class of gods is the most influential and also most
vulnerable. And once it has been debunked, no other god classes
can take that class's place. All other classes are very much a
distant second.
And since these are revealed religions, once this class of gods is crippled,
one cannot simply substitute a substitute. If a god is claimed overtly
to be omnipotent, all powerful. and that turns out to be impossible, one
cannot substitute an inferior god that makes no such claim, because it
is a revealed text making that claim. The religion is no longer that
religion if you eject the revealed god that is heart and soul of a revealed
religion.
wcb
>> 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."
>
GOD IS DISPROVEN
(Short version)
CLASSES OF GODS 8-1-06
Preliminary
God as a concept is not really a single concept
To deal with the idea of god it is necessary to
consider god by classes of gods. Broad classes
of god are fairy easy to disprove, and when a
class of gods is disproven all members of that
class with class characteristics are disproven.
This is economical and powerful.
Some gods map onto other classes of gods.
If a class is impossible, a class that maps
onto to that is also impossible. This makes
the concept of classes of gods a very powerful
tool for examining god ideas for viability.
Basically, there are not that many classes of gods,
about 25 or so depending how you count classes of
gods and god like ideas. Some of this is problematic,
is the concept of souls a god class idea or not?
At the bottom of the list of broadest classes of god
ideas, are classes of things hard to decide if they
are truly worth much in this regard.
Some classes of gods, myth cycles of gods can be
mapped to OEC gods or nature gods, or allegorical gods.
One can brek myth cycle gods down to smaller categories,
Celtic, Greek, Roman gods, henotheistic gods, soter gods,
etc, but that adds little to our task at hand and is
really not necessary
OEC or nature god mappings are all that really matter.
Once a class is disproven, all secondary and tertiary
claims and assertions about that class of gods are
disproven. All particular gods of that class and related
doctrines, theologies, and dogmas are eliminated.
THE MAJOR CLASSES OF GODS.
1. The greatest god imaginable
A. Supergods - Ashvara
The greatest god imaginable must be free of all limits
of logic. But then that god, perfect, all good, all
powerful has no limits to eliminating evil. Evil exists,
so this god cannot exist. Its self contradictory
2. Omni-Everything class class gods
Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, creation
of all combine to create multiple overlapping
incompatibilities and contradictions that show
the class of OEC gods cannot exist.
3. Transcendent
4. Immanent
5. Maya
6. Idealism
These classes of gods map onto OEC class gods
and are thus shown to be impossible. An OEC god is
impossible whether its transcendent or immanent.
Each attribute simply adds further problems
to an OEC class god.
7. Deism
A. Maps to OEC
B. Maps to Pantheistism
Deism class gods thus fail.
8. Pantheism
A. Allegorical
B. Metaphysical
Allegorical is useless. There is no mechanism
for the Universe as a whole to be somehow
intelligent, and science can show all that
the Universe does is in fact a matter of physics.
9. Process theology/metaphysics god
This class of gods has failed. Designed as a
metaphysical rather than revealed god, process
theology from the beginning invented its own
physics and hung its god on that. This physics is
wrong and this god does not work with modern physics,
ruling it out as a viable class of gods.
10. Nature gods
A. Nature gods, numina etc
B. Tutelary gods, guardians of
places, sites, people.
Science has removed room for nature gods. Only science can
explain rain, crop fertility and natural phenomenon. The huge
swarms of nature gods of the past, cannot explain anything.
Nature gods are either reflections of real nature, in which
case the lack of real nature such as jet streams, techtonic
plate movements, atoms, chemistry principles, true biology
principles show the ancients were just guessing and not at
the important underlying forces of nature.
And of course the other aspect, revelation is absent here.
No god's came down to man and introduced themselves,
the gods of quarks, the goddess of the strong nuclear force,
or the goddess of gravity.
Obviously, then, nature gods are impossible and useless.
Related are tutelary gods, gods that offer protection to state,
cities, homes, tribes, families, children, women, personal
protection, et al, these are simply nonsense.
They never protected much, life was always cheap, whole states,
towns, cities, peoples were destroyed despite supposed protector
gods in the past. All the gods of Gaul did not protect them from
the Romans, the Roman gods did not protect them from barbarians.
Without modern medicine, vast numbers of people died alone
and in vast epidemics.
Tutelary gods and nature gods did not help even a little bit here.
For the vast numbers of people in the past, this was religion.
Science leaves no room for them.
11. Myth cycle gods.
A. Maps to OEC class
B. Maps to Nature god
C. Maps to allegorical god class
D. Maps to tutelary gods.
12. Allegorical gods, gods and goddesses that are
simple personifications of human nature or nature itself.
Hope, fear, love, and similar. Ate, goddess of violence,
Fama, goddess of rumor, Eris, goddess of discord, etc.
The stuff of poets, not really meant to be taken seriously.
Useless to explain the creation of this world, or anything
about it.
LESSOR THINGS.
Stuff so low down the food chain its not worth discussing,
spirits, fairies and nonsense.
Nothing that can take the place of god.
Thus we can start with the most powerful imaginable classes
of gods and work down to fairies and there simply is no
viable class of gods.
All viable particular gods are thus disproven.
God cannot exist.
wcb
>> 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."
>
THE FOUR BIGGEST CLASSES OF GODS
(Short Version)
W.C. Barwell 8-3-06
In thinking about gods, I have been breaking
them down into classes of gods. This has turned
out to be a very fruitful and powerful way of
analyzing and disproving gods. The question arises,
how would we know if we were overlooking a
powerful class of gods?
Because we are considering classes of gods,
we may then arrange them from most powerful
on down by broad classes based on abilities.
There are only so many abilities to consider,
and thus so many classes possible.
The broadest would be:
1. Omni-everything and not bound by logic
2. Omni-everything and bound by logic.
3. Omni-everything, including omnipotence.
4. Not omni-everything, no omnipotence.
5. Gods neither omni-everything, not
omnipotent, creators of all, not omniscient.
There are only so many god classes possible.
The lower classes of gods are truly abysmal
and useless.
NOT BOUND BY LOGIC
Consider the greatest god you can imagine.
This god would be perfectly good, and he would
not be limited in any way by logic.
Such a god would have no trouble eliminating
all evil. Since there are no logical limits to
his doing so, no evil can withstand this
greatest of all imaginable gods.
But evil exists, this class of gods cannot.
Is such a god posited anywhere? Yes, Hinduism.
Ishvara is the perfect god, he has no attributes.
he emanated Brahaman, the omni-everything creator
of the Universe.
Supergod class gods cannot exist as I showed you.
BOUND BY LOGIC
Now we are down to OEC class gods.
They have been shown impossible as a class
and do not exist.
Classes 2. and 3. cannot exist, ruled out by
logical contradictions between their claimed
attributes.
WHAT IS LEFT? CLASS 4. & 5.
Process theology gods? Deist gods?
These do not work. Nature gods?
Anything below omni-everything is puny
by comparison and nothing really works
as a class of viable gods.
This then takes out all possible gods as powerful
as OEC or Supergods ala Ishvara.
Magnipotent gods simply are so far below OEC
class gods that they cannot be useful, they
cannot explain anything.
Classification here is by ability.
Take out gods with ability and you are
left with nonsense.
Logic free, logic bound, omnipotent, non-omnipotent.
Where can a hidden god hide that can do
anything?
We now drop to nature gods, tutelary gods.
These don't work.
Anything below this maps on to OEC god, Nature gods
et al, failed concepts.
Below that, it gets more grim, animism,
and similar nonsense. Before you know it we
are at fairies and goblins.
Again, it is about abilities and powers of
broad classes of gods.
OEC class of gods, bound by logic.
OEC class of gods, omnipotent.
Less than OEC class gods, not omnipotent.
Things you can no longer call god classes
they are so low of the divine power ability chart.
With these 4 ability categories, there is no
place to hide an overlooked class of gods
because the list of abilities here is exhaustive.
So we can be sure that we have really dealt with
possible gods and have overlooked nothing.
Thinking about gods as classes allows us to
be totally through, the logical search space
is limited and can be exhaustively examined.
Gandalf Grey
>
> Barwell:
>>>>> I am now rewriting my Omnigenesis essay and sharpening it up rather
>>>>> considerably.
>
> Barwell:
>>> 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.
>
> Revealed books,
You haven't made the link between revelation...even as you erroneously
describe it....and creation clear. Since omnigenesis is not logically
necessary, you have that problem as well.
OT, NT, Quran, et al.
> God is omni-everything. The revelations that contain the claims
> that are dogmatic definitions of god for 4.3 billion people.
>
>
>>> This logically creates omnigenesis and that creates
>>> metaphysical nihilism.
>>
>
> Gandy"
>> How does revelation imply creation?
>
> You cdannot be this stupid! Well,yes you can! Wasily.
> When did I say that relevalation implied creation.
Right here.
>>> This logically creates omnigenesis and that creates
>>> metaphysical nihilism.
> IT'S EXPLICIT! Genesis! See the Quran where its
> explicit again and again!
Two books everyone already knows are inaccurate and self-contradictory.
Yawn. Now what? Where's your argument?
> Gandy:
>> 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.
>>
>
> Damn you are STUPID!
> Creation of all is explicit.
> All powerful is explicit.
> All knowing is explicit.
> All are seperate relevations,numerous proof texts!
No such thing as a "proof text" in an inaccurate and contradictory source,
Barney.
Sorry. Try again.
The point is that nothing logically necessitates that revelation leads to
creation or creation to revelation.
>
>> 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
>
> The religions of 4.3 billion people do.
Which leaves a ton that don't.
> Most religions are ancient, not 'modern' balderdash
> like Process gibberish!
Are you arguing that only an ancient religion could possibly be true?
>
>> and omniscient without internal contradiction.
>> 2. Not all modern religions believe in revelation through holy texts
>
> Christianity
Wrong. Not all Christian denominations believe in revelation through texts.
Some believe revelation is closed. Others do not.
Try again.
>> 3. Not all modern religions believe that revelation is closed.
>> 4. Not all modern religions believe that revelation is open.
>
> Irrelevant to the fact that 4.3 billion Christians and Moslems and Hindus
> believe in revelation
Since we now see that you're adding ALL self-identified 'Christians' into
that number, the number has now gone way down. As noted before, Barney,
many denominations disagree.
>
>> Which leads us to wonder why or how revelation has anything to do with
>> anything.
>>
>
> 4.3 billion believers
Back to your bleat. Since I've already demonstrated that there are problems
with that number and that revelation has no logical connection to creation,
your problems remain.
Also you've failed to address the other problems below.
Try again.
> 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
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>> 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."
>>
> CLASSES OF GODS
BZZZZZZZT!!!! DEBUNKED ARGUMENT.
When you've got a disproof of a non-omipotent god in principle, let us know.
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>> 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."
>>
> GOD IS DISPROVEN
BZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!!
DEBUNKED ARGUMENT.
Thanks for Playing.
> GOD IS DISPROVEN
> (Short version)
>
>
> CLASSES OF GODS 8-1-06
> Preliminary
>
>
> God as a concept is not really a single concept
> To deal with the idea of god it is necessary to
> consider god by classes of gods.
No it's not. It may be necessary for you to throw up a smokescreen via
classes but people have been dealing with beliefs in god on a case by case
basis for a long time.
> Broad classes
> of god are fairy easy to disprove
Since you've never done that, the above is an unsupported assertion. We'll
see many more of your unsupported assertions below.
>, and when a
> class of gods is disproven all members of that
> class with class characteristics are disproven.
> This is economical and powerful.
That would only be true if
1. All the members of a class actually belonged there.
2. Each member of the class truly represented the beliefs of those the class
pretained to.
Since your OEC class does not represent the beliefs of all the religions you
say it represents, anything you said that was true about it would not be
representative and so would not advance your argument.
>
>
> Some gods map onto other classes of gods.
Here we see one of Gardner's characteristics of the crank. "map onto" is
one of your typical neologisms. Used more to obscure than to elucidate.
Map Why? Map How?
> If a class is impossible, a class that maps
> onto to that is also impossible.
Map Why? Map How?
> This makes
> the concept of classes of gods a very powerful
> tool for examining god ideas for viability.
No. It just makes the subject of supposedly being able to disprove the
existence of every possible god unnecessarily cloudy and makes one wonder
what you're really up to. It was your 'class' gimmick that first alerted me
to the smell of a weak argument.
>
>
> Basically, there are not that many classes of gods,
> about 25 or so depending how you count classes of
> gods and god like ideas.
What is the criteria you used to establish your classes? I would think that
an honest argument would want to stipulate that up front.
> Some of this is problematic,
> is the concept of souls a god class idea or not?
> At the bottom of the list of broadest classes of god
> ideas, are classes of things hard to decide if they
> are truly worth much in this regard.
Worth much in what regard? Why? Who decides what kind of god is "worth
consideration?" Since you purport to prove that all possible gods are in
fact impossible, how can you state that any god is 'not truly worth much.'?
Shall we translate "not truly worth much" as impossible for Barwell to even
form an argument on or impossible for Barwell to disprove?
>
>
> Some classes of gods, myth cycles of gods can be
> mapped to OEC gods or nature gods, or allegorical gods.
Mapped How? Mapped Why?
> One can brek myth cycle gods down to smaller categories,
> Celtic, Greek, Roman gods, henotheistic gods, soter gods,
> etc, but that adds little to our task at hand and is
> really not necessary
Why not? You're being extremely evasive for someone who is proposing an
argument that disproves the possible existence of any god. It's interesting
that for a guy who is more than willing to keep on rehashing pages worth of
wordy garbage, you seem so intent on simply brushing by the basics.
>
>
> OEC or nature god mappings are all that really matter.
Who are you to decide that? On what basis do you make the decision?
Further, if you're attempting to disprove ALL gods it follows logically that
all possible gods would 'really matter.' After all, for someone concluding
that 'no god can exist' the possible existence of even one tiny god would in
fact disprove your entire argument.
>
>
> Once a class is disproven, all secondary and tertiary
> claims and assertions about that class of gods are
> disproven.
Why? How does a class get disproven. For example, you've failed
spectacularly to disprove or even define the class of gods containing every
god who is 'less than omnipotent.' Your failure was so spectacular and so
complete that you now have retracted the class and chosen to call it the
more shadowy "metaphysical" class. Notably below, you still fail to define
that class, much less disprove it. Your so-called class of 'magnipotent
gods, AKA Process Theology AKA Metaphysics gods.' Since this is the case,
how can we know that secondary, tertiary and other claims about THAT class
of gods are disproven?
> All particular gods of that class and related
> doctrines, theologies, and dogmas are eliminated.
Again, how? Since you haven't accomplished this for ANY class of gods, how
can we know that it logically follows that all particular gods of that class
are eliminated. Are you simply stating that IN THEORY IF YOU COULD disprove
a particular class all those gods would be disproven?
>
>
> THE MAJOR CLASSES OF GODS.
>
>
> 1. The greatest god imaginable
> A. Supergods - Ashvara
>
>
> The greatest god imaginable must be free of all limits
> of logic.
Non sequitur.
You haven't shown why a greatest god imaginable MUST LOGICALLY be free of
logic.
> 2. Omni-Everything class class gods
>
>
> Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, creation
> of all combine to create multiple overlapping
> incompatibilities and contradictions that show
> the class of OEC gods cannot exist.
The one god that fits the description was demolished by the Argument from
evil. So there's nothing novel here at all.
>
>
> 3. Transcendent
> 4. Immanent
> 5. Maya
> 6. Idealism
>
>
> These classes of gods map onto OEC class gods
> and are thus shown to be impossible.
1. You haven't shown how they 'map' [to use your neologism] onto OEC gods
[another neologism].
2. Hence, they are not shown to be impossible.
> An OEC god is
> impossible whether its transcendent or immanent.
You haven't explained why this is logically true.
>
> 7. Deism
> A. Maps to OEC
Maps How?
> B. Maps to Pantheistism
1. No such word.
2. You fail to explain or define or offer any argument for Panentheism, a
major modern theological movement.
So again, your argument fails.
>
>
> Deism class gods thus fail.
1. You haven't shown why.
2. Hence they do not fail.
>
>
> 8. Pantheism
> A. Allegorical
> B. Metaphysical
>
>
> Allegorical is useless. There is no mechanism
> for the Universe as a whole to be somehow
> intelligent, and science can show all that
> the Universe does is in fact a matter of physics.
1. How do YOU know there is no such mechanism and can you prove it?
2. The findings of physics do not disprove the possible existence of a god.
Hence you've failed again.
>
>
> 9. Process theology/metaphysics god
>
>
> This class of gods has failed.
1. This is the class of gods you've repackaged when it was pointed out that
you had in fact NO argument against a class of 'less than omnipotent gods'
2. You've failed to define this class.
3. You've failed to show how process theology completely exhausts the
possibilities of a 'matephysical god.'
4. Hence, you've not shown how this class is impossible.
As I page through all of your arbitrary pronouncements and evasions and sly
language, I note that all you're really indulging in is argument by
assertion. A well known logical fallacy, the argument from assertion simply
states an unsupported assertion in some form that looks in passing like a
logical argument, but is really nothing more than a disguised opinion.
> Designed as a
> metaphysical rather than revealed god, process
> theology from the beginning invented its own
> physics and hung its god on that.
1. That's a lie. Process Philosophy was designed in order to accord with
what is known about physics.
2. You still haven't shown how such a god is impossible logically
3. You have not even begun to address other 'metaphysical' gods or even
define what the class consists of or why a metaphysical class of gods is in
itself impossible.
4. At this point, your argument breaks down completely.
You've managed to fail yet again, Mr. Barwell. It looks as though you
actually have no argument at all.
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>> 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."
>>
> THE FOUR BIGGEST CLASSES OF GODS
BZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!!!!!!
DEBUNKED ARGUMENT.
Thanks for Playing.
> THE FOUR BIGGEST CLASSES OF GODS
> (Short Version)
> W.C. Barwell 8-3-06
>
> In thinking about gods, I have been breaking
> them down into classes of gods. This has turned
> out to be a very fruitful and powerful way of
> analyzing and disproving gods.
1. Apparently it isn't because there's nothing in your writing, original to
you that disproves any god or any class of gods.
> The question arises,
> how would we know if we were overlooking a
> powerful class of gods?
>
> Because we are considering classes of gods,
> we may then arrange them from most powerful
> on down by broad classes based on abilities.
> There are only so many abilities to consider,
> and thus so many classes possible.
Yes. You can play with your strawman action figure in anyway you choose.
>
> The broadest would be:
> 1. Omni-everything and not bound by logic
Unproven. It's been demonstrated that you have no support for your
illogical, 'magic' god.
> 2. Omni-everything and bound by logic.
> 3. Omni-everything, including omnipotence.
> 4. Not omni-everything, no omnipotence.
> 5. Gods neither omni-everything, not
> omnipotent, creators of all, not omniscient.
>
> There are only so many god classes possible.
> The lower classes of gods are truly abysmal
> and useless.
Argumentum ad Personal Opinion? How does tossing ad hominem remarks at a
'class of gods' logically prove that they are impossible?
>
> NOT BOUND BY LOGIC
>
> Consider the greatest god you can imagine.
> This god would be perfectly good, and he would
> not be limited in any way by logic.
Unproven.
1. There is no reason to believe that the 'greatest god imaginable' would
not be fully capable of creating a world in which logic is another
reflection of the perfection of god's being.
2. There is no reason to believe that even the greatest god imaginable did
not create reality out of pre-existing matter. Therefore, logic may very
well be an artifact of creation.
3. There is no reason to believe that the most powerful being in the
universe would consider their own logic to be 'a limitation.'
Hence you're argument fails.
>
> BOUND BY LOGIC
>
> Now we are down to OEC class gods.
> They have been shown impossible as a class
> and do not exist.
Not by any argument you've come up with.
>
> Classes 2. and 3. cannot exist, ruled out by
> logical contradictions between their claimed
> attributes.
Prove it. You haven't done so to date.
>
> WHAT IS LEFT? CLASS 4. & 5.
>
> Process theology gods? Deist gods?
> These do not work.
Argumentum ad Proclamation?
I think here again we see the superficiality of your arguments. When anyone
proposes a grand argument that can only be 'fleshed out' by personal
opinions and unsupported proclamations, it's obvious that they don't really
have an argument. What they have is a house of cards they're pretending is
an argument.
And that's you all over, Barwell. Time and again we see that, past your
never-ending OCD ability to re-arrange your unsupported opinions into new
packages, at heart they never rise above the level of assertion and flawed
logic.
> Nature gods?
>
> Anything below omni-everything is puny
> by comparison and nothing really works
> as a class of viable gods.
Prove it. Stop just saying it and prove it.
>
> This then takes out all possible gods as powerful
> as OEC or Supergods ala Ishvara.
>
> Magnipotent gods simply are so far below OEC
> class gods that they cannot be useful, they
> cannot explain anything.
1. Utility as an argument? Where does your argument explain WHY a god YOU
believe to be not 'useful' CANNOT LOGICALLY EXIST?
2. Explicability as an argument? Prove logically why a possible god has to
have explanatory value, in your opinion, in order to be logically possible.
Since you purport to be able to disprove the existence of all possible gods,
when are you going to get around to proving that gods YOU don't consider to
be useful and gods YOU don't consider to be able to 'explain anything' are
LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
>
> Classification here is by ability.
Ability to what?
> Take out gods with ability and you are
> left with nonsense.
According to whom???
> So we can be sure that we have really dealt with
> possible gods and have overlooked nothing.
> Thinking about gods as classes allows us to
> be totally through, the logical search space
> is limited and can be exhaustively examined.
You're amazingly superficial for all your wordiness, Barwell. Anyone who
dismisses anything by way of personal opinion and then talks about
*exhaustive examination* is a crank.
jie...@aol.com
Absolutely! You've got Barwell absolutely nailed. Right down to the
accurate specifics of his method of "argument".
Barwell, you and your "argument" are completely called out. What say
you? (Cue the Barwell name-calling.)
Jeff
wcb
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,
Gandalf Grey
<jie...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1157588975.5...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Thanks, but calling out Barwell is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.
>
> Jeff
>
Gandalf Grey
>
>>
>>> 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.
Yadda, yadda.
>
> -----
> 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
Gandalf Grey
> Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>
>>
>> Post your "proof" that God doesn't exist, "stoney".
>>
>> Post it right here: ---->
> here is mine.
Yours is crap.
Gandalf Grey
> Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>
>>
>> Assertion is not proof, Billy.
>
>
> No assertion, the only assertions are from religions.
Bullshit. You asserted you could prove God was impossible, and you failed
repeatedly.
Quit lying, Barwell
>
> I just prove they don't work..
You just proved you were a jerk.
> *****************************************************
> OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
>
> God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
> And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
Not in all or even most religions.
>
> A. God is said by theologians to have created the Universe
> and all in that Universe.
> B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all that is in
> the Universe and he knows the future state of the Universe
> and the state of all its contents as he contemplates creating
> the Universe.
Most religions do not believe this Augustinian dogma.
> C. Augustine claimed that god is sovereign over time and thus
> must be outside and transcedent over time. To god, past,
> present and future are all one thing to god who thus knows all
> that existed, exists and will exists as time is an illusion
> to god. Boethius a century later also stated this.
Luckily, Augustine doesn't get to define God. Again, the Augustinian view
is not true of all or even most religions. Barwell is arguing against
medievalism. Since god need not be omniscient in order to be the most
powerful being in the universe, most of the rest of the argument does not
follow.
> H. Since this all happens as god contemplates creation of the
> Universe, Smith has no say in whether he is to be good or evil
> as he does not exist yet and cannot influence god's choice.
A concept denied by free will which is recognized by most religions. If
John Smith has free will, God cannot know precisely what Smith will do. If
God did know, Smith would not have free will.
> I. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely because of a choice
> made by god.
But since most religions deny this, the argument fails.
wcb
>
> Bullshit. You asserted you could prove God was impossible, and you failed
> repeatedly.
I did, you are so stupid you dont get it.
This is because yiou are stuopid, Did
I mention your grotesque stupidity?
GOD IS DISPROVEN
(Short version)
CLASSES OF GODS 8-1-06
Preliminary
God as a concept is not really a single concept
To deal with the idea of god it is necessary to
consider god by classes of gods. Broad classes
of god are fairy easy to disprove, and when a
class of gods is disproven all members of that
class with class characteristics are disproven.
This is economical and powerful.
Some gods map onto other classes of gods.
If a class is impossible, a class that maps
onto to that is also impossible. This makes
the concept of classes of gods a very powerful
tool for examining god ideas for viability.
Basically, there are not that many classes of gods,
about 25 or so depending how you count classes of
gods and god like ideas. Some of this is problematic,
is the concept of souls a god class idea or not?
At the bottom of the list of broadest classes of god
ideas, are classes of things hard to decide if they
are truly worth much in this regard.
Some classes of gods, myth cycles of gods can be
mapped to OEC gods or nature gods, or allegorical gods.
One can brek myth cycle gods down to smaller categories,
Celtic, Greek, Roman gods, henotheistic gods, soter gods,
etc, but that adds little to our task at hand and is
really not necessary
OEC or nature god mappings are all that really matter.
Once a class is disproven, all secondary and tertiary
claims and assertions about that class of gods are
disproven. All particular gods of that class and related
doctrines, theologies, and dogmas are eliminated.
THE MAJOR CLASSES OF GODS.
1. The greatest god imaginable
A. Supergods - Ashvara
The greatest god imaginable must be free of all limits
of logic. But then that god, perfect, all good, all
powerful has no limits to eliminating evil. Evil exists,
so this god cannot exist. Its self contradictory
2. Omni-Everything class class gods
Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, creation
of all combine to create multiple overlapping
incompatibilities and contradictions that show
the class of OEC gods cannot exist.
3. Transcendent
4. Immanent
5. Maya
6. Idealism
These classes of gods map onto OEC class gods
and are thus shown to be impossible. An OEC god is
impossible whether its transcendent or immanent.
Each attribute simply adds further problems
to an OEC class god.
7. Deism
A. Maps to OEC
B. Maps to Pantheistism
Deism class gods thus fail.
8. Pantheism
A. Allegorical
B. Metaphysical
Allegorical is useless. There is no mechanism
for the Universe as a whole to be somehow
intelligent, and science can show all that
the Universe does is in fact a matter of physics.
9. Process theology/metaphysics god
This class of gods has failed. Designed as a
metaphysical rather than revealed god, process
theology from the beginning invented its own
LESSOR THINGS.
(End)
--
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> Bullshit. You asserted you could prove God was impossible, and you failed
>> repeatedly.
>
> I did,
Yes, you did fail and you do so consistently.
> GOD IS DISPROVEN
Apparently not.
> (Short version)
>
>
> CLASSES OF GODS 8-1-06
> Preliminary
>
>
> God as a concept is not really a single concept
> To deal with the idea of god it is necessary to
> consider god by classes of gods.
No it's not. It may be necessary for you to throw up a smokescreen via
classes but people have been dealing with beliefs in god on a case by case
basis for a long time.
> Broad classes
> of god are fairy easy to disprove
Since you've never done that, the above is an unsupported assertion. We'll
see many more of your unsupported assertions below.
>, and when a
> class of gods is disproven all members of that
> class with class characteristics are disproven.
> This is economical and powerful.
That would only be true if
1. All the members of a class actually belonged there.
2. Each member of the class truly represented the beliefs of those the class
pretained to.
Since your OEC class does not represent the beliefs of all the religions you
say it represents, anything you said that was true about it would not be
representative and so would not advance your argument.
>
>
> Some gods map onto other classes of gods.
Here we see one of Gardner's characteristics of the crank. "map onto" is
one of your typical neologisms. Used more to obscure than to elucidate.
Map Why? Map How?
> If a class is impossible, a class that maps
> onto to that is also impossible.
Map Why? Map How?
> This makes
> the concept of classes of gods a very powerful
> tool for examining god ideas for viability.
No. It just makes the subject of supposedly being able to disprove the
existence of every possible god unnecessarily cloudy and makes one wonder
what you're really up to. It was your 'class' gimmick that first alerted me
to the smell of a weak argument.
>
>
> Basically, there are not that many classes of gods,
> about 25 or so depending how you count classes of
> gods and god like ideas.
What is the criteria you used to establish your classes? I would think that
an honest argument would want to stipulate that up front.
> Some of this is problematic,
> is the concept of souls a god class idea or not?
> At the bottom of the list of broadest classes of god
> ideas, are classes of things hard to decide if they
> are truly worth much in this regard.
Worth much in what regard? Why? Who decides what kind of god is "worth
consideration?" Since you purport to prove that all possible gods are in
fact impossible, how can you state that any god is 'not truly worth much.'?
Shall we translate "not truly worth much" as impossible for Barwell to even
form an argument on or impossible for Barwell to disprove?
>
>
> Some classes of gods, myth cycles of gods can be
> mapped to OEC gods or nature gods, or allegorical gods.
Mapped How? Mapped Why?
> One can brek myth cycle gods down to smaller categories,
> Celtic, Greek, Roman gods, henotheistic gods, soter gods,
> etc, but that adds little to our task at hand and is
> really not necessary
Why not? You're being extremely evasive for someone who is proposing an
argument that disproves the possible existence of any god. It's interesting
that for a guy who is more than willing to keep on rehashing pages worth of
wordy garbage, you seem so intent on simply brushing by the basics.
>
>
> OEC or nature god mappings are all that really matter.
Who are you to decide that? On what basis do you make the decision?
Further, if you're attempting to disprove ALL gods it follows logically that
all possible gods would 'really matter.' After all, for someone concluding
that 'no god can exist' the possible existence of even one tiny god would in
fact disprove your entire argument.
>
>
> Once a class is disproven, all secondary and tertiary
> claims and assertions about that class of gods are
> disproven.
Why? How does a class get disproven. For example, you've failed
spectacularly to disprove or even define the class of gods containing every
god who is 'less than omnipotent.' Your failure was so spectacular and so
complete that you now have retracted the class and chosen to call it the
more shadowy "metaphysical" class. Notably below, you still fail to define
that class, much less disprove it. Your so-called class of 'magnipotent
gods, AKA Process Theology AKA Metaphysics gods.' Since this is the case,
how can we know that secondary, tertiary and other claims about THAT class
of gods are disproven?
> All particular gods of that class and related
> doctrines, theologies, and dogmas are eliminated.
Again, how? Since you haven't accomplished this for ANY class of gods, how
can we know that it logically follows that all particular gods of that class
are eliminated. Are you simply stating that IN THEORY IF YOU COULD disprove
a particular class all those gods would be disproven?
>
>
> THE MAJOR CLASSES OF GODS.
>
>
> 1. The greatest god imaginable
> A. Supergods - Ashvara
>
>
> The greatest god imaginable must be free of all limits
> of logic.
Non sequitur.
You haven't shown why a greatest god imaginable MUST LOGICALLY be free of
logic.
> 2. Omni-Everything class class gods
>
>
> Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, creation
> of all combine to create multiple overlapping
> incompatibilities and contradictions that show
> the class of OEC gods cannot exist.
The one god that fits the description was demolished by the Argument from
evil. So there's nothing novel here at all.
>
>
> 3. Transcendent
> 4. Immanent
> 5. Maya
> 6. Idealism
>
>
> These classes of gods map onto OEC class gods
> and are thus shown to be impossible.
1. You haven't shown how they 'map' [to use your neologism] onto OEC gods
[another neologism].
2. Hence, they are not shown to be impossible.
> An OEC god is
> impossible whether its transcendent or immanent.
You haven't explained why this is logically true.
>
> 7. Deism
> A. Maps to OEC
Maps How?
> B. Maps to Pantheistism
1. No such word.
2. You fail to explain or define or offer any argument for Panentheism, a
major modern theological movement.
So again, your argument fails.
>
>
> Deism class gods thus fail.
1. You haven't shown why.
2. Hence they do not fail.
>
>
> 8. Pantheism
> A. Allegorical
> B. Metaphysical
>
>
> Allegorical is useless. There is no mechanism
> for the Universe as a whole to be somehow
> intelligent, and science can show all that
> the Universe does is in fact a matter of physics.
1. How do YOU know there is no such mechanism and can you prove it?
2. The findings of physics do not disprove the possible existence of a god.
Hence you've failed again.
>
>
> 9. Process theology/metaphysics god
>
>
> This class of gods has failed.
1. This is the class of gods you've repackaged when it was pointed out that
you had in fact NO argument against a class of 'less than omnipotent gods'
2. You've failed to define this class.
3. You've failed to show how process theology completely exhausts the
possibilities of a 'matephysical god.'
4. Hence, you've not shown how this class is impossible.
As I page through all of your arbitrary pronouncements and evasions and sly
language, I note that all you're really indulging in is argument by
assertion. A well known logical fallacy, the argument from assertion simply
states an unsupported assertion in some form that looks in passing like a
logical argument, but is really nothing more than a disguised opinion.
> Designed as a
> metaphysical rather than revealed god, process
> theology from the beginning invented its own
> physics and hung its god on that.
1. That's a lie. Process Philosophy was designed in order to accord with
Sniper
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>Bullshit. You asserted you could prove God was impossible, and you failed
>>repeatedly.
>
> I did, you are so stupid you dont get it.
> This is because yiou are stuopid, Did
> I mention your grotesque stupidity?
Re-read your paragraph above and reconsider
who it is that's stupid. Oh, never mind, we
are about to be regaled by yet another post
of yours where you cut and paste the _same_
arguments in the hopes it magically becomes
stronger the more times you post it. That's
because what, _you_ are the smart one here?
Kurt Nicklas
Gandalf Grey wrote:
> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> news:12gt36f...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Kurt Nicklas wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Assertion is not proof, Billy.
> >
> >
> > No assertion, the only assertions are from religions.
>
> Bullshit. You asserted you could prove God was impossible, and you failed
> repeatedly.
Ricky, you and Billy have one thing in common...you're both members of
the post-rational generation.
Gandalf Grey
"Sniper" <sni...@gotcha.com> wrote in message
news:XJ-dnUjefLAXqpLY...@adelphia.com...
> wcb wrote:
>
>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>
>>>Bullshit. You asserted you could prove God was impossible, and you
>>>failed
>>>repeatedly.
>> I did, you are so stupid you dont get it.
>> This is because yiou are stuopid, Did I mention your grotesque
>> stupidity?
>
> Re-read your paragraph above and reconsider
> who it is that's stupid.
I too thought about pointing that out, but Barwell is so dense that no
matter what you point out, it's just going to bounce off that lead shielding
he keeps around his brain.
wcb
> of yours where you cut and paste the same
> arguments in the hopes it magically becomes
> stronger the more times you post it.
No, I don't think that. I know it crushes god as a viable
concept and always has.
That the Gandy Shitgoose squad doesn't get it means
nothing except
you and Gandy and a few others are mindless
Gandy's drivel is wrong and never will be right
no matter how he drools on and spams it.
Its like politics, Fred Stone will never be
right about anything.
You are about on that same miserable level as is Hanson.
Like Fred, you haven't a lick of sense at all.
The thing is, NOT to let the morons drown this out with their hideous
yowlings.
---------
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,
6. SOULS
(End)
You love it soooooo much, here it is again.
wcb
>
>> Bullshit. You asserted you could prove God was impossible, and you
>> failed repeatedly.
9. Process theology/metaphysics god
LESSOR THINGS.
(End)
THE FOUR GREATEST CLASSES OF GODS
(Short Version)
W.C. Barwell 8-3-06
In thinking about gods, I have been breaking
them down into classes of gods. This has turned
out to be a very fruitful and powerful way of
analyzing and disproving gods. The question arises,
how would we know if we were overlooking a
powerful class of gods?
Because we are considering classes of gods,
we may then arrange them from most powerful
on down by broad classes based on abilities.
There are only so many abilities to consider,
and thus so many classes possible.
The broadest would be:
1. Omni-everything and not bound by logic
2. Omni-everything and bound by logic.
3. Omni-everything, including omnipotence.
4. Not omni-everything, no omnipotence.
5. Gods neither omni-everything, not
omnipotent, creators of all, not omniscient.
There are only so many god classes possible.
The lower classes of gods are truly abysmal
and useless.
NOT BOUND BY LOGIC
Consider the greatest god you can imagine.
This god would be perfectly good, and he would
not be limited in any way by logic.
Such a god would have no trouble eliminating
all evil. Since there are no logical limits to
his doing so, no evil can withstand this
greatest of all imaginable gods.
But evil exists, this class of gods cannot.
Is such a god posited anywhere? Yes, Hinduism.
Ishvara is the perfect god, he has no attributes.
he emanated Brahaman, the omni-everything creator
of the Universe.
Supergod class gods cannot exist as I showed you.
BOUND BY LOGIC
Now we are down to OEC class gods.
They have been shown impossible as a class
and do not exist. This OEC class of gods
is disproven because the attributes of this
class of gods contradicts themselves in
multiple overlapping ways.
Classes 2. and 3. cannot exist, ruled out by
logical contradictions between their claimed
attributes.
WHAT IS LEFT? CLASS 4. & 5.
Process theology gods? Deist gods?
These do not work. Nature gods?
Anything below omni-everything is puny
by comparison and nothing really works
as a class of viable gods.
This then takes out all possible gods as powerful
as OEC or Supergods ala Ishvara.
Magnipotent gods simply are so far below OEC
class gods that they cannot be useful, they
cannot explain anything.
Classification here is by ability.
Take out gods with ability and you are
left with nonsense.
Logic free, logic bound, omnipotent, non-omnipotent.
Where can a hidden god hide that can do
anything?
We now drop to nature gods - tutelary gods.
These don't work.
Anything below this maps on to OEC god, Nature gods
et al, failed concepts.
Below that, it gets more grim, animism,
and similar nonsense. Before you know it we
are at fairies and goblins.
Again, it is about abilities and powers of
broad classes of gods.
OEC class of gods, bound by logic.
OEC class of gods, omnipotent.
Less than OEC class gods, not omnipotent.
Things you can no longer call god classes
they are so low of the divine power ability chart.
With these 4 ability categories, there is no
place to hide an overlooked class of gods
because the list of abilities here is exhaustive.
So we can be sure that we have really dealt with
possible gods and have overlooked nothing.
Thinking about gods as classes allows us to
be totally through, the logical search space
is limited and can be exhaustively examined.
(End)
wcb
9. Process theology/metaphysics god
LESSOR THINGS.
(End)
THE FOUR GREATEST CLASSES OF GODS
NOT BOUND BY LOGIC
BOUND BY LOGIC
The Demon Prince of Absurdity
Kooki Information Minister -
Named in honour of Iraq's Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, this office is held by
the kook whose claims are most noticeably at variance with known facts.
[Note: Colin Powell and George W. Bush both came within an ace of being
the namesake for this office.;-{P}]
His many repetitions of the above pile of^H^H^H^H^H^Hreasoning should be
sufficient justification for William "Cheerful Charlie" Barwell to be
nominated for the Office of Kooki Information Minister.
Are there any seconds?
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! TM#5; COOSN-029-06-71069
Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition
http://www6.kingdomofloathing.com/login.php
http://www.runescape.com/
No one expects the Fannish Inquisition!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cabal_of_the_Holy_Pretzel/join
"Etymology:
Argumentum ad Septicus : argument to putrefaction. Derived from Septicum
Argumentum : putrefaction of argument.
"Septic \Sep"tic\, Septical \Sep"tic*al\
a. [L. septicus to make putrid: cf. F. septique.]
Having power to promote putrefaction. Of or relating to or
caused by putrefaction." -- Kadaitcha Man, indirectly to
Donald "Skeptic"/"Septic" Alford, in MID: <a3svh.d...@news.alt.net>
"I never fail to be amazing" -- Looney Maroon for September 2006 nominee
William Barwell's ego knows no bounds. MID:
12ggt3q...@corp.supernews.com
Gandalf Grey
> Sniper wrote:
>
>> of yours where you cut and paste the same
>> arguments in the hopes it magically becomes
>> stronger the more times you post it.
>
> No, I don't think that. I know it crushes god as a viable
> concept and always has.
the only thing it crushes is any doubt that you're a crank.
Gandalf Grey
>
> GOD IS DISPROVEN
You wish.
> (Short version)
>
>
> CLASSES OF GODS 8-1-06
> Preliminary
>
>
> God as a concept is not really a single concept
> To deal with the idea of god it is necessary to
> consider god by classes of gods.
No it's not. It may be necessary for you to throw up a smokescreen via
classes but people have been dealing with beliefs in god on a case by case
basis for a long time.
> Broad classes
> of god are fairy easy to disprove
Since you've never done that, the above is an unsupported assertion. We'll
see many more of your unsupported assertions below.
>, and when a
> class of gods is disproven all members of that
> class with class characteristics are disproven.
> This is economical and powerful.
That would only be true if
1. All the members of a class actually belonged there.
2. Each member of the class truly represented the beliefs of those the class
pretained to.
Since your OEC class does not represent the beliefs of all the religions you
say it represents, anything you said that was true about it would not be
representative and so would not advance your argument.
>
>
> Some gods map onto other classes of gods.
Here we see one of Gardner's characteristics of the crank. "map onto" is
one of your typical neologisms. Used more to obscure than to elucidate.
Map Why? Map How?
> If a class is impossible, a class that maps
> onto to that is also impossible.
Map Why? Map How?
> This makes
> the concept of classes of gods a very powerful
> tool for examining god ideas for viability.
No. It just makes the subject of supposedly being able to disprove the
existence of every possible god unnecessarily cloudy and makes one wonder
what you're really up to. It was your 'class' gimmick that first alerted me
to the smell of a weak argument.
>
>
> Basically, there are not that many classes of gods,
> about 25 or so depending how you count classes of
> gods and god like ideas.
What is the criteria you used to establish your classes? I would think that
an honest argument would want to stipulate that up front.
> Some of this is problematic,
> is the concept of souls a god class idea or not?
> At the bottom of the list of broadest classes of god
> ideas, are classes of things hard to decide if they
> are truly worth much in this regard.
Worth much in what regard? Why? Who decides what kind of god is "worth
consideration?" Since you purport to prove that all possible gods are in
fact impossible, how can you state that any god is 'not truly worth much.'?
Shall we translate "not truly worth much" as impossible for Barwell to even
form an argument on or impossible for Barwell to disprove?
>
>
> Some classes of gods, myth cycles of gods can be
> mapped to OEC gods or nature gods, or allegorical gods.
Mapped How? Mapped Why?
> One can brek myth cycle gods down to smaller categories,
> Celtic, Greek, Roman gods, henotheistic gods, soter gods,
> etc, but that adds little to our task at hand and is
> really not necessary
Why not? You're being extremely evasive for someone who is proposing an
argument that disproves the possible existence of any god. It's interesting
that for a guy who is more than willing to keep on rehashing pages worth of
wordy garbage, you seem so intent on simply brushing by the basics.
>
>
> OEC or nature god mappings are all that really matter.
Who are you to decide that? On what basis do you make the decision?
Further, if you're attempting to disprove ALL gods it follows logically that
all possible gods would 'really matter.' After all, for someone concluding
that 'no god can exist' the possible existence of even one tiny god would in
fact disprove your entire argument.
>
>
> Once a class is disproven, all secondary and tertiary
> claims and assertions about that class of gods are
> disproven.
Why? How does a class get disproven. For example, you've failed
spectacularly to disprove or even define the class of gods containing every
god who is 'less than omnipotent.' Your failure was so spectacular and so
complete that you now have retracted the class and chosen to call it the
more shadowy "metaphysical" class. Notably below, you still fail to define
that class, much less disprove it. Your so-called class of 'magnipotent
gods, AKA Process Theology AKA Metaphysics gods.' Since this is the case,
how can we know that secondary, tertiary and other claims about THAT class
of gods are disproven?
> All particular gods of that class and related
> doctrines, theologies, and dogmas are eliminated.
Again, how? Since you haven't accomplished this for ANY class of gods, how
can we know that it logically follows that all particular gods of that class
are eliminated. Are you simply stating that IN THEORY IF YOU COULD disprove
a particular class all those gods would be disproven?
>
>
> THE MAJOR CLASSES OF GODS.
>
>
> 1. The greatest god imaginable
> A. Supergods - Ashvara
>
>
> The greatest god imaginable must be free of all limits
> of logic.
Non sequitur.
You haven't shown why a greatest god imaginable MUST LOGICALLY be free of
logic.
> 2. Omni-Everything class class gods
>
>
> Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, creation
> of all combine to create multiple overlapping
> incompatibilities and contradictions that show
> the class of OEC gods cannot exist.
The one god that fits the description was demolished by the Argument from
evil. So there's nothing novel here at all.
>
>
> 3. Transcendent
> 4. Immanent
> 5. Maya
> 6. Idealism
>
>
> These classes of gods map onto OEC class gods
> and are thus shown to be impossible.
1. You haven't shown how they 'map' [to use your neologism] onto OEC gods
[another neologism].
2. Hence, they are not shown to be impossible.
> An OEC god is
> impossible whether its transcendent or immanent.
You haven't explained why this is logically true.
>
> 7. Deism
> A. Maps to OEC
Maps How?
> B. Maps to Pantheistism
1. No such word.
2. You fail to explain or define or offer any argument for Panentheism, a
major modern theological movement.
So again, your argument fails.
>
>
> Deism class gods thus fail.
1. You haven't shown why.
2. Hence they do not fail.
>
>
> 8. Pantheism
> A. Allegorical
> B. Metaphysical
>
>
> Allegorical is useless. There is no mechanism
> for the Universe as a whole to be somehow
> intelligent, and science can show all that
> the Universe does is in fact a matter of physics.
1. How do YOU know there is no such mechanism and can you prove it?
2. The findings of physics do not disprove the possible existence of a god.
Hence you've failed again.
>
>
> 9. Process theology/metaphysics god
>
>
> This class of gods has failed.
1. This is the class of gods you've repackaged when it was pointed out that
you had in fact NO argument against a class of 'less than omnipotent gods'
2. You've failed to define this class.
3. You've failed to show how process theology completely exhausts the
possibilities of a 'matephysical god.'
4. Hence, you've not shown how this class is impossible.
As I page through all of your arbitrary pronouncements and evasions and sly
language, I note that all you're really indulging in is argument by
assertion. A well known logical fallacy, the argument from assertion simply
states an unsupported assertion in some form that looks in passing like a
logical argument, but is really nothing more than a disguised opinion.
> Designed as a
> metaphysical rather than revealed god, process
> theology from the beginning invented its own
> physics and hung its god on that.
1. That's a lie. Process Philosophy was designed in order to accord with
Gandalf Grey
> GOD IS DISPROVEN
Not by you.
> (Short version)
>
>
> CLASSES OF GODS 8-1-06
> Preliminary
>
>
> God as a concept is not really a single concept
> To deal with the idea of god it is necessary to
> consider god by classes of gods.
No it's not. It may be necessary for you to throw up a smokescreen via
classes but people have been dealing with beliefs in god on a case by case
basis for a long time.
> Broad classes
> of god are fairy easy to disprove
Since you've never done that, the above is an unsupported assertion. We'll
see many more of your unsupported assertions below.
>, and when a
> class of gods is disproven all members of that
> class with class characteristics are disproven.
> This is economical and powerful.
That would only be true if
1. All the members of a class actually belonged there.
2. Each member of the class truly represented the beliefs of those the class
pretained to.
Since your OEC class does not represent the beliefs of all the religions you
say it represents, anything you said that was true about it would not be
representative and so would not advance your argument.
>
>
> Some gods map onto other classes of gods.
Here we see one of Gardner's characteristics of the crank. "map onto" is
one of your typical neologisms. Used more to obscure than to elucidate.
Map Why? Map How?
> If a class is impossible, a class that maps
> onto to that is also impossible.
Map Why? Map How?
> This makes
> the concept of classes of gods a very powerful
> tool for examining god ideas for viability.
No. It just makes the subject of supposedly being able to disprove the
existence of every possible god unnecessarily cloudy and makes one wonder
what you're really up to. It was your 'class' gimmick that first alerted me
to the smell of a weak argument.
>
>
> Basically, there are not that many classes of gods,
> about 25 or so depending how you count classes of
> gods and god like ideas.
What is the criteria you used to establish your classes? I would think that
an honest argument would want to stipulate that up front.
> Some of this is problematic,
> is the concept of souls a god class idea or not?
> At the bottom of the list of broadest classes of god
> ideas, are classes of things hard to decide if they
> are truly worth much in this regard.
Worth much in what regard? Why? Who decides what kind of god is "worth
consideration?" Since you purport to prove that all possible gods are in
fact impossible, how can you state that any god is 'not truly worth much.'?
Shall we translate "not truly worth much" as impossible for Barwell to even
form an argument on or impossible for Barwell to disprove?
>
>
> Some classes of gods, myth cycles of gods can be
> mapped to OEC gods or nature gods, or allegorical gods.
Mapped How? Mapped Why?
> One can brek myth cycle gods down to smaller categories,
> Celtic, Greek, Roman gods, henotheistic gods, soter gods,
> etc, but that adds little to our task at hand and is
> really not necessary
Why not? You're being extremely evasive for someone who is proposing an
argument that disproves the possible existence of any god. It's interesting
that for a guy who is more than willing to keep on rehashing pages worth of
wordy garbage, you seem so intent on simply brushing by the basics.
>
>
> OEC or nature god mappings are all that really matter.
Who are you to decide that? On what basis do you make the decision?
Further, if you're attempting to disprove ALL gods it follows logically that
all possible gods would 'really matter.' After all, for someone concluding
that 'no god can exist' the possible existence of even one tiny god would in
fact disprove your entire argument.
>
>
> Once a class is disproven, all secondary and tertiary
> claims and assertions about that class of gods are
> disproven.
Why? How does a class get disproven. For example, you've failed
spectacularly to disprove or even define the class of gods containing every
god who is 'less than omnipotent.' Your failure was so spectacular and so
complete that you now have retracted the class and chosen to call it the
more shadowy "metaphysical" class. Notably below, you still fail to define
that class, much less disprove it. Your so-called class of 'magnipotent
gods, AKA Process Theology AKA Metaphysics gods.' Since this is the case,
how can we know that secondary, tertiary and other claims about THAT class
of gods are disproven?
> All particular gods of that class and related
> doctrines, theologies, and dogmas are eliminated.
Again, how? Since you haven't accomplished this for ANY class of gods, how
can we know that it logically follows that all particular gods of that class
are eliminated. Are you simply stating that IN THEORY IF YOU COULD disprove
a particular class all those gods would be disproven?
>
>
> THE MAJOR CLASSES OF GODS.
>
>
> 1. The greatest god imaginable
> A. Supergods - Ashvara
>
>
> The greatest god imaginable must be free of all limits
> of logic.
Non sequitur.
You haven't shown why a greatest god imaginable MUST LOGICALLY be free of
logic.
> 2. Omni-Everything class class gods
>
>
> Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, creation
> of all combine to create multiple overlapping
> incompatibilities and contradictions that show
> the class of OEC gods cannot exist.
The one god that fits the description was demolished by the Argument from
evil. So there's nothing novel here at all.
>
>
> 3. Transcendent
> 4. Immanent
> 5. Maya
> 6. Idealism
>
>
> These classes of gods map onto OEC class gods
> and are thus shown to be impossible.
1. You haven't shown how they 'map' [to use your neologism] onto OEC gods
[another neologism].
2. Hence, they are not shown to be impossible.
> An OEC god is
> impossible whether its transcendent or immanent.
You haven't explained why this is logically true.
>
> 7. Deism
> A. Maps to OEC
Maps How?
> B. Maps to Pantheistism
1. No such word.
2. You fail to explain or define or offer any argument for Panentheism, a
major modern theological movement.
So again, your argument fails.
>
>
> Deism class gods thus fail.
1. You haven't shown why.
2. Hence they do not fail.
>
>
> 8. Pantheism
> A. Allegorical
> B. Metaphysical
>
>
> Allegorical is useless. There is no mechanism
> for the Universe as a whole to be somehow
> intelligent, and science can show all that
> the Universe does is in fact a matter of physics.
1. How do YOU know there is no such mechanism and can you prove it?
2. The findings of physics do not disprove the possible existence of a god.
Hence you've failed again.
>
>
> 9. Process theology/metaphysics god
>
>
> This class of gods has failed.
1. This is the class of gods you've repackaged when it was pointed out that
you had in fact NO argument against a class of 'less than omnipotent gods'
2. You've failed to define this class.
3. You've failed to show how process theology completely exhausts the
possibilities of a 'matephysical god.'
4. Hence, you've not shown how this class is impossible.
As I page through all of your arbitrary pronouncements and evasions and sly
language, I note that all you're really indulging in is argument by
assertion. A well known logical fallacy, the argument from assertion simply
states an unsupported assertion in some form that looks in passing like a
logical argument, but is really nothing more than a disguised opinion.
> Designed as a
> metaphysical rather than revealed god, process
> theology from the beginning invented its own
> physics and hung its god on that.
1. That's a lie. Process Philosophy was designed in order to accord with
wcb
>
>> GOD IS DISPROVEN
>
> Not by you.
>
Yes! By me! No OEC gods.
And the other gods dont work either!
Now stop crying.
Ignorant net kook.
6. SOULS
wcb
>
> Kooki Information Minister -
>
> Named in honour of Iraq's Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, this office is held by
> the kook whose claims are most noticeably at variance with known facts.
>
> [Note: Colin Powell and George W. Bush both came within an ace of being
> the namesake for this office.;-{P}]
>
> His many repetitions of the above pile of^H^H^H^H^H^Hreasoning should be
> sufficient justification for William "Cheerful Charlie" Barwell to be
> nominated for the Office of Kooki Information Minister.
>
> Are there any seconds?
I nominate Richard Hanson as KIM.
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
> As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
> philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
Anybody who will tell us that all of modern science is based on a
failed metaphysical program of a dead pseudoscientist has got to be
as big a net kook weird science loon as you can get.
I also thus on the basis of this bizarre rant by Richard Hanson,
nominate him for AUKs Victor Von Frankenstein Weird Science award.
Numerous posts show us Hanson dotes on Whitehead's failed doofus
process metphysics.
I nominate Hanson for this coveted award.
Seconds?
Otaku
croaked:
<wcb's screed snipped>
>
> Kooki Information Minister -
>
> Named in honour of Iraq's Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, this office is
> held by the kook whose claims are most noticeably at variance with
> known facts.
>
But, wouldn't that mean that we (tinw) are asserting that the existence of
god(s) is a known fact? I'm not sure I can go along with that.
--
©2006 Otaku (at) troll4fun (dot) com
Fool me once, shame...shame on you. Fool me...can't get fooled again!
-- GWB
Kadaitcha Man
door to invite customers, crowed:
> Feeling froggy, on 19 Sep 2006, absurd_numb...@hell.corn
> croaked:
>
> <wcb's screed snipped>
>
>>
>> Kooki Information Minister -
>>
>> Named in honour of Iraq's Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, this office is
>> held by the kook whose claims are most noticeably at variance with
>> known facts.
>>
>
> But, wouldn't that mean that we (tinw) are asserting that the
> existence of god(s) is a known fact? I'm not sure I can go along with
> that.
No such assertion is being made. The known facts being spoken of are the
basic laws of simple logic.
--
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005 and April 2006
"K-Man's particular genius, however, lies not merely in his humour,
but his ability to make posters who had previously seemed reasonably
well-balanced turn into foaming, frothing, death threat-uttering
maniacs" - Snarky, Demon Lord of Confusion
Thou lewd minx. Art thou the slave that with thy breath hast killed.
God
<eenvn4$io5$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>:
> Feeling froggy, on 19 Sep 2006, absurd_numb...@hell.corn
> croaked:
>
> <wcb's screed snipped>
>
>>
>> Kooki Information Minister -
>>
>> Named in honour of Iraq's Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, this office is
>> held by the kook whose claims are most noticeably at variance with
>> known facts.
>>
>
> But, wouldn't that mean that we (tinw) are asserting that the
> existence of god(s) is a known fact? I'm not sure I can go along with
> that.
Give Me one good reason, or I'll wither your nose and turn it into a penis
so you'll have a matching pair.
--
I am The Great I Am.
Sniper
> Sniper wrote:
>
>> wcb wrote:
>>
>>> I did, you are so stupid you dont get it.
>>> This is because yiou are stuopid, Did I mention
>>> your grotesque stupidity?
>>>
>> Re-read your paragraph above and reconsider
>> who it is that's stupid. Oh, never mind, we
>> are about to be regaled by yet another post
>> of yours where you cut and paste the _same_
>> arguments in the hopes it magically becomes
>> stronger the more times you post it. That's
>> because what, _you_ are the smart one here?
> No, I don't think that. I know it crushes god as a viable
> concept and always has.
So the point of posting it thousands of times?
> That the Gandy Shitgoose squad doesn't get it means
> nothing except
> you and Gandy and a few others are mindless
Mindless is posting the _same_ drivel over and
over again while expecting a different result.
[snip]
> You are about on that same miserable level as is Hanson.
You're on that same miserable level as Septic,
only you're cutting and pasting more than him.
Autobot Alert...Autobot Alert...Autobot Alert:
Gandalf Grey
> The Demon Prince of Absurdity wrote:
>
>>
>> Kooki Information Minister -
>>
>> Named in honour of Iraq's Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, this office is held
>> by
>> the kook whose claims are most noticeably at variance with known facts.
>>
>> [Note: Colin Powell and George W. Bush both came within an ace of being
>> the namesake for this office.;-{P}]
>>
>> His many repetitions of the above pile of^H^H^H^H^H^Hreasoning should be
>> sufficient justification for William "Cheerful Charlie" Barwell to be
>> nominated for the Office of Kooki Information Minister.
>>
>> Are there any seconds?
>
> I nominate
You barely know how to spell it, let alone do it.
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>>> GOD IS DISPROVEN
>>
>> Not by you.
>>
>
Yadda, yadda.
>
> -----
> 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
The God of Odd Statements
> Feeling froggy, on 19 Sep 2006, absurd_numb...@hell.corn croaked:
>
> <wcb's screed snipped>
>
>> Kooki Information Minister -
>>
>> Named in honour of Iraq's Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, this office is held
>> by the kook whose claims are most noticeably at variance with known
>> facts.
>
> But, wouldn't that mean that we (tinw) are asserting that the existence of
> god(s) is a known fact? I'm not sure I can go along with that.
LOL! No, the "known fact", in this case, would be that "proving" the
existence/non-existence of deity is currently impossible, and cannot be
accomplished via logic. Basically, Barwell's the inverse of Hammond.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5
Demon Lord of Confusion
COOSN-029-06-71069
Supreme High Overlord of rec.radio.*
Chuck Lysaght: Tarred & Feathered!
"It would be offly hard for any of you to abuse me on usenet. Really. I
have the advantage. I could easily turn alt.usenet.kooks into a cesspool
of encoded posts. Bringing the noise ratio up so high as to make the
group worthless. Anybody who can code could do this, why nobody has
bothered before now is beyond me. The ultimate spamming engine..
'BAWAHAHA'" -- Dustbin "Outer Filth" K00k's delusions of grandeur
reached new heights, in Message-ID:
<Xns98355D29419...@69.28.186.121>
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Otaku <ot...@troll4fun.c0m> wrote:
> Feeling froggy, on 19 Sep 2006, absurd_numb...@hell.corn
> croaked:
>
> <wcb's screed snipped>
>
> >
> > Kooki Information Minister -
> >
> > Named in honour of Iraq's Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, this office is
> > held by the kook whose claims are most noticeably at variance with
> > known facts.
> >
>
> But, wouldn't that mean that we (tinw) are asserting that the existence of
> god(s) is a known fact? I'm not sure I can go along with that.
this just in
a horse has been appointed to the us senate
meow arf meow - they are performing horrible experiments in space
major grubert is watching you - beware the bakalite
there can only be one or two - the airtight garage has you neo
The God of Odd Statements
> Otaku, the servant of a salesman who stands at the door to invite
> customers, crowed:
>> Feeling froggy, on 19 Sep 2006, absurd_numb...@hell.corn
>> croaked:
>>
>> <wcb's screed snipped>
>>
>>> Kooki Information Minister -
>>>
>>> Named in honour of Iraq's Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, this office is
>>> held by the kook whose claims are most noticeably at variance with
>>> known facts.
>>
>> But, wouldn't that mean that we (tinw) are asserting that the existence
>> of god(s) is a known fact? I'm not sure I can go along with that.
>
> No such assertion is being made. The known facts being spoken of are the
> basic laws of simple logic.
<touches nose> <points at K-Man>
Kadaitcha Man
fowl trapper, excreted:
> LOL! No, the "known fact", in this case, would be that "proving" the
> existence/non-existence of deity is currently impossible, and cannot
> be accomplished via logic.
WOAH, Snarky!
Definition 1: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties those and
only those properties which are positive.
Definition 2: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B
necessarily iff A entails B.
Definition 3: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is necessarily
exemplified.
Please go back to the drawing board and don't call again until you have
specified your own correctly formatted, /specific/ logical definition,
enumerated with the requisite axioms, and supported by the associated
theorems arising from those axioms, like this:
Definition 1: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties those and
only those properties which are positive.
Definition 2: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B
necessarily iff A entails B.
Definition 3: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is necessarily
exemplified.
Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by -- i.e., strictly implied by -- a
positive property is positive.
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive.
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive.
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is
positive.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e.,
possibly exemplified.
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like
is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.
--
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005 and April 2006
"K-Man's particular genius, however, lies not merely in his humour,
but his ability to make posters who had previously seemed reasonably
well-balanced turn into foaming, frothing, death threat-uttering
maniacs" - Snarky, Demon Lord of Confusion
Thou unfeeling fool. A fool, a coward, one all of luxury, an ass, a
madman.
Kadaitcha Man
<mair_...@yahoo.com>, the noisome harper, choked out:
> In article <eenvn4$io5$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>,
> Otaku <ot...@troll4fun.c0m> wrote:
>
>> Feeling froggy, on 19 Sep 2006, absurd_numb...@hell.corn
>> croaked:
>>
>> <wcb's screed snipped>
>>
>>>
>>> Kooki Information Minister -
>>>
>>> Named in honour of Iraq's Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, this office is
>>> held by the kook whose claims are most noticeably at variance with
>>> known facts.
>>>
>>
>> But, wouldn't that mean that we (tinw) are asserting that the
>> existence of god(s) is a known fact? I'm not sure I can go along
>> with that.
>
> this just in
>
> a horse has been appointed to the us senate
Bullshit, it was a cow; Hillary Rodham Clinton.
--
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005 and April 2006
"K-Man's particular genius, however, lies not merely in his humour,
but his ability to make posters who had previously seemed reasonably
well-balanced turn into foaming, frothing, death threat-uttering
maniacs" - Snarky, Demon Lord of Confusion
Thou cozening queen. Thou craven, deranged pigfish.
Kadaitcha Man
powdered lime from burnt bones, railed:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:36:41 +0545, Kadaitcha Man did most oddly
> state:
>> Otaku, the servant of a salesman who stands at the door to invite
>> customers, crowed:
>>> Feeling froggy, on 19 Sep 2006, absurd_numb...@hell.corn
>>> croaked:
>>>
>>> <wcb's screed snipped>
>>>
>>>> Kooki Information Minister -
>>>>
>>>> Named in honour of Iraq's Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, this office is
>>>> held by the kook whose claims are most noticeably at variance with
>>>> known facts.
>>>
>>> But, wouldn't that mean that we (tinw) are asserting that the
>>> existence of god(s) is a known fact? I'm not sure I can go along
>>> with that.
>>
>> No such assertion is being made. The known facts being spoken of are
>> the basic laws of simple logic.
>
> <touches nose> <points at K-Man>
<picks nose> <flicks booger at Snarky>
--
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005 and April 2006
"K-Man's particular genius, however, lies not merely in his humour,
but his ability to make posters who had previously seemed reasonably
well-balanced turn into foaming, frothing, death threat-uttering
maniacs" - Snarky, Demon Lord of Confusion
Thou clouted wittol. Thou sloppy foul wrinkled witch.
The God of Odd Statements
> The God of Odd Statements, the water fowl trapper, excreted:
>
>> LOL! No, the "known fact", in this case, would be that "proving" the
>> existence/non-existence of deity is currently impossible, and cannot be
>> accomplished via logic.
>
> WOAH, Snarky!
>
> Definition 1: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties those and
> only those properties which are positive.
>
> Definition 2: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B
> necessarily iff A entails B.
>
> Definition 3: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is necessarily
> exemplified.
>
> Please go back to the drawing board and don't call again until you have
> specified your own correctly formatted, /specific/ logical definition,
> enumerated with the requisite axioms, and supported by the associated
> theorems arising from those axioms, like this:
OK, OK, if one gets to define what "deity" means, "proving" the existence
of deity becomes *thimple*, like proving that elves are real because one
defines one's self as an elf. When you can set your own goalposts, scoring
a goal is rather easy. Note that I'm still in pain, however. Also note, I
hail Eris.
> Definition 1: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties those and
> only those properties which are positive.
>
> Definition 2: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B
> necessarily iff A entails B.
>
> Definition 3: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is necessarily
> exemplified.
>
> Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
>
> Axiom 2: Any property entailed by -- i.e., strictly implied by -- a
> positive property is positive.
>
> Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive.
>
> Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive.
>
> Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.
>
> Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is
> positive.
>
> Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e.,
> possibly exemplified.
>
> Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
>
> Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like
> is an essence of that thing.
>
> Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.
Indeed.
Kadaitcha Man
who is paid to service the manoręs grandmother, slobbered:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:08:29 +0545, Kadaitcha Man did most oddly
> state:
>> The God of Odd Statements, the water fowl trapper, excreted:
>>
>>> LOL! No, the "known fact", in this case, would be that "proving" the
>>> existence/non-existence of deity is currently impossible, and
>>> cannot be accomplished via logic.
>>
>> WOAH, Snarky!
>>
>> Definition 1: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties those
>> and only those properties which are positive.
>>
>> Definition 2: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B
>> necessarily iff A entails B.
>>
>> Definition 3: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is
>> necessarily exemplified.
>>
>> Please go back to the drawing board and don't call again until you
>> have specified your own correctly formatted, /specific/ logical
>> definition, enumerated with the requisite axioms, and supported by
>> the associated theorems arising from those axioms, like this:
>
> OK, OK, if one gets to define what "deity" means, "proving" the
> existence of deity becomes *thimple*, like proving that elves are
> real because one defines one's self as an elf. When you can set your
> own goalposts, scoring a goal is rather easy. Note that I'm still in
> pain, however. Also note, I hail Eris.
You could hail Porky Pig for all it matters; if it is metaphysical and has
positive properties, it necessarily exists.
>> Definition 1: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties those
>> and only those properties which are positive.
>>
>> Definition 2: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B
>> necessarily iff A entails B.
>>
>> Definition 3: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is
>> necessarily exemplified.
>>
>> Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not
>> positive.
>>
>> Axiom 2: Any property entailed by -- i.e., strictly implied by -- a
>> positive property is positive.
>>
>> Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive.
>>
>> Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive.
>>
>> Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.
>>
>> Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being
>> necessarily P is positive.
>>
>> Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e.,
>> possibly exemplified.
>>
>> Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
>>
>> Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being
>> God-like is an essence of that thing.
>>
>> Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is
>> exemplified.
>
> Indeed.
--
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005 and April 2006
"K-Man's particular genius, however, lies not merely in his humour,
but his ability to make posters who had previously seemed reasonably
well-balanced turn into foaming, frothing, death threat-uttering
maniacs" - Snarky, Demon Lord of Confusion
Thou foul-tainted flesh. Thou remorseless.
The God of Odd Statements
> The God of Odd Statements, the tenant who is paid to service the
> manoręs grandmother, slobbered:
>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:08:29 +0545, Kadaitcha Man did most oddly state:
>>> The God of Odd Statements, the water fowl trapper, excreted:
>>>
>>>> LOL! No, the "known fact", in this case, would be that "proving" the
>>>> existence/non-existence of deity is currently impossible, and cannot
>>>> be accomplished via logic.
>>>
>>> WOAH, Snarky!
>>>
>>> Definition 1: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties those
>>> and only those properties which are positive.
>>>
>>> Definition 2: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B
>>> necessarily iff A entails B.
>>>
>>> Definition 3: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is
>>> necessarily exemplified.
>>>
>>> Please go back to the drawing board and don't call again until you
>>> have specified your own correctly formatted, /specific/ logical
>>> definition, enumerated with the requisite axioms, and supported by the
>>> associated theorems arising from those axioms, like this:
>>
>> OK, OK, if one gets to define what "deity" means, "proving" the
>> existence of deity becomes *thimple*, like proving that elves are real
>> because one defines one's self as an elf. When you can set your own
>> goalposts, scoring a goal is rather easy. Note that I'm still in pain,
>> however. Also note, I hail Eris.
>
> You could hail Porky Pig for all it matters; if it is metaphysical and
> has positive properties, it necessarily exists.
...In some sense.
The God of Odd Statements
> The God of Odd Statements, the maker of powdered lime from burnt bones,
> railed:
>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:36:41 +0545, Kadaitcha Man did most oddly state:
>>> Otaku, the servant of a salesman who stands at the door to invite
>>> customers, crowed:
>>>> Feeling froggy, on 19 Sep 2006, absurd_numb...@hell.corn
>>>> croaked:
>>>>
>>>> <wcb's screed snipped>
>>>>
>>>>> Kooki Information Minister -
>>>>>
>>>>> Named in honour of Iraq's Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, this office is
>>>>> held by the kook whose claims are most noticeably at variance with
>>>>> known facts.
>>>>
>>>> But, wouldn't that mean that we (tinw) are asserting that the
>>>> existence of god(s) is a known fact? I'm not sure I can go along with
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> No such assertion is being made. The known facts being spoken of are
>>> the basic laws of simple logic.
>>
>> <touches nose> <points at K-Man>
>
> <picks nose> <flicks booger at Snarky>
<dodges> <sticks tongue out at K-Man>
Kadaitcha Man
educationalist, released:
That's a different troll.
--
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005 and April 2006
"K-Man's particular genius, however, lies not merely in his humour,
but his ability to make posters who had previously seemed reasonably
well-balanced turn into foaming, frothing, death threat-uttering
maniacs" - Snarky, Demon Lord of Confusion
Thou sourest-natured dog that lives. It is a tale told by an idiot, full
of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Kadaitcha Man
parchmenter, exhausted:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:13:58 +0545, Kadaitcha Man did most oddly
> state:
>> The God of Odd Statements, the maker of powdered lime from burnt
>> bones, railed:
>>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:36:41 +0545, Kadaitcha Man did most oddly
>>> state:
>>>> Otaku, the servant of a salesman who stands at the door to invite
>>>> customers, crowed:
>>>>> Feeling froggy, on 19 Sep 2006, absurd_numb...@hell.corn
>>>>> croaked:
>>>>>
>>>>> <wcb's screed snipped>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Kooki Information Minister -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Named in honour of Iraq's Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, this office
>>>>>> is held by the kook whose claims are most noticeably at variance
>>>>>> with known facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, wouldn't that mean that we (tinw) are asserting that the
>>>>> existence of god(s) is a known fact? I'm not sure I can go along
>>>>> with that.
>>>>
>>>> No such assertion is being made. The known facts being spoken of
>>>> are the basic laws of simple logic.
>>>
>>> <touches nose> <points at K-Man>
>>
>> <picks nose> <flicks booger at Snarky>
>
> <dodges> <sticks tongue out at K-Man>
<laughs at booger on Snarky's tongue>
--
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005 and April 2006
"K-Man's particular genius, however, lies not merely in his humour,
but his ability to make posters who had previously seemed reasonably
well-balanced turn into foaming, frothing, death threat-uttering
maniacs" - Snarky, Demon Lord of Confusion
Thou very filthy rogue. Thou poor mad soul.
honestjohn
"Kadaitcha Man" <fuck-you...@kiss-my-big-black-ass.com> wrote in
message news:eeo82b$crc$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
Porky Pig is not one-to-one and onto, therefore is not isomorphic to God.
HJ
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
The God of Odd Statements <godo...@statements.likeyours> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:08:29 +0545, Kadaitcha Man did most oddly state:
> > The God of Odd Statements, the water fowl trapper, excreted:
> >
> >> LOL! No, the "known fact", in this case, would be that "proving" the
> >> existence/non-existence of deity is currently impossible, and cannot be
> >> accomplished via logic.
> >
> > WOAH, Snarky!
> >
> > Definition 1: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties those and
> > only those properties which are positive.
> >
> > Definition 2: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B
> > necessarily iff A entails B.
> >
> > Definition 3: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is necessarily
> > exemplified.
> >
> > Please go back to the drawing board and don't call again until you have
> > specified your own correctly formatted, /specific/ logical definition,
> > enumerated with the requisite axioms, and supported by the associated
> > theorems arising from those axioms, like this:
>
> OK, OK, if one gets to define what "deity" means, "proving" the existence
> of deity becomes *thimple*, like proving that elves are real because one
> defines one's self as an elf. When you can set your own goalposts, scoring
> a goal is rather easy. Note that I'm still in pain, however. Also note, I
> hail Eris.
the essence of barwell proofs are
if we cannot come up with a consistent description god
then god does not exist
this an application of the inexplicable-existence collary of the hubris principle
hubris principle
everything is comprehensible to humans
inexplicable-existence collary
if x is not inexplicable then x does not exist
for x equals god you have the summary of everything barwell says
this principle has proven there are no such things as ghosts ufos
or intelligence in alt-atheism
wcb
Richard Hanson, winner of the AUK Victor Von
Frankenstein Weird Science award. Most fitting
given your slobbering insistance on elevating Whitehead
to godhead in the name of science.
I think you should be awarded it because who else
woulsd bmake such a stupid claim about the foundations
of modern science?
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
> As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
> philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
Whitehead's guff is pure crankery. Newage drivel.
http://www.ctr4process.org/about/process/GodUniverse.shtml
All reality is energy, being composed of a complex combination of energy
events. There is no such thing as spiritual matter versus physical matter.
God and our spirits are energy events, just as is everything else.
The building blocks of the universe are bursts of energy, each coming into
being and fading away in a split second. Whitehead calls them energy events
or actual occasions of experience.
Each energy event has a physical pole and a mental pole.
The physical pole is that aspect of it which is purely a repeat of past
energy events.
The mental pole is an element of subjectivity and, therefore, of limited but
genuine freedom that enables the energy event, in the process of becoming,
to have some determination over the shape it will take, and to receive new
possibilities from God, the initial aim (#4).
Rock, water, flesh, air, are all incredibly complex combinations of these
energy events (societies of occasions).
God and our spirits or souls are each a series of these energy events that
are highly developed in complexity, especially in regard to the mental
pole.
Surrrrrre!
wcb
>
> the only thing it crushes is any doubt that you're a crank.
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
> As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
> philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
And this is what? Not crankery?
wcb
>
> Well, since your original argument was fundamentally flawed and NOT true,
> you're probably still in the intellectual bog you began in.
>
My argument has no flaws at all, it simply had to be rewritten
to make it easier fir dumbasses like yoy to read since you were too stupid
to read the orignal. I had to dumb it down.
It is not flawed, never was and deals the doup de gras for all OEC class
gods.
You would never adimit that because you are a stupid hateful net bully and
all around shit ass.
I explained to you 500 times this argument was aimed at OEC gods and being
either so stupid it hurts to conteplate your gross stupidity, you could not
grasp that truth, or yiu were playing dumb as part of your net bully
persona.
In fact other classes of gods, are
1. Not imoportant
2. Do not have large numbers of belivers.
3. Debunkable on other grounds, class by class.
You ignored this as you lied again and again and again and again.
Lying is your life.
God tyhat is creatror of all all good, and either
omniscient or omnipotent is impossible.
That dooms OEC gods, gods of 4.3 people.
You a will nerver understand that because you are obviously old, and
starting to become senile.
I have figured this out and put forth a heavy duty argument and
you cannot get for all your wizzened little pretenstions to be
some sort of intellectual thinker, which bluntly you asre not
and will never be, being a senile old fart with logic dyslexia.
And teh fact I can do things like this while all you can do is bark and yap
and display yoiur ugliness and a human being makes you green with envy.
You can't do shit.
Fool: "Maybe god allows Hitler to killl 20 millions
to keep us from being bored."
Hanson: Excellent idea!"
This isn't good thinking is it?
You are a failure Hanson, while I come up with new and good ideas.
That turns you into a quivering pile of hate and spite.
The OEC gods are now doomed, you can't stand the fact
you were not the one to do this.
And since I did it you hate me and harass
me because of your envy and hate.
Maybe you might someday come up with something worth reading IF YOU STOPPED
YOU CAMPAIGN OF HARSSEMENT AGAINST ME AND PUT YOUR TIME TO SOMETHING
USEFUL!
Probably not though since logic is beyond your mental capabilities and you
are incredibally ignorant. Whiteheads metaphysics the basis of modern
sceince!
Yeah sure!
I have found out how to sort out gods into classes and debunk them class by
class.
Again, you yurn green with envy.
And red faced with hate.
Since I am not going away, and my book slowly gets written, why don't you go
away and stop harassing me with your ignorant, wrong-headed,hatefilled
nonsense and go find a new project that atually accomplishes something,
which your harassment campaign here is not doing much?
I have been as I go, doing a lot of research and so as I go I am starting
book #2, the Encyclopedia of Atheism. What are yiou doing except wasting
time on me with no payoff for yiour feeble efforts?
Are you proud of being known as a vicious net kook net bully?
A kook who thinks Whiteheads cretinous feeble minded
metaphysics is basis of modern science? A man repeatedly proven to be a
logic dyslexic loser?
How long are you going to waste your time harrassing me and denying my
essays are true when they obviously are to any thinking person?
Until you die raging and ranting and still losing of old age and spite?
Because Omnigenesis is true, it dooms OEC gods and
your spite and hate will not make it all go away never
to be seen again.
In fact I know it to be true precisely because you and Sipere and other
louts, and you are all louts, never got close to finding anything wrong
with it despite all teh harassment.
All you has was feeble mind kook wails.
The whole idea of posting it was to see it the smart guys could find a real
problem.
They didn't the dumbasses latched on instead in frenzies of kookery.
------
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,
Gandalf Grey
> Most fitting
> given your slobbering insistance on elevating Whitehead
> to godhead in the name of science.
>
This isn't about that and everyone knows it. I never elevated anyone to
godhood. The people in this group are well aware of the fact that I
couldn't care less about whether or not anyone believes in process theology.
This is about you not being able to disprove the existence of an
non-omnipotent god and latching onto Process Theology as a poster boy for
your failure.
If you'd had anything better than arguing that non-omnipotent gods "aren't
important" you wouldn't still be stamping your feet and screeching about how
scalded you are.
So that's life, Barney. I've you hadn't pretended you could disprove the
existence of any god, you wouldn't be choking on your foot right now. All
your whining has accomplished nothing but a demonstration that you can't
take your medicine like a man.
wcb
> Feeling froggy, on 19 Sep 2006, absurd_numb...@hell.corn
> croaked:
>
> <wcb's screed snipped>
>
>>
>> Kooki Information Minister -
>>
>> Named in honour of Iraq's Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, this office is
>> held by the kook whose claims are most noticeably at variance with
>> known facts.
>>
>
> But, wouldn't that mean that we (tinw) are asserting that the existence of
> god(s) is a known fact? I'm not sure I can go along with that.
>
>
I think I can show you that the OEC class of gods, that is
Omni-Everything, Creator gods, gods of bible, Vedas, Quran
cannot exist.
Which, I have put forth said argument for inspection.
This has driven a small handful of net flakes
crazy with net kookiness. Religion always stirs up net kooks.
Read carefully and make up your own mind.
Unable to show my arguments are false, unable to shout me down and silence
me in a flurry of net bully personal attacks that havve failed 6 months
running now, they have attempted this KIM crap as a yet othere attempt to
silence me, making me slink of in shame becasuse a few net kooks confer on
me a net kook award'.
Not that it will.
"Barwell refuses to be shouted down! He must be a net kook for his
persistance against a small pack of logic dyslexis net kooks!"
But this is usenet which now is about half net kooks.
Which is one reason more and more major ISP are dropping usenet.
With 600 million Americans and Europeans, we get about 60 regulars on
alt.atheism, easily half brain damaged kooks.
Trying to recuse AA by posting interesting, true articles does not work,it
just drives the net kooks into frenzies of harassment.
-------
Here is the essay that causes the net kooks to hate and froth.
6. SOULS
(End)
---------------
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> the only thing it crushes is any doubt that you're a crank.
>
> September 11 - Gandy Grey:
>> As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
>> philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
>
> And this is what? Not crankery?
"wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12fsljh...@corp.supernews.com...
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> Cite where an appeal to logic is a fallacy in a logical argument.
>>
>> Do it right here, right now---------->
>
>
> You would not know what a logical fallacy was if I
> nailed it to your forhead.
Inability to answer the challenge noted.
Let's replay that.
Barwell actually asserts that appeal to logic is a logical fallacy.
>>> WBARWELL
>>>
>>> Something cannot come from nothing.
>>> Therefore something must have always existed
>>> far back into infinity. There was never a
>>> time when nothing did not exist.
>>>
>>> Parmenides nailed this one.
>>>
>>> Something always existed.
>>>
>>> GANDY
>>> Another unsupported assertion
>>
>
> Appeal to logic
Cite where an appeal to logic is a fallacy in a logical argument.
Do it right here, right now---------->
wcb
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:37:36 +0500, Otaku did most oddly state:
>> Feeling froggy, on 19 Sep 2006, absurd_numb...@hell.corn croaked:
>>
>> <wcb's screed snipped>
>>
>>> Kooki Information Minister -
>>>
>>> Named in honour of Iraq's Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, this office is held
>>> by the kook whose claims are most noticeably at variance with known
>>> facts.
>>
>> But, wouldn't that mean that we (tinw) are asserting that the existence
>> of god(s) is a known fact? I'm not sure I can go along with that.
>
> LOL! No, the "known fact", in this case, would be that "proving" the
> existence/non-existence of deity is currently impossible, and cannot be
> accomplished via logic. Basically, Barwell's the inverse of Hammond.
>
No, Barwell takes religion's own claims and applies simple, garden variety
logic to the claims.
No biggy, it is what theologians have been doing for years.
Debunking god by noticing the claimed attributes of god are
contradictory is an old idea, I just take it a bit further.
To the logical end of a small handful of explicit claims.
Hammmond is a kook because his nonsense is based on nonsense ideas.
There are kooks on usenet. People who pronounce things like X is a kook
without reading X, or who read it and cannot understand it due to stupdity,
religious flakes who claim teh bible has no contraictions will not drop
that claim despite 1000 such contradictions thrust under their snouts.
And so it is here.
AA has a few kooks, Richard Hanson, Sniper, Fool, who attck this.
Without any more brains that bible literalits.
------
wcb
>
> OK, OK, if one gets to define what "deity" means, "proving" the existence
> of deity becomes thimple, like proving that elves are real because one
> defines one's self as an elf. When you can set your own goalposts, scoring
> a goal is rather easy. Note that I'm still in pain, however. Also note, I
> hail Eris.
Its easy when your opponents make the definitionms.
Take bible, Quran et al and extract the proof texts.
Here are major claims of religions, christianity, islam et al.
1. God is personal, god has conciousness and will
2. God is intelligent
3. God has free will
4. God created all
5. God is omnipotent
6. God is omniscient
7. God is omnibenevolent
8. God is that which is so great, nothing greater
can be imagined.
Now, if these claims create impossible contradictions
or problems, you can thus debunk them.
Why make strawmen when old claims agreed to by all
major religions makes debunking easy as pie?
wcb
>
> So the point of posting it thousands of times?
>
You shit crap at me, it gets reposted.
Dont like it, dont shit on usenet.
I post truth. Kooks: lies! Bullshit! Crap! nonsense! Lies! More lies!
Stupidity!
I am not going to let the kooks define my argument for all by
spewing a non-ending fountain of lies and charicatures of my argument.
You shit, I post.
To set the record straight.
You don't like it, tough, net kook!
Net kooks yap, I hit back.
If I have an astounding hate filled attack kook like Gandy
to contend with, it gets posted a lot.
You kooks make it your lifes worjk to attack me again and again and again
and again, I post it agin after each false, lie filled kook attack.
Are you saying "we kooks attack with lies, bullshit, crap and
stupidity and now you have to shut up and go away, we kooks
run AA now!"?
Get fisted, kook boy!
I do not like being kook swarmed.
You do not like it you kook swarmers can't shut me up
and make me stop posting and thinging!
Does my reposting make you squeal and howl and hate and drool?
GOOD! HERE IT IS AGAIN!
AND IT IS STILL TRUE AND YOU ARE STILL STUPID!
6. SOULS
(End)
--
Gandalf Grey
> Here is the essay that causes the net kooks to hate and froth.
Here is the debunking of the essay.
>>
>>> 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.
Yadda, yadda.
>
> -----
> 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
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, since your original argument was fundamentally flawed and NOT true,
>> you're probably still in the intellectual bog you began in.
>>
> My argument has no flaws at all,
Obviously to all, it had so many flaws it failed.
>
> -----
> 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
Gandalf Grey
> There are kooks on usenet.
And you are definitely one of them, Barney.
Gandalf Grey
> Sniper wrote:
>
>>
>> So the point of posting it thousands of times?
>>
>
> You shit crap at me, it gets reposted.
Translation: If you disagree with me, I'm going to Spam my shit to Usenet
dozens of times a day.
Kurt Nicklas
wcb wrote:
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
> >
> >> GOD IS DISPROVEN
> >
> > Not by you.
> >
>
> Yes! By me! No OEC gods.
> And the other gods dont work either!
>
> Now stop crying.
Billy, "omnigenesis" does not mean what you think it means
just as "metaphysics" doesn't mean what you thought it meant.
You are one ignorant fool, you know that? How could you possibly
let yourself get so beat up by Ricky Hanson??
Sniper
> AA has a few kooks, Richard Hanson, Sniper, Fool ...
That's a hoot coming from a fucktard who
believes that posting the same shit over
and over, ad nauseam, is rational. Bill,
how many times have you posted your (so-
called) proof that it's impossible for a
god of any kind, to exist? As many times
as you've been called a dummy, no doubt.
You apparently graduated from the Septic
school of "Cutting & Pasting Arguments".
So hey, show us how "unkooky" you are by
posting it another 1,000 times, will ya?
Sniper
> Sniper wrote:
>
>>So the point of posting it thousands of times?
>
> You shit crap at me, it gets reposted.
> Dont like it, dont shit on usenet.
Your posts _are_ shit, so if you don't like
crap, you can begin at home. Don't post it.
> I post ... [] ... lies! Bullshit! Crap! nonsense! Lies! More lies!
> Stupidity!
Hey with a little editing I agree with you.
> I am not going to let the kooks define my argument for all by
> spewing a non-ending fountain of lies and charicatures of my argument.
>
> You shit, I post.
No, you post shit. I pointed it out to you.
[snip]
> I do not like being kook swarmed.
I'm sure alt.atheism doesn't like spamming.
[snip]
Autobot alert/Autobot alert/Autobot alert!:
Gandalf Grey
"Sniper" <sni...@gotcha.com> wrote in message
news:rpednVXMOq2aDY3Y...@adelphia.com...
> wcb wrote:
>
>> AA has a few kooks, Richard Hanson, Sniper, Fool ...
>
> That's a hoot coming from a fucktard who
> believes that posting the same shit over
> and over, ad nauseam, is rational. Bill,
> how many times have you posted your (so-
> called) proof that it's impossible for a
> god of any kind, to exist? As many times
> as you've been called a dummy, no doubt.
>
> You apparently graduated from the Septic
> school of "Cutting & Pasting Arguments".
I think at this point we ought to honor Barwell's achievements by giving him
the honorary title of "Billboard Bill"
wcb
>
> Billy, "omnigenesis" does not mean what you think it means
> just as "metaphysics" doesn't mean what you thought it meant.
>
Sorry, you are not Greek expert nor Latin expert.
you are a net kook.
What does omniverous mean?
Genesis means birth, creation,to make et al.
You don't know shit about anything.
Hanson spewed shit and you lapped it up without checking.
wcb
he Richard Hanson faq
http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd
The Gandalf Grey Usenet Abuse FAQ, Version 1.1:
Notice: The source for all information contained in the FAQ is derived from
"Grey's" history of posting as found in Google Groups, and as such is in the
public domain.
------------------
**IS HE A "NET LEGEND?"
No. Hanson is an abuser, not a legend.
Quote:
From: tri...@clemson.campus.mci.net (Chris Kevlahan)
Subject: Dear Mr. Hanson
Date: 1996/04/17
Message-ID: <4l1i12$...@news.campus.mci.net>#1/1
organization: CampusMCI
newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
net.legends committee
Hanson
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Dear Mr. Hanson
We would like to take this time to inform you that
your request to be listed on the 'Net.legends' list
has been denied.
As you know, space is at a premium on the 'Net.legends'
list, and we restrict it to only the most outstanding
idiots on the net, and while you are an idiot, we have
concluded that you are just a common idiot rather than
an outstanding idiot.
We would however, like to thank you for your participation
and application. To show our appreciation and gratitude,
we have taken your application for the 'Net.legends' list
and fowarded to the 'Usenet.kooks', along with our hearty
recommendation.
Good luck, God speed, and please keep trying. Perhaps in
the future there may be ample evidence to upgrade your rating
from a mere idiot to a complete idiot. Our handicappers have
been analyzing your posts since you applied, and think that
there is a distinct possibility you may eventually make it.
Sincerely,
The 'Net.legends' list committee
Endquote
**WHAT IS HIS PERSONAL HISTORY AND BIO?
The information about Richard Hanson comes from the
Usenet archives at Google.
The Richard Hanson faq
http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd
The Gandalf Grey Usenet Abuse FAQ,
Version 1.1:
Notice: The source for all information contained
in the FAQ is derived from "Grey's" history of
posting as found in Google Groups, and as such is in the
public domain.
--
This was posted on January 15, 1996
Quote:
Excerpted from: WebRunner (zine) August, 1995
URL: (http://www.access.digex.net/~web/byauthor.html)
[Editor's Note: digex.net is now defunct]
Self-Interest and the Politics of Insult
By Richard Hanson
Cruising the Internet newsgroups looking for "good
democratic ideas" has turned out to be a harrowing
experience. Personal attack as a form of political
argument has reached new lows in a form of political
rhetoric that seems to attach meaning and success to
those arguments that contain the greatest "in your
face" quality. In the midst of on-line arguments,
I have often referred to such tactics as being reminiscent
of sophomore debate, knowing full well that it would
sting the opposition. Sadly, I also know, truth be told,
that no sophomore debate squad would stoop so low.
wcb
------------------
Quote:
net.legends committee
Hanson
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Dear Mr. Hanson
--
URL: (http://www.access.digex.net/~web/byauthor.html)
---
--
wcb
------------------
Quote:
net.legends committee
Hanson
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Dear Mr. Hanson
--
URL: (http://www.access.digex.net/~web/byauthor.html)
---
wcb
>
> Translation: If you disagree with me, I'm going to Spam my shit to Usenet
> dozens of times a day.
You spew shit and lies I wipe it away with facts.
wcb
>
> Your posts are shit, so if you don't like
> crap, you can begin at home. Don't post it.
The only shit posts are Gandy's spam, and you.
You shit, I post facts and truth.
I hope it bugs the holy shit out of you.
Please keep responding like this, it makes me laugh and laugh
and laugh at your ignorant, futile hate.
Here comes more truth again!
Maybe I shoud set up a bot. Everytime you post here I hit you with
4 ssays of truth and wisdom drawn at random.
Would you like that net kook pest?
Stalk me and get slapped with Truth!
If that does not work, 8, if still not, 12, 16, 24,
until you run screaming from AA.
*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
There are a number of major religions today, Judaism,
Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam, that together represent
the large majority of religious believers on earth today.
These basic religions represent the religious beliefs
of about 4.3 billion people.
These religions derive their beliefs about god from
what is claimed to be revelation. These relevations are to
be found in religious books, the Bible, Torah, Vedas and
similar books, and the Quran.
The gods of these religions are similar enough we may
regard them for practical purposes as a class of gods, the
class of of omni-everything creator gods.
These gods are claimed dogmatically to have a number of
charateristics. These as a class are creators of all, all
good (omnibenevolent), and all knowing (omniscient). They
are also omnipotent, and also merciful, loving and other
secondary characteristics. Here in this essay when God is
used, by that is meant this class of god and specific gods
of that class of omni-everything gods.
A. God is claimed to to have created the Universe and all
in that Universe.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all that is in
the Universe and he knows the future state of the Universe
and the state of all its contents as he contemplates creating
the Universe.
C. St. Augustine claimed that god is omnipotent, all powerful, and
thus is sovereign over time and that god must therefore be
transcedent over time and outside being affected by time. To
god, past, present and future are all one thing to god who thus
knows all that existed, exists and will exist, as time
cannot affect god. Boethius a century later also stated this.
D. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in
this universe because he is omniscient, all knowing.
E. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, in
the distant future, God will know whether John Smith is
to be good or evil.
F. If God knows that the Universe created in its present state will
have a John Smith, then god must then contemplate the future state
of Smith and decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith or if
god will create the Universe in another manner that will have
a good Smith who is saved in preference to a Smith who is evil
and damned.
G. Thus, Smith will be good or evil only because of a specific
personal and willful choice made solely by god who must make
a choice faced with the knowledge of the future. God must
implement his choice of what the future Smith will be, good
or evil. If God sees that Smith will commit rape on June 27,
1999, god must decide if he will allow that act to exist in
the future or not.
H. Since this all happens as god contemplates creation of the
Universe, Smith has no say in whether he is to be good or evil
as he does not exist yet and cannot influence god's choice.
I. If Smith is evil, then his evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god. In fact all moral evil done by creations of god
are done only because of personal and willful creations of
god, allowing specific acts of evil acts to be done, by direct
and personal decision of god.
J. Smith's acts to the smallest degree, all of them, from the greatest
to the smallest are personally contemplated and created by god
to the smallest physical degree. All acts to the last quark God's
specific and personal doing. And all men and women's acts
similarly are forseen and either allowed or not allowed by
god, personally and purposefully to the smallest degree.
K. Thus man can have no free will even in principle.
L. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient, creator god,
it is solely and only because god allows evil acts by
his personal choice.
M. If god creates all at once, because God is out of time and
transcedent to time, again, god creates all, each physical
part of us to the last degree through space and time, the last
atom which makes up all of us, and all our acts through all
space and time. God, purposefully designing all he creates,
creates all our acts and thoughts to the smallest possible
degree. We have no say as to what God decides to create
and what God actually does create, and creates all at once.
Since he creates all at once and is all knowing, he knows all
he plans to create before he creates it.
N. In a universe where god is omnipotent and thus transcedent in
regards to time, man can have no free will.
O. If all moral evil exists solely because of personal choices of god,
god then is not as defined, omnibenevolent. Nor merciful,
just, or similar good qualities.
P. 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.
Q. A god that is all knowing, omniscient, and/or omnipotent makes
free will impossible.
R. This is precisely because knowing all and faced with
what will be, god at all times must make a personal choice
to actually create what he is contemplating creating with
full knowledge and acceptance of what his creation will
entail, or he must change his creation to conform to his
wishes for the type of world he wants. Thus free will is
impossible, only god's will can be expressed in a
Universe where god is creator of all and omniscient
or omnipotent. God sand only god really acts.
S. God is defined as all good, omnibenevolent. But if
God creates all and is omniscient or omnipotent, all
evil is God's doing personally and purposefully.
T. This is a contradiction, an all good, omnibenevolent
god cannot be the author of all moral evil.
U. A god that is creator of all, omniscient, and/or omnipotent
and omnibenevolent thus cannot exist.
V. Thus the entire class of omni-everything, creator gods is
impossible, as a class and these sorts of gods, individually.
***********************************************************
Gandalf Grey
> Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>
>>
>> Billy, "omnigenesis" does not mean what you think it means
>> just as "metaphysics" doesn't mean what you thought it meant.
>>
>
> Sorry, you are not Greek expert nor Latin expert.
> you are a net kook.
You are an idiot.
>
> What does omniverous mean?
>
> Genesis means birth, creation,to make et al.
Omni-----
: all : universally omnidirectional
Genesis-----
Latin, from Greek, from gignesthai to be born-
: the origin or coming into being of something
It has nothing to do with "to make"
Therefore omnigenesis means literally "the origin of all"
>
> You don't know shit about anything.
And you know even less.
Gandalf Grey
>> >>> WBARWELL
>> >>>
>> >>> Something cannot come from nothing.
>> >>> Therefore something must have always existed
>> >>> far back into infinity. There was never a
>> >>> time when nothing did not exist.
>> >>>
>> >>> Parmenides nailed this one.
>> >>>
>> >>> Something always existed.
>> >>>
>> >>> GANDY
>> >>> Another unsupported assertion
>> >>
>> >
>> > Appeal to logic
>>
>> Cite where an appeal to logic is a fallacy in a logical argument.
>>
>> Do it right here, right now---------->
>> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>> news:12dt1pq...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>
>>> Would you harrass Gandalf Grey for me while you are
>>> at it, if you are going to crosspost this shit to
>>> alt.atheist?
>>
>> Are you insisting that only your own shit gets posted to AA, Barwell?
>>
>
> Well, since I am the only one here that knows what I am
> talking about, sure.
Gandalf Grey
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>> news:12h0ku0...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>> There are kooks on usenet.
>>
>> And you are definitely one of them, Barney.
>
>
>> >>>
>> >>> Something cannot come from nothing.
>> >>> Therefore something must have always existed
>> >>> far back into infinity. There was never a
>> >>> time when nothing did not exist.
>> >>>
>> >>> Parmenides nailed this one.
>> >>>
>> >>> Something always existed.
>> >>>
>> >>> GANDY
>> >>> Another unsupported assertion
>> >>
>> >
>> > Appeal to logic
>>
>> Cite where an appeal to logic is a fallacy in a logical argument.
>>
>> Do it right here, right now---------->
>> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
Sniper
> Sniper wrote:
>
>>Your posts are shit, so if you don't like
>>crap, you can begin at home. Don't post it.
>
> The only shit posts are Gandy's spam, and you.
> You shit, I post facts and truth.
Unlike you, pinhead, I offer evidence that
your posts are shit. Here you are, posting
the same crapola for the, what, 200th time
now? What seldom appears to penetrate that
thick mass of putrid rot you call a brain,
is that cutting and pasting the same thing
over and over again doesn't make it better
the more times you post it. That you still
remain ignorant of the fact is a testament
to your obnoxiousness and utter stupidity.
> I hope it bugs the holy shit out of you.
Are you kidding me? The more times you try
"bugging me", the more times you've proved
to the rest of aa what a kook-job you are.
> Please keep responding like this, it makes me laugh and laugh
> and laugh at your ignorant, futile hate.
Laugh all you want, little circus freak, I
think it only adds to your reputation as a
netk00k. Keep up the good work, ignoramus.
> Here comes more truth again!
That you're an obnoxious little troll boy?
> Maybe I shoud set up a bot. ...
It's apparent that isn't necessary. You're
doing a bang up job at imitating one, son.
Here he goes again, the wingnut in action:
Gandalf Grey
> Sniper wrote:
>
>>
>> Your posts are shit, so if you don't like
>> crap, you can begin at home. Don't post it.
>
> The only shit posts
Are your Spamfloods, Barney.
> *****************************************************
> OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
>
> God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
But not in all.
> And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
Not by all religions.
> A. God is said by theologians to have created the Universe
> and all in that Universe.
Not by all theologians.
> B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all that is in
> the Universe and he knows the future state of the Universe
> and the state of all its contents as he contemplates creating
> the Universe.
This is not a characteristic of all theologies.
> C. Augustine claimed that god is sovereign over time and thus
> must be outside and transcedent over time.
Augustine is dead and long debunked. What is novel about this?
> D. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
> years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in it
> because he is omniscient, all knowing.
Except that god is not necessarily omniscient.
> E. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, in
> the distant future, God will know whether John Smith is
> to be good or evil.
Only if god is omniscient and THEN only if that omniscience extends to
impossible knowledge of a future that hasn't happened yet. Nearly all
philosophers and theologians understand that this is a logical
impossibility.
The rest of your argument fails due to this.
The Demon Prince of Absurdity
> The God of Odd Statements wrote:
>
>> OK, OK, if one gets to define what "deity" means, "proving" the
>> existence of deity becomes thimple, like proving that elves are real
>> because one defines one's self as an elf. When you can set your own
>> goalposts, scoring a goal is rather easy. Note that I'm still in pain,
>> however. Also note, I hail Eris.
>
> Its easy when your opponents make the definitionms. Take bible, Quran et
> al and extract the proof texts. Here are major claims of religions,
> christianity, islam et al.
>
> 1. God is personal, god has conciousness and will 2. God is intelligent
> 3. God has free will
> 4. God created all
> 5. God is omnipotent
> 6. God is omniscient
> 7. God is omnibenevolent
> 8. God is that which is so great, nothing greater
> can be imagined.
>
> Now, if these claims create impossible contradictions or problems, you can
> thus debunk them. Why make strawmen when old claims agreed to by all major
> religions makes debunking easy as pie?
You and I may agree on the point that such a deity as detailed above is
self-contradictory (though still not necessarily "impossible" -- but not
something requiring *worship* -- I'm with Heinlein on that one);
however, that does not equate to an all-around debunking of the very
concept of "deity" on all levels, nor have you yet managed to accomplish
that debunking. Saying that less-than-omnipotent deities are
"unimportant" is hardly useful or logical, nor does it in any way,
shape, or form "debunk" them.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! TM#5; COOSN-029-06-71069
Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition
http://www6.kingdomofloathing.com/login.php
http://www.runescape.com/
No one expects the Fannish Inquisition!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cabal_of_the_Holy_Pretzel/join
"Etymology:
Argumentum ad Septicus : argument to putrefaction. Derived from Septicum
Argumentum : putrefaction of argument.
"Septic \Sep"tic\, Septical \Sep"tic*al\
a. [L. septicus to make putrid: cf. F. septique.]
Having power to promote putrefaction. Of or relating to or
caused by putrefaction." -- Kadaitcha Man, indirectly to
Donald "Skeptic"/"Septic" Alford, in MID: <a3svh.d...@news.alt.net>
"I never fail to be amazing" -- Looney Maroon for September 2006 nominee
William Barwell's ego knows no bounds. MID:
12ggt3q...@corp.supernews.com
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> Translation: If you disagree with me, I'm going to Spam my shit to Usenet
>> dozens of times a day.
>
>
> You spew
You're a spammer, Barney. The more I look at your history the more I
realize that a spammer is all you ever were.
>>
>>> 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.
>
>
> -----
> 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
Gandalf Grey
>
> IS GOD POSSIBLE? - NO.
> STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - PART 4
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DEBUNKED ARGUMENT
ATTENTION!
THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED FOR YOUR READING SAFETY.
>
> 1. THE RULES AND LAWS AND LOGIC OF THE UNIVERSE
>
> A. In part three, we saw that the Universe's rules
> and laws and logic cannot have been created by
> god.
No we didn't. At least nothing you wrote demonstrated the necessity of such
a conclusion.
>
> B. But what are these rules, these laws, this
> logic?
>
> 2. The CLASS OF OMNI-EVERYTHING, CREATOR GODS
> IS USELESS.
We've already gone through this and seen that everything you have to say
about your self-created, self-serving 'class' of gods is either a fallacy of
composition or a biased sample and so invalid. It also falls prey to
Russell's paradox.
> B. God as a class of omni-everything, creator gods
> cannot exist as having created all as claimed.
Since you're nearly the only one making such a claim, it hardly matters.
>
> C. Obviously, the fact that god is still referred
> to as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
> shows that most of theology has failed to consider
> the facts and to reason rationally about the
> facts.
Since the above attributes do not represent "most of theology" again, all we
have here is your fallacy of composition.
> Theology does not see and has not seen its
> methodology is failed.
Which theology?
> E. We do see rules and laws of the universe by
> careful observation.
What is the difference between rules and laws? We do not see "rules and
laws" of the universe at all. We see the results of some of the laws of the
universe whether we're careful or not.
> The rules of physics,
> chemistry, biology, cosmology, derived by
> observation,
Are not the rules of the universe. I should think you'd know that at least.
> 3. CAN A GOD EVEN EXIST?
>
> We see that things that have complexity and think
> and act and reason are made of matter, and obey
> the known laws of physics and biology.
And that implies what? That we see all beings?
>
> Can a god or deity for being that can think, and
> reason exist apart of matter and energy and
> dimensions and the laws and rules of the Universe?
Does one have to?
> The only rules and laws we can observe do not
> allow for that.
Unsupported assertion.
1. There's excellent, nearly self-evident reason to believe that we do not
see universal laws at all.
2. There's no reason to believe that the laws that govern what we do see are
the only possible laws.
3. There's no logically neccessary reason that we see everything that is
governed by actual laws or that we ever will see everything governed by
actual physical laws.
4. There's no logical reason that the local physical laws governing what we
do see could not under any circumstances have been caused or created by a
god.
> The fact that the claims made
> for a class of omni-everything creator gods
> contradict each other fatally dooms these gods
> anyway.
You mean the claims you choose fatally contradict the strawman you've set up
to destroy.
> Since they cannot exist as claimed,
> obviously physics and the rules, laws and logic
> of the Universe have nothing to do with such
> entities. And there is nothing outside of these
> laws, rules and logic of the Univeerse, obviously
> physical, to sustain something we can prove cannot
> exist.
1. You haven't proved god cannot exist. Again you dishonestly sneak your
universal assertion of god into the smaller argument.
2. There's nothing to prove that we know everything that can and does exist
and every reason to believe that we do not know everything that can and does
exist.
>
> 4. WHAT IS SUPERNATURAL?
>
> A. Before Thales and the Ionian philosophers,
> there was no real concept of natural and
> supernatural.
That we know of historically. It's quite likely that the concept itself was
well known before the fragmentary remains of pre-socratic philosophers.
> These earliest Greek philosophers
> dispensed with the idea of gods
So they thought. You assume too much as usual.
> and considered
> the way the world works without regards to
> dieties. They adopted the word phusis to their
> investigations, a word used roughly to mean
> nature, a word that gave us our word physics.
>
> B.Later philosophers explicitly introduced the
> idea of god as foundation of nature, starting with
> Xenophanes, as distinct from water or air as
> claimed cause of the Universe, or later atomists
> with their atom theories of materialsm.
>
> C. Here we find the first dividing lines between
> the natural world and the supernatural. After
> Galileo, when science as we know it was well
> created, this gap between the natural and
> supernatural became obvious.
It was obvious long before that time. The apostle Paul was having problems
with Greek skeptics long before this.
[skip rest of Weekly Reader summary]
> F. But how do you define natural? Natural is that
> which needs no supernatural to explain its
> workings.
Hardly. Again, you substitute rhetoric for reality. Science attempts to
explain nature in terms of nature. Nature is what there is. Nature is
whatever is.
>
> G. The problem for supernaturalists is they have
> no facts, no real theories, just assertions. The
> claims they make, heaven exists, there is a god,
> we have souls, are unproven and they have no
> programs for proving any assertions they make,
> which sets them apart from science.
Only a moron is unaware of the difference between science and religion. The
difference between the two does not help your claim.
> H. Nor can they base such claims on the existence
> of a supernatural realm,because that realm not
> only seems to be absent, but cannot be proven to
> exist.
Nor can science prove that it does not exist.
That was the truth you pretended to be able to disprove.
You've failed, Barwell.
Gandalf Grey
> IS THERE A GOD? - No.
> STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - PART 3
BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DEBUNKED ARGUMENT
DEAR READER:
THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED FOR YOUR READING SAFETY
>
> 1. MORE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
>
> Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of
> the Universe or not?
Why? What does that have to do with the necessary existence of God?
> THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF THE
> ABOVE EXAMINATION OF GOD
>
> Thus the idea god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent,
> and creator of all, clash again and mutually
> self-destruct over the issue of evil's existance.
Of course they don't.
1.None of these attributes are necessary to the existence of God.
2.Only Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence clash over the issue of evil's
existence.
3.Nowhere have you shown anything else.
> This raises serious questions on the nature of the
> Universe that cannot be as Grand Theology claims
> it is.
That may be but you haven't shown it to be true.
> The class of omni-everything, creator
> gods cannot exist as asserted.
Unproven as I've already demonstrated in dozens of posts.
>
> A. We have shown god cannot have created the
> Universe.
No you haven't. And once again, you're pulling the same dishonest trick
you've pulled from the first. You make claims which you don't prove, then
you go on to compound your error by pretending your original claim has
proved more than you initially said it would.
1. You make fallacious claims.
2. You make no attempt to prove them.
3. When criticized you insist that you have proved them.
4. You go on to insist that they prove more than you claimed they would
prove.
5. When the criticism gets too strong, you backpedal your claims and revise
your comments to pretend that they now are more narrow.
6. You then trot out the original debunked arguments.
7. And you then go on to insist that these arguments, once again, prove more
than you said they would.
As we have seen, in this second attempt of yours after having your initial
argument debunked by myself and others, you said your 'new argument does not
aim at all gods but only particular gods. Yet here in your summary, you
start right out MAKING A UNIVERSAL CLAIM concerning the existence of god.
So once again, you've lied, and your subsequent arguments are essentially
the same arguments that have already been debunked.
You're a scam artist, Barwell. You have no argument. You never had an
argument, just a bunch of assertions that you pasted off the web. I doubt
that you have any intention of writing a book; that too was all part of the
scam. All you've ever had is a cloud of rhetoric that you pretend is
scientific and logical.
At this point, there's one conclusion about you that covers all the facts.
I believe you're a stalking horse placed here intentionally by the right to
play the part of a cardboard cutout scientist as the right conceives of
them.
Certainly your argument has done more damage to humanism, rationality and
science than many an argument coming from the religious right. Your
portrayal of an intellectual is a comedy pastiche of all the bigotry and
stupidity that is the very antithesis of real science.
But even as a stalking-horse for the right wing, you've done a poor job.
You're too 1-dimensional and take offense too easily to be believable as a
real scientist, your logic is simply too sophomoric to believe that you have
any knowledge of logic beyond what you've been coached on, and your tendency
to simply repost your fallacies is far more like the technique of the right
wing than the predictable response of any real scholar.
Gandalf Grey
"The Demon Prince of Absurdity" <absurd_numb...@hell.corn> wrote in
message news:pan.2006.09.20....@hell.corn...
Thank you. Barwell's conclusion [i.e. that there are no possible 'gods' at
all] might even be true. But there's a difference between valid conclusions
and true conclusions. What I have been pointing out from the beginning is
that Barwell hasn't even begun to make a logical argument that would lead to
that conclusion. Stating that 'non-omnipotent' deities "aren't very
important" is NOT the same as proving that they cannot exist.
wcb
>
> Obviously to all, it had so many flaws it failed.
>
You speak only for Gandy Gooseboy and Sniper, nobody els.
Nobody else has stated it failed and show where and why.
you are always wrong about these things
Nor has anyboidy else in any oher forum claimd it fails.
It is you and sniper, two notably ignorant net flakes.
You lose again.
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,
Here, in a determinate Universe we can have no free
will, not even in principle.
A determinate, clock maker Universe that unwinds in a
6. SOULS
(End)
--
wcb
>
> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> news:12h0js0...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Well, since your original argument was fundamentally flawed and NOT
>>> true, you're probably still in the intellectual bog you began in.
>>>
>> My argument has no flaws at all,
>
> Obviously to all, it had so many flaws it failed.
The only failure is you.
>>
>> 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.
>
Revelation, dumbass, bible, quran, vedas, all claimed to be
revelations from god. Do you think nobody knows this?
From these sources religions draw on proof txts for thie claims.
We can stop here. all you are going to give us is a litany of
deep igorance and total stupidy, it is as high as you an aim for.
Dizzy, brainless irrelevant.
>> This logically creates omnigenesis and that creates
>> metaphysical nihilism.
>
> How does revelation imply creation?
you ignorant toad, it does not at all. Did I say it did?
No, its a patented deeply stupid Gandy strawman! Bible, vedas, quran et all
explicitly say god created all, Genesis 1 - 3 for example.
Deep and total ignorance unmatched except by hamsters.
>
> 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.
this is not about tiny modern "religions"
it is about OEC god classes and related religuions, religions of 4.3 billion
people.
Moder religions like utterly failed process goober crap is irrelvant.
debunkable on other grounds.
Why would you ignore the essays specific
point this applies to OEC class gods?
Because you are deeply stupid and senile.
Enough, you aren't going to convince people I am wrong with this litany of
stupidities.
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,
wcb
>
>> Sorry, you are not Greek expert nor Latin expert.
>> you are a net kook.
>
> You are an idiot.
>
What does omniverous mean?
All devouring.
What does omnigenesis mean?
All creating. (Genesis - to give birth to, to create, to make)
Your deep ignorance is obvious to all.
You need to see your doctor. You are going senile.
6. SOULS
(End)
--
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> Obviously to all, it had so many flaws it failed.
>>
>
> You speak only for
the many intelligent atheists, theists and agnostics who have killfiled you.
>>> 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
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>> news:12h0js0...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, since your original argument was fundamentally flawed and NOT
>>>> true, you're probably still in the intellectual bog you began in.
>>>>
>>> My argument has no flaws at all,
>>
>> Obviously to all, it had so many flaws it failed.
>
>
> The only failure is you.
Ad hom noted.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
>
> Revelation, dumbass, bible, quran, vedas, all claimed to be
> revelations from god. Do you think nobody knows this?
I think everyone knows that it has nothing to do with a logical proof.
> We can stop here.
Since you've got nothing else but ad hominem slurs and assertions, that's
probably a good idea.
>
>>> This logically creates omnigenesis and that creates
>>> metaphysical nihilism.
>>
>> How does revelation imply creation?
>
> you ignorant toad, it does not at all. Did I say it did?
Yeah.
>>> This logically creates omnigenesis and that creates
>>> metaphysical nihilism.
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> this is not about tiny modern "religions"
Then it's not about disproving the existence of god.
>
> Enough, you aren't going to convince people I am wrong
You do a good job of that yourself.
>>> 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
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>>> Sorry, you are not Greek expert nor Latin expert.
>>> you are a net kook.
>>
>> You are an idiot.
>>
>
> What does omniverous mean?
>
> All devouring.
>
> What does omnigenesis mean?
The origin of all.
>
> All creating. (Genesis - to give birth to, to create, to make)
Wrong, moronboy. Genesis means "origin" it does not mean "to make."
Don't you get tired of being an idiot?
Yadda, yadda.
>
> -----
> 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
wcb
>
> Genesis-----
> Latin, from Greek, from gignesthai to be born-
> : the origin or coming into being of something
>
> It has nothing to do with "to make"
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=g&p=3
genesis
O.E., from L. genesis, adopted as title of first book of Old Testament in
Vulgate, from Gk. genesis "origin, creation, generation," from gignesthai
"to be born," related to genos "race, birth, descent" (see genus). As such,
it translated Heb. bereshith, lit. "in the beginning," which was the first
word of the text, taken in error as its title. Extended sense of "origin,
creation" first recorded in Eng. 1604.
"Origin, creation, generation".
Stupid, senile bastard!
dishonest bastard! You cut the real heart of of the etymology to mislead
people!
You are dishonest and a pathological liar!
omnigenesis omni - all , genesis, creation, creation of all.
Not only are you a liar, but you are a clumsy, deeply stupid
liar easily debunked!
Do you think people enjoy being purposefully mislead by a
lying, totally dishonest net flake like you?
Liar Richard Hanson. Net kook liar!
This will all make a nice Richard Hanson FAQ II.
wcb
GOD IS DISPROVEN
(Short version)
CLASSES OF GODS 8-1-06
Preliminary
God as a concept is not really a single concept
To deal with the idea of god it is necessary to
consider god by classes of gods. Broad classes
of god are fairy easy to disprove, and when a
class of gods is disproven all members of that
class with class characteristics are disproven.
This is economical and powerful.
Some gods map onto other classes of gods.
If a class is impossible, a class that maps
onto to that is also impossible. This makes
the concept of classes of gods a very powerful
tool for examining god ideas for viability.
Basically, there are not that many classes of gods,
about 25 or so depending how you count classes of
gods and god like ideas. Some of this is problematic,
is the concept of souls a god class idea or not?
At the bottom of the list of broadest classes of god
ideas, are classes of things hard to decide if they
are truly worth much in this regard.
Some classes of gods, myth cycles of gods can be
mapped to OEC gods or nature gods, or allegorical gods.
One can brek myth cycle gods down to smaller categories,
Celtic, Greek, Roman gods, henotheistic gods, soter gods,
etc, but that adds little to our task at hand and is
really not necessary
OEC or nature god mappings are all that really matter.
Once a class is disproven, all secondary and tertiary
claims and assertions about that class of gods are
disproven. All particular gods of that class and related
doctrines, theologies, and dogmas are eliminated.
THE MAJOR CLASSES OF GODS.
1. The greatest god imaginable
A. Supergods - Ashvara
The greatest god imaginable must be free of all limits
of logic. But then that god, perfect, all good, all
powerful has no limits to eliminating evil. Evil exists,
so this god cannot exist. Its self contradictory
2. Omni-Everything class class gods
Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, creation
of all combine to create multiple overlapping
incompatibilities and contradictions that show
the class of OEC gods cannot exist.
3. Transcendent
4. Immanent
5. Maya
6. Idealism
These classes of gods map onto OEC class gods
and are thus shown to be impossible. An OEC god is
impossible whether its transcendent or immanent.
Each attribute simply adds further problems
to an OEC class god.
7. Deism
A. Maps to OEC
B. Maps to Pantheistism
Deism class gods thus fail.
8. Pantheism
A. Allegorical
B. Metaphysical
Allegorical is useless. There is no mechanism
for the Universe as a whole to be somehow
intelligent, and science can show all that
the Universe does is in fact a matter of physics.
9. Process theology/metaphysics god
This class of gods has failed. Designed as a
metaphysical rather than revealed god, process
theology from the beginning invented its own
physics and hung its god on that. This physics is
wrong and this god does not work with modern physics,
ruling it out as a viable class of gods.
10. Nature gods
A. Nature gods, numina etc
B. Tutelary gods, guardians of
places, sites, people.
Science has removed room for nature gods. Only science can
explain rain, crop fertility and natural phenomenon. The huge
swarms of nature gods of the past, cannot explain anything.
Nature gods are either reflections of real nature, in which
case the lack of real nature such as jet streams, techtonic
plate movements, atoms, chemistry principles, true biology
principles show the ancients were just guessing and not at
the important underlying forces of nature.
And of course the other aspect, revelation is absent here.
No god's came down to man and introduced themselves,
the gods of quarks, the goddess of the strong nuclear force,
or the goddess of gravity.
Obviously, then, nature gods are impossible and useless.
Related are tutelary gods, gods that offer protection to state,
cities, homes, tribes, families, children, women, personal
protection, et al, these are simply nonsense.
They never protected much, life was always cheap, whole states,
towns, cities, peoples were destroyed despite supposed protector
gods in the past. All the gods of Gaul did not protect them from
the Romans, the Roman gods did not protect them from barbarians.
Without modern medicine, vast numbers of people died alone
and in vast epidemics.
Tutelary gods and nature gods did not help even a little bit here.
For the vast numbers of people in the past, this was religion.
Science leaves no room for them.
11. Myth cycle gods.
A. Maps to OEC class
B. Maps to Nature god
C. Maps to allegorical god class
D. Maps to tutelary gods.
12. Allegorical gods, gods and goddesses that are
simple personifications of human nature or nature itself.
Hope, fear, love, and similar. Ate, goddess of violence,
Fama, goddess of rumor, Eris, goddess of discord, etc.
The stuff of poets, not really meant to be taken seriously.
Useless to explain the creation of this world, or anything
about it.
LESSOR THINGS.
Stuff so low down the food chain its not worth discussing,
spirits, fairies and nonsense.
Nothing that can take the place of god.
Thus we can start with the most powerful imaginable classes
of gods and work down to fairies and there simply is no
viable class of gods.
All viable particular gods are thus disproven.
God cannot exist.
(End)
CAN GOD BE DISPROVEN?
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - YES
STRONG ATHEISMS PROGRAM
Key to disproving god is the concept of classes of gods.
Consider the class of omni-everything creator gods, the OEC
class of gods. This class can be abstracted out from the gods
of Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
These religions depend on revelation, bible and quran.
These books explicitly claim god created all, and is omnipotent,
all good and omniscient. But these claims soon contradict each
other. A god that creates all and is omniscient destroys free
will and makes god creator of all moral evil acts, which
contradicts claims of gods love for us, mercy, omnibenevolence
and more. Omnipotence soon creates problems,for example and
omnipotent god must be outside of time and thus there is no past
or future for god. Since he creates all at once, again free will
is impossible and god creates all man's acts to the smallest details,
omnigenesis.
Using a small handfull of claims made for these gods, they
can be debunked. And we know why specifically.
1. God is personal, god has consciousness and will
2. God is intelligent
3. God has free will
4. God created all
5. God is omnipotent
6. God is omniscient
7. God is omnibenevolent
8. God is that which is so great, nothing greater
can be imagined.
These small handful of attributes destroy viablity of
the class of omni-everything creator gods.
We need not consider other possible attributes, and out
of the thousands of claims made for god, if these few assertions
allow us to debunk god, we need not bother with other assertions.
We star out with bible and Quran and note assertions made for
these gods. We note this small handful create impossible contradictions
showing these gods cannot exist.
We note that if we abstract this out to a general class of OEC gods,
no OEC god that has these characteristics is possible.
We thus do not have to worry about other OEC gods, or chasing
them down one by one to be exhaustive in name of being exhaustively
complete. Any god with these OEC characteristics is impossible,
known or unknown.
God of Sikhs, Bahis, and others, are impossible also because they
have these OEC claims explicitly made for their god. Any gods we
do not know about that have these assertions made for that god
is automatically debunked.
This general principle means if we can debunk a broad class of gods,
then we automatically debunk all gods with these characteristics.
This is obviously far more efficient than debunking gods one by one.
The next issue is to sort out possible gods by broad classes
that can be debunked as efficiently as possible using broad
characteristics, small in number. This it turns out
is not particularly hard, only about 25 classes of gods and
god-like ideas are needed.
Further more, these form a sort of natural hierarchy.
At top, supergods, OEC gods and working our way down
to nature gods, animism, and finally down to supernatural
creatures such as fairies and leprechauns.
Once these general concepts are understood, it is then possible
for strong atheism to systematically attempt to debunk all gods,
class by class.
Mapping. Sometimes a class of gods maps to another. OEC gods
are debunked, but there are some secondary claims worth noting
from a class perspective.
A god that is transcendent, that is in a supernatural realm
apart from this physical world is different from
a maya god that dreams this illusionary world of matter
and ourselves. But all claim to have created all,
to be all powerful and all good. Thus all fall to the same
contradictions. A transcendent god that creates all at once,
omnigenesis, destroying free will and creating all moral evils,
is no different from a Maya god that merely dreams the same reality.
Immanent gods hat are the basis and sustaining cause of all
creation likewise are debunked as they claim to be omni-everything,
creator of all an omnigenesis is the same result.
Thus transcendent gods, immanent gods and maya gods map
OEC gods and are impossible.
Supergods. Gods that are explicitly supergods can have certain
assertions made for them. A god that is greater than anything
imaginable would be a god that is not limited by logic. A god
that creates logic. But if a god that is so unlimited is also all
good and hates evil, there is no excuse for existence of evil.
Such a god could easily eliminate all evil, having no logic limits.
But evil exists, such a god cannot exist.
This means a real god must at best be limited by logic.
And that needs to be explained. A god that is limited
cannot be omnipotent.
So OEC gods are destroyed by the concept of supergods.
This is a case of a class of gods the self destructs and
that destruction leaves big problems for lesser classes of gods.
No greater class than supergods can exist.
So we see Supergods, OEC class of gods, transcendent, maya, immanent
classes of gods are impossible.
We need not waste much time considering anything beyond the
small number of claims meant to destroy these classes as viable
classes of gods.
Metaphysical gods of Greeks and philosophers do not work.
Aristotle's prime mover has been debunked by cosmology, the big
bang and turbulence explain the movement of matter in the Universe.
No prime mover needed.
So much for #1 of Aquinas's 5 ways.
No creator of a metaphysical system has outguessed nature yet.
The layest version of metaphysical god classes, process theology
likewise came a cropper. Alfred North Whitehead metaphysically
defined his own physics and guessed wrong. As a result his
designed metaphysical god does not work with modern physics
and is not viable.
Going down the ladder we find Pantheism.
Deism.
Nature-tutelary gods.
Allegorical gods.
Millions of myth cycle gods.
Myth cycle gods map to either OEC gods, or nature gods
or allegorical gods. Thus all are easily debunked.
We start looking at ideas like spiritism/animism.
Souls. Apotheosis of humans to a god like state.
Lares, pentates and ancestor spirits.
And down to animism, every plant, rock, tree has its spirit.
Fairies, pookahs, imps, djinn, and other supernatural beings.
There are only so many broad classes of beings from supergods
to leprechauns.
And we have metaphysical considerations such as monism, dualism,
monism as idealism/maya gods, or as atomism, matter is supreme.
Stoics and others believed in monism, atomism, but matter was of
course kinds such as found in the world, and finer types of matter
that made up souls and gods. Can we eliminate supernaturalism
logically?
We have to account of logic and physics and the regularity of the
natural world and these implications for gods. Logic is particularly
a problem for OEC gods and supergods.
This then is Strong Atheism's program, to systematically as possible
sort gods out into classes that can be disproven with the simplest
and most economical assertions that can be used to describe a class.
By showing gods and related ideas are not viable, strong atheism
puts us on the path to truth and reason.
Strong atheism needs to explore secondary claims. What is logic
and what does that say about possibility of gods? What do we mean
by supernatural?
This is purely destructive, critical. It makes no arguments for
any particular science, or much anything else. It will imply some
metaphysical ideas, naturalism, that logic counts, that occultism,
supernatural religion, mysticism and other failed metaphysical
world views lead only to error.
If god can be disproven, strong atheism debunks tertiary claims,
creationism, laws against homosexuals being given to Moses by god
and more. What is left to replace them is not argued much here, it is
good enough to remove gods from considerations of such things.
Strong atheism then debunks gods to clear the way for correct,
true, naturally thinking.
(End)
THE FOUR GREATEST CLASSES OF GODS
(Short Version)
W.C. Barwell 8-3-06
In thinking about gods, I have been breaking
them down into classes of gods. This has turned
out to be a very fruitful and powerful way of
analyzing and disproving gods. The question arises,
how would we know if we were overlooking a
powerful class of gods?
Because we are considering classes of gods,
we may then arrange them from most powerful
on down by broad classes based on abilities.
There are only so many abilities to consider,
and thus so many classes possible.
The broadest would be:
1. Omni-everything and not bound by logic
2. Omni-everything and bound by logic.
3. Omni-everything, including omnipotence.
4. Not omni-everything, no omnipotence.
5. Gods neither omni-everything, not
omnipotent, creators of all, not omniscient.
There are only so many god classes possible.
The lower classes of gods are truly abysmal
and useless.
NOT BOUND BY LOGIC
Consider the greatest god you can imagine.
This god would be perfectly good, and he would
not be limited in any way by logic.
Such a god would have no trouble eliminating
all evil. Since there are no logical limits to
his doing so, no evil can withstand this
greatest of all imaginable gods.
But evil exists, this class of gods cannot.
Is such a god posited anywhere? Yes, Hinduism.
Ishvara is the perfect god, he has no attributes.
he emanated Brahaman, the omni-everything creator
of the Universe.
Supergod class gods cannot exist as I showed you.
BOUND BY LOGIC
Now we are down to OEC class gods.
They have been shown impossible as a class
and do not exist. This OEC class of gods
is disproven because the attributes of this
class of gods contradicts themselves in
multiple overlapping ways.
Classes 2. and 3. cannot exist, ruled out by
logical contradictions between their claimed
attributes.
WHAT IS LEFT? CLASS 4. & 5.
Process theology gods? Deist gods?
These do not work. Nature gods?
Anything below omni-everything is puny
by comparison and nothing really works
as a class of viable gods.
This then takes out all possible gods as powerful
as OEC or Supergods ala Ishvara.
Magnipotent gods simply are so far below OEC
class gods that they cannot be useful, they
cannot explain anything.
Classification here is by ability.
Take out gods with ability and you are
left with nonsense.
Logic free, logic bound, omnipotent, non-omnipotent.
Where can a hidden god hide that can do
anything?
We now drop to nature gods - tutelary gods.
These don't work.
Anything below this maps on to OEC god, Nature gods
et al, failed concepts.
Below that, it gets more grim, animism,
and similar nonsense. Before you know it we
are at fairies and goblins.
Again, it is about abilities and powers of
broad classes of gods.
OEC class of gods, bound by logic.
OEC class of gods, omnipotent.
Less than OEC class gods, not omnipotent.
Things you can no longer call god classes
they are so low of the divine power ability chart.
With these 4 ability categories, there is no
place to hide an overlooked class of gods
because the list of abilities here is exhaustive.
So we can be sure that we have really dealt with
possible gods and have overlooked nothing.
Thinking about gods as classes allows us to
be totally through, the logical search space
is limited and can be exhaustively examined.
(End)
wcb
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:36:55 -0500, wcb did the cha-cha, and screamed:
>> The God of Odd Statements wrote:
>>
>>> OK, OK, if one gets to define what "deity" means, "proving" the
>>> existence of deity becomes thimple, like proving that elves are real
>>> because one defines one's self as an elf. When you can set your own
>>> goalposts, scoring a goal is rather easy. Note that I'm still in pain,
>>> however. Also note, I hail Eris.
>>
>> Its easy when your opponents make the definitionms. Take bible, Quran et
>> al and extract the proof texts. Here are major claims of religions,
>> christianity, islam et al.
>>
>> 1. God is personal, god has conciousness and will 2. God is intelligent
>> 3. God has free will
>> 4. God created all
>> 5. God is omnipotent
>> 6. God is omniscient
>> 7. God is omnibenevolent
>> 8. God is that which is so great, nothing greater
>>can be imagined.
>>
>> Now, if these claims create impossible contradictions or problems, you
>> can thus debunk them. Why make strawmen when old claims agreed to by all
>> major religions makes debunking easy as pie?
>
> You and I may agree on the point that such a deity as detailed above is
> self-contradictory (though still not necessarily "impossible" -- but not
> something requiring worship -- I'm with Heinlein on that one);
> however, that does not equate to an all-around debunking of the very
> concept of "deity" on all levels, nor have you yet managed to accomplish
> that debunking. Saying that less-than-omnipotent deities are
> "unimportant" is hardly useful or logical, nor does it in any way,
> shape, or form "debunk" them.
DID YOU ACTUALLY READ THIS!?
It tells you up front that this is to debunk only a certain class of gods,
the OEC gods.
And it tells you that the other classes of gods are debunkable in other
ways.
Really, before tossing of specious nonsense, read these things carefuly.
Why is it _nobody_ on the net will actually read something with are before
spouting of irrelevant nonsense already answered in the posted writing!?
"Hello, I am a net kook! I will now critique your post. I haven't actually
read it but........"
I have here debunked the OEC gods of major religions, the religions of 4.3
billion people.
minor gods are ..... minor.
How many voodooists are there, how many african animists, shaman, and
so on?
Yes, these things are debunkable too.
But today, we are doing the gods of 4.3 billion people including
pests like islam and christianity.
wcb
>
> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> news:12h1js6...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Gandalf
*************************************************
GANDY's LOGIC DYSLEXIA
*************************************************
WBARWELL:
Something cannot come from nothing.
Therefore something must have always existed
far back into infinity. There was never a
time when nothing did not exist.
Parmenides nailed this one.
Something always existed.
GANDY
Another unsupported assertion
WBARWELL
Really, you are NOT going to actually think, are
you?
Something always existed, as Parmenides pointed
out, there must have been.
Why? Well if you cannot figure it out, your
ability to reason is impaired.
I can't help you here.
GANDY
Prove it, Poser.
------------------
Something cannot come from nothing.
Nothing has no potential to create something.
Thus logically, we may deduce that there must have
always been something.
This logical deduction of Parmenides's was understood by Plato,
Aristotle, Anaxagoras, Zeno and Empedocles and many others.
It lead the atomists to claim the Universe has always existed.
Which also fits well with Hesiod's Theogony whih has the world
and god's emanated from a prexisting cosmic chaos.
It is a simple deduction from the realization nothing can never
have potential to create something.
Here we see Gandy cannot handle simple logical deduction from a
simple premise to a simple conclusion.
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> Cite where an appeal to logic is a fallacy in a logical argument.
>>
>> Do it right here, right now---------->
Now he lies it was not his inability to do simple
logic, but something else, whatever it was, which is not clear.
A liar and a incapable 'thinker'.
A deserate, lying net kook.
A LYING NET KOOKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!
wcb
*************************************************
GANDY's LOGIC DYSLEXIA
*************************************************
WBARWELL:
Something cannot come from nothing.
Therefore something must have always existed
far back into infinity. There was never a
time when nothing did not exist.
Parmenides nailed this one.
Something always existed.
GANDY
Another unsupported assertion
WBARWELL
Really, you are NOT going to actually think, are
you?
Something always existed, as Parmenides pointed
out, there must have been.
Why? Well if you cannot figure it out, your
ability to reason is impaired.
I can't help you here.
GANDY
Prove it, Poser.
------------------
Something cannot come from nothing.
Nothing has no potential to create something.
Thus logically, we may deduce that there must have
always been something.
This logical deduction of Parmenides's was understood by Plato,
Aristotle, Anaxagoras, Zeno and Empedocles and many others.
It lead the atomists to claim the Universe has always existed.
Which also fits well with Hesiod's Theogony whih has the world
and god's emanated from a prexisting cosmic chaos.
It is a simple deduction from the realization nothing can never
have potential to create something.
Here we see Gandy cannot handle simple logical deduction from a
simple premise to a simple conclusion.
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> Cite where an appeal to logic is a fallacy in a logical argument.
>>
>> Do it right here, right now---------->
Now he lies it was not his inability to do simple
logic, but something else, whatever it was, which is not clear.
A liar and a incapable 'thinker'.
A deserate, lying net kook.
wcb
*************************************************
GANDY's LOGIC DYSLEXIA
*************************************************
WBARWELL:
Something cannot come from nothing.
Therefore something must have always existed
far back into infinity. There was never a
time when nothing did not exist.
Parmenides nailed this one.
Something always existed.
GANDY
Another unsupported assertion
WBARWELL
Really, you are NOT going to actually think, are
you?
Something always existed, as Parmenides pointed
out, there must have been.
Why? Well if you cannot figure it out, your
ability to reason is impaired.
I can't help you here.
GANDY
Prove it, Poser.
------------------
Something cannot come from nothing.
Nothing has no potential to create something.
Thus logically, we may deduce that there must have
always been something.
This logical deduction of Parmenides's was understood by Plato,
Aristotle, Anaxagoras, Zeno and Empedocles and many others.
It lead the atomists to claim the Universe has always existed.
Which also fits well with Hesiod's Theogony whih has the world
and god's emanated from a prexisting cosmic chaos.
It is a simple deduction from the realization nothing can never
have potential to create something.
Here we see Gandy cannot handle simple logical deduction from a
simple premise to a simple conclusion.
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> Cite where an appeal to logic is a fallacy in a logical argument.
>>
>> Do it right here, right now---------->
Now he lies it was not his inability to do simple
logic, but something else, whatever it was, which is not clear.
A liar and a incapable 'thinker'.
A deserate, lying net kook.
--
wcb
Gandy spams lies, I am right behind him to set the records straight.
Stop spamming lies ands I don't have to clean up behind you.
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,