Re: Classes of gods - Part 1 - Anybody care?
Gandalf Grey
"wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12com8j...@corp.supernews.com...
> Anybody care?
> Is thinking about this all just a waste of time?
> Anybody here give a shit at all?
Poor Mr. Barwell.
People would probably "give a shit" if you started offering something more
than a shopping list of unsupported assertions disguised as an argument.
"wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12civni...@corp.supernews.com...
> Gandy nonsense ignored, real comments read
> with attention.
>
> CLASSES OF GODS - Part 1
> An outline.
> (To be greatly expanded later)
>
> I have written of the concepts of classes of gods.
And you've failed in ways I'll describe in detail below.
>
> If one can prove a given class of gods cannot exist,
> one can eliminate all gods of that sort even if you
> don't even know about a given god in particular.
> Which is why this is a good idea.
Since nearly all of Mr. Barwell's criteria for including a god in his
neologistic 'class of omni-everything gods' pretains only to traditional
Christian orthodoxy, and since nearly the only people who hold to the finer
points of traditional christian orthodoxy are theologians, the usefulness of
the system begins to disappear. The OEC class of gods, ends up being one
god and that one god has already been debunked by older better arguments.
Most people have a view of god that they state as conforming to some
church's dogma, but most people are not that clear on what the dogma is.
Furthermore, there are very few modern theologians who hold with orthodox
dogma.
>
> The class of omni-everything, creator gods is
> not a good idea.
Not by any argument you've demonstrated. Although I'll agree that it was a
bad idea for you to try to defeat the existence of any possible god based on
a 'class' argument.
>
> There are some who have complained that I have
> claimed I can disprove all gods, and twas not so,
Well, so far, you haven't disproved any gods.
> but they misread my initial essays, disproving
> OECs gods was not meant to disprove all.
> I did say I could as a Strong Atheist make
> strong case all gods can be disproven.
>
> By which I mean, all god classes can be disproven,
Again, you've failed to show this.
Where is the argument that demonstrates this?
> and that takes care of all particular possible
> gods of these classes.
>
> The idea is to keep all classes of gods as
> general as possible to catch as many in
> the net as possible with as least effort
> as possible. Efficiency ensures completeness.
>
> And to generally, start at the top and work my
> way down to leperchauns and fairies until we are
> dealing with ridiculous concepts that nobody can
> believe them or take the seriously.
How about the simple assertion that it is possible for a god to exist?
You seem to have failed rather spectacularly to deal with just that simple
assertion, which I would think would be the order of the day for your
particular brand of anti-theism.
> *********************************************
>
> 1. OEC gods
>
> Related classes of gods
>
> 2. Transcendent gods.
> God that are outside this physical universe,
> the general Christian, Islamic god.
> Transcendence is not a necessary property
> of OEC gods. It can cause further problems
> making an OEC god easier to debunk, but is
> not a key property of OEC gods.
When exactly are you going to debunk "OEC" gods?
> 3. Maya gods.
> There is no universe, all is maya illusion.
> All exists only in the mind of god, we are thoughts
> of god, nothing more.
Sorry, but that leaves out the Buddhists who believe utterly in maya but do
not [in philosophical Buddhism] believe in a god.
Maya presents problems with or without god.
> 4. Immanent gods.
> A god that permeates the Universe and is the ground of
> existence of all, god thus is sustaining actual cause
> of the Universe. The universe thus is directly dependent
> on god, the Universe is not a self contained transcendent
> Universe. But this god is STOL a member of the OEC class
> of gods and is still debunked.
How? Since you haven't debunked this supposed class, how can you say you've
debunked any member of the class, by your own definition?
> C. These ideas cure no problems of the OEC class of gods
> and create more problems than they solve. Berkeley, Descartes,
> Liebnez, Malabranche and others explored these bizarre
> self-defeating theologies. This further dooms maya gods or
> Idealistic gods, which overlap with OEC gods and are have
> fallen with that class of gods anyway. Maya gods have
> many of these same problems.
So far, you seem to be indulging in an argument by assertion.
You assert that you've debunked this self-created, so-called class of gods,
and now you've attempted to foist other faiths upon that assertion due to
certain commonalities.
There are two problems with this.
1. You haven't actually disproved this supposed class of gods.
a.) There are certain arguments that effectively disprove the existence of a
god with certain abilities or properties, such as omnipotence and
omnibenevolence [e.g., the Argument from Evil]. You've muddied those
arguments, and you've failed to show that most human beings actually believe
in such a god.
b.) The so-called class of gods that you say represents the major religions
in fact does nothing of the kind. There are vast differences between
Jewish, Christian and Islamic belief concerning the particulars of their
theology, even more difference between believers in these religions.
Christianity itself represents many divergent beliefs concerning God.
c.) This turns your larger argument into The Argument by Assertion. In this
article alone, you state many times that the so-called OEC class of gods has
been debunked and therefore, other related classes must fall. But you're
assuming what was to be proved. An assertion alone does not make an
argument.
2. Your entire argument is also prey to the Fallacy of Divison. This is the
fallacy of assuming that what might be true of the whole is equally true of
the parts. If we were to grant that your original argument might be true of
some god that possessed some combination of your original 8 points, it would
NOT follow that any being that possessed any one or two of those points that
was not the exact same combination could not exist.
For example, it is true that a god possessing Hellenistic omnipotence and
omnibenevolence cannot logically exist. But that does not logically imply
that a god that possesses more power than any other being does not exist.
The logical argument that precludes the simultaneous possession of ALL power
and ALL goodness does not preclude the existence of a 'most powerful being.'
Most of what you say falls prey to these two main problems.
> D. Many of these ideas were presaged by Pre-Socratic things,
> the Universe was created from Logos - logic, Nous - mind stuff,
> disembodied intelligence of some sort, of pantheistic orientation
> or later with Xenophanes, god.
> E. God as a spirit also has the same built in problems.
What built in problems? Are you saying that because you don't understand
how spirit and material could interact, that there is no way they could
interact? Isn't that just the argument from ignorance?
> Spirit in what sense, transcendent, immanent, idealist?
> F. The bible sometimes mixes concepts, sometimes overtly
> transcendent, sometimes immanent. Most christians never notice,
> and sometimes theologians have struggled with melding the two
> contradictory claims. But he bible god is still only a failed
> OEC class god, this simply gives further ammunition for
> debunking the Christian flavors of OEC class gods.
> G. Islam also has contradictory aspects of immanent and
> transcendent gods built into it.
Since you have admitted that the bible is contradictory, the bible cannot be
used as proof of any logical argument on the existence of god. Since most
logical arguments concerning the existence of god are NOT based on
scripture, it seems particularly unfair to try to use the bible to defend
either side of the argument.
> H. Those Hindu schools of theology that teach a maya view of
> the world, as illusionary also have the same problems and
> are also uniformly OEC gods anyway.
The Hindu gods have NOTHING in common with the Hebrew or the Christian
concept of God.
>
> 7. PANTHEISM
> A. Pantheism has to types of Pantheism
Actually, no. You're mistakenly attempting to conflate pantheism with
panentheism.
, basically.
> B. Pantheism as allegory, nature is 'god'.
> This is a mere word game at best.
Certainly it is not a 'word game' to pantheists. The worship of nature as
god is probably the oldest of all religions. Neither you nor I may believe
in it, but you don't seem to be making a logical argument against it.
> The Universe is the Universe, calling
> it the Universe, or nature, or physics
> is being realistic. calling it god is not,
> its an emotionally loaded word.
To you perhaps. To others, it's the most natural thing in the world.
> C. Pantheism as a sort of intelligence above
> and beyond the sum of the Universe's parts.
> Which might be called god.
Here your mixing pantheism with Pan-entheism. You should really try to
understand these terms before you hold forth on them.
> There is no sign of any such thing.
And there is no sign that there isn't any such thing.
Again, you seem to be either attempting the argument from assertion or a
variation on the Argument from Ignorance.
> But we also have
> lots of good scientific knowledge of self organizing
> physical systems, and emergent qualities. They are not
> by any stretch of the imagination intelligence as per
> se, meaningful will, conciousness. Its blind physics
> which is well understood and does impressive things,
> including creating entire galaxies from simple forces.
> calling all of this "intelligence", and thus god is again,
> using loaded language.
Hardly an explanation for the strong anthropic principle and the fact that
physics is actually not so well understood that we can explain the universe.
>
> 8. PROCESS METAPHYSICS - PROCESS THEOLOGY
> A. Initially invented by philosopher Alfred North Whitehead,
Well, I'm grateful that you realized your error and are not continuing to
attribute the creation of Process Philosophy to Charles Hartshorne any
longer. That at least is a mercy.
> his process metaphysics soon became a full blown theology.
It never "became a full blown theology." It is still what it always was, a
process philosophy, based on the thought of Heraclitus, Pierce, James,
Bergsen and Whitehead. It continues to be the operating philosophy behind
quantum physics and theoretical astrophysics.
> Process and Reality (1929) soon gave us process theology,
> mainly to to Charles Hartschorn and a few others.
Quite a few others.
> B. Whitehead started with the thoughts of Heraclitus "All
> is change" and started there.
Actually, Whitehead did not start with Heraclitus at all. The 'line of
thought' can be traced back to Heraclitus. Whitehead's "Philosophy of
Evolution" developed through his books, "Adventures in Ideas," "Science and
Society" and "Process and Reality."
> C. Process theology takes that as its starting point,
> process = change." God is part of the universe, he is
> himself thus is changed by real changes in the Universe.
> D. Panentheism. Panentheism states that the universe
> is part of god, As Hartschorn states, one can think
> of the Universe a "God's body". Thus god is not totally
> a spirit but part spirit, part all matter of the Universe.
> E. God does not unilaterally act on the matter of the Universe,
> and is himself acted on.
> F. God is expressedly then, not omnipotent, nor does the
> process god know the future. This to specifically avoid
> the problems of omni-everything gods and free will
> problems.
Quite wrong. None of process theology was developed to 'avoid' some
particular problem. It developed with the process thought of people like
Charles Pierce, William James, Henri Bergsen and Alfred North Whitehead.
With evolution as a starting point in the modern era, PT, like most
philosophies and metaphysical systems was an attempt to describe the world
as we understand it.
> G. This process theology god is personal, and has
> will and intelligence, and is all good.
There's nothing "personal" about the 'god' of process theology.
> H. The problem with this god is that as its proponents
> admit it does not work with physics.
One critical article does not create a problem, Mr. Barwell. I know that
you would love to leap on that as the death blow, but it just won't work.
Proponents of modern process theology and modern process philosophy such as
Margaret Suchoki, James Cobb and David Ray Griffin have NO problem with
physics.
> Transcendent gods
> don't have that problem but a god that is expressedly
> part and parcel of the physical world does have to.
Prove it.
> This god concept has run into problems with time for
> example, which in modern physics is local, there is no
> Universe wide clock, and information from one part
> of the universe can only propagate at best at speed
> of light.
Actually, we no longer know that to be the case.
> These problems cause all sorts of peculiar
> problems and contradictions and paradoxes making this
> concept of god non-working.
Hardly.
> This has been a problem for some
> 50 years and process theology's creators know of this
> and have openly admitted it.
Name more than one person who has 'admitted it' and supply a citation for
their work.
> Hopes that these problems
> were solvable have turned out to be illusionary.
> G. The process theology god is explicitly said to
> be good. Yet is also said to be affected by the universe's
> physical happenings. If so, then since man does many
> evil things, this evil must effect god. This creates all
> sorts of peculiar problems with a process god and theodicy.
How so? Aren't we all 'effected' by evil. How does this cause a problem
for god? How is a god who is supposedly saddened by evil made logically
impossible?
> An overtly good god that makes no attempts to change
> things here despite the fact evil we do impinges on
> god makes no sense.
Makes no sense in what way? If a very powerful being existed that, for all
its power, could not cause evil not to happen, how would that inability make
that being impossible?
Here again, you're attempting to take qualities from your original concept
and use them to disprove other possible beings. Since the process god is
NOT omnipotent in the Hellenistic use of that term, the process god cannot
stop evil from occurring.
> H. Attempts to use the free will defense here fail for
> the same reason free will defenses of problems of evil fail
> for OEC classes of gods.
You have failed repeatedly to make that case in your original handful of
arguments.
Your argument that any god could make man with BOTH free will AND an
inability to do evil is logically contradictory on its face.
> The process theology God could
> make man with a god like good nature and a god like free
> will.
Here is where you prove that you do not understand process philosophy or
process theology. Nowhere in process theology does it state that god could
have made man with either a god like good nature or a god like free will.
1. Your initial assertion is nonsensical. If god [of any variety] could
make man with "god-like" free will and good nature, man would BE god.
2. In process theology, process is pre-eminent over any force or material.
Process has free will built into it, hence the ability to vary in action is
there from the start.
3. God does not "make" man do anything in process theology. In process
theology, God is defined as the persuasive force that moves material and
processes toward more complex states. PT sees "god" as something like 'the
Tao' or the 'dharma' of the Buddhists. God is not a 'HE' or a 'SHE' who
deliberately creates man in some particular fashion with certain particular
characteristics.
> Since man's evil acts change the physical Universe
> that impinges on god, this god has strong reason to eliminate
> or ameliorate evil if only out of self preservation, or at
> least, pride.
Anthropomorphism at its worst. The presumption that any god 'needs' to act
in order to do something is to assume what you need to prove. Your use of
the word 'pride' is particularly telling since it assumes that the process
god is some 'powerful old man or woman' with human senses, demonstrating
that your ability to theorize about theology hasn't gotten past the daily
vacation bible school level. Process theology makes no such claim and has
never made such a claim. God is as different from human as it's possible to
get. There's none of this 'in his image' stuff for PT or, for most other
theologies that lay claim the to the title of modern theology. Your use of
such terms really weakens your arguments.
> I. Thus theodicy and physics dooms the process theology
> effort and process theology god. There is no sign that
> any of these problems will be solved any time soon.
Since they aren't problems for process theology, I'd have to say that
there's no need for them to be solved anytime soon.
> J. Process theology type gods as a class have thus
> proven to be a failure as a class.
Again, you employ the fallacy of division. What is true of a whole is not
necessarily true of every member of the whole.
>
> 9. NATURE GODS.
> A. Gods supposedly particularly involved with some aspect
> of the natural world, sun gods, rain gods, god's that
> have to do with various aspects of agriculture, or herds
> et al.
> B. These gods are pre-scientific and have been banished
> by a true understanding of science.
[snip to]
> 11. MAGNIPOTENT GODS.
> Gods that are explicitly not omnipotent or all powerful,
> but may have great powers.
> A. Process theology was an attempt to limit god's
> alledged powers to avoid the paradoxes of OEC class gods.
> The process theology class of gods failure means that here,
> the magnipotent class of gods fails as regards attempts
> to redesign god to avoid OEC class god problems.
1. Since you've failed to prove that the process theology god cannot exist,
it cannot be said to be a failure.
2. Again, we run into your curious inability to get along without the
fallacy of division.
Let's assume that there really is a class of gods that we will call
"Magnipotent Gods" and define that as not "all-powerful" but sufficiently
powerful that they are, say "more powerful than anything else in the
universe."
Now you say that Process Theology was an attempt to "avoid the paradoxes of
OEC class gods."
For the moment we'll ignore the fact that this is simply not true and take
it as a given.
Because here is where it gets interesting:
You state, in summation, that
> The process theology class of gods failure means that here,
> the magnipotent class of gods fails as regards attempts
> to redesign god to avoid OEC class god problems.
And that's where you commit the best example of the fallacy of division.
1. Even if it were true that the process theology god COULD NOT LOGICALLY
EXIST.
2. It would only be true because the specific principles upon which a belief
in such a specific god rested were logically contradictory or the properties
of such a god were logically contradictory.
3. Therefore it would NOT follow that NO god belonging to such a
"Magnipotent" class of gods could exist because YOU HAVE GIVEN NO REASON WHY
ANOTHER GOD BELONGING TO THE SAME CLASS AS THE ONE GOD YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT
CANNOT BE LOGICALLY CONSISTENT.
Unless you can show that NO god that is less than omnipotent yet still more
powerful than anything else can logically exist, you cannot show that there
can be no possible member of such a class that can logically exist.
Until you've done that, Mr. Barwell, ALL your arguments are for nothing.
You keep talking about classes, but the only windmills you're tilting at are
specifics that do not eliminate the classes themselves.
dh
The whole idea is useless. The "best" he could do even if he
were successful would be to "prove" that some of the concepts
people have about God are incorrect. If God does exist, this "proof"
could not somehow cause him to become non-existent. Also if God
does exist, this "proof" is proof that Mr. Barwell isn't capable of even
considering the possibility in a realistic way....in fact even if God does
NOT exist Mr. Barwell isn't capable of considering the possibility of his
existence in a realistic way. But neither is anyone else I've seen posting
other than myself. If you can provide some example(s) of someone else
trying to, I'd sure like to see it/them.
Gandalf Grey
<dh@.> wrote in message news:gef1d2p01dk0g3pul...@4ax.com...
I think that most arguments that you see surrounding this issue only
convince people who already believe their conclusions, and that includes
both sides of the argument.
Nevertheless, there are people out there who ask intelligent questions and
the "arguments" they have are truly philosophical in the sense that they're
attempts at constructing viable statements and not the blatant propaganda
that you see coming from Mr. Barwell on the one hand and some of the
creationists/Intelligent design rhetoriticians on the other.
What I've found particularly ironic is that Mr. Barwell chooses to attack in
his latest screeds, one of those philosophies that has really attempted to
remain open-minded on the issue. By going after process theology [which is
largely the preserve of academic philosophers, theoretical astrophysicists
and evolutionists], Barwell has demonstrated to my satisfaction that he
intends to attack even people who dare to ask questions about whether or not
reality might include something called god and what kind of characteristics
that god would have to possess in order to conform with scientific law, and
lump them in with the orthodox Roman Catholic-style Christians [which is
quite literally the only religion he's come up with an argument against].
Barwell's religious bigotry thinly disguised as his 'classes' argument makes
Barwell no better than a medieval witch hunter, the kind that roamed the
country searching for innocent people who 'had the marks of the devil' so he
could summarily pronounce them guilty and execute them. People like Barwell
are an insult to atheism. He's not an atheist at all, merely an anti-theist
zealot with a bad case of malignant narcississm.
wcb
>
> Poor Mr. Barwell.
>
> People would probably "give a shit" if you started offering something more
> than a shopping list of unsupported assertions disguised as an argument.
>
People here have far more important things like their
petty flame wars. This has been taken to different
forums where people have a lot more interest than
merely flaming Chung or Fred or so on. Or listing
latest preacher pedophila busts, or similar material.
You clowns, Fool, You, Sniper et al haven't the
brains to deal with it.
Other people do see what its about, and I will
soon be phasing out of here. Where you logic free
morons can suck your thumbs.
You're a moron. What can I say?
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> Poor Mr. Barwell.
>>
>> People would probably "give a shit" if you started offering something
>> more
>> than a shopping list of unsupported assertions disguised as an argument.
>>
>
> People here have far more important things like their
> petty flame wars.
As unimportant as those may be they're a hell of a lot more interesting than
your lies and pretend arguments, Barwell.
> This has been taken to different
> forums where people have a lot more interest than
> merely flaming Chung or Fred or so on.
Yes, I've noticed you peddling your crap to such august groups as alt.slack
and alt.pro-wrestling. Very impressive.
>
> You clowns, Fool, You, Sniper et al haven't the
> brains to deal with it.
Translation: We don't swallow the Kool Aid.
>
> Other people do see what its about
For the sake of your fragile ego, I hope not. Intelligent people 'see' you
have a nasty case of malignant narcississm.
>, and I will
> soon be phasing out of here.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Barwell.
Lucifer
> were successful would be to "prove" that some of the concepts
> people have about God are incorrect. If God does exist, this "proof"
> could not somehow cause him to become non-existent. Also if God
> does exist, this "proof" is proof that Mr. Barwell isn't capable of even
> considering the possibility in a realistic way....in fact even if God does
> NOT exist Mr. Barwell isn't capable of considering the possibility of his
> existence in a realistic way. But neither is anyone else I've seen posting
> other than myself. If you can provide some example(s) of someone else
> trying to, I'd sure like to see it/them.
That would be because there is no realistic way for a god to exist, we
can see into the atom down to the quark level and beyond.
Put simply. Where is God?
What is the mechanism for the assertions of the theists
And while I am aware that Barwell is using the logic disproofs, the
scientific ones work just as well.
And as for the logic - the disproofs above are enough to destroy the
idea of the christian god in the mind of a logical person.
A start, certainly.
Sniper
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>Poor Mr. Barwell.
>>
>>People would probably "give a shit" if you started offering something more
>>than a shopping list of unsupported assertions disguised as an argument.
>
> People here have far more important things like their
> petty flame wars. This has been taken to different
> forums where people have a lot more interest than
> merely flaming Chung or Fred or so on. Or listing
> latest preacher pedophila busts, or similar material.
>
> You clowns, Fool, You, Sniper et al haven't the
> brains to deal with it.
Geez, you're one fucking imbecile, aren't you? At least
you do have the longevity factor going for you. You are
also the master of making most people look good just by
flaming them. Michael Jackson should _pay_ you to flame
him. All his public relations problems would be solved.
Most of the posters who disagree with you, you ignorant
little turd, are atheists. The fact is, most atheists I
know don't go around insisting that there is proof that
it's impossible for any god to exist. The simple reason
being that it's impossible to classify all the possible
gods that can be imagined. Better to simply ask theists
for proof that what they assert must be true, was true.
The fact that you've been bitching for months now, that
folks in alt.atheism are too stupid to see your alleged
brilliance, is an indication of just how misguided your
pontifications have been. You claim you're at this book
thing to convince theists their arguments are futile as
no god can possibly exist, yet most fellow atheists are
reluctant to latch on to an argument you claim logical.
Most poeple would have gotten the hint by now. Instead,
you keep banging away, re-posting the same tired drivel
dressed up as scientific and philosophic "proof", while
the majority of atheists here are mainly disinterested.
That would give a sane person reason to pause. Not you!
[snip]
> You're a moron. What can I say?
That you were looking in the mirror when you said this?
Gandalf Grey
"Sniper" <sni...@gotcha.com> wrote in message
news:boadnYw3A9wHqEzZ...@adelphia.com...
It's called malignant narcissism.
Kurt Nicklas
Pot->Kettle->Very Black, Rickie
Gandalf Grey
> chibiabos wrote:
>
>> In article <12com8j...@corp.supernews.com>, wcb
>> <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Anybody care?
>>> Is thinking about this all just a waste of time?
>>> Anybody here give a shit at all?
>>
>> Hendrix, Eric Clapton and Jimmy Page, or Jessica Alba and Aria
>> Giovanni.
>>
>> But, more to the point and with all respect, you're preaching to the
>> choir.
>
> I ain't preaching, I am looking for feedback,
> commentary, ideas, et al.
No you're not. The only thing you've come up with in response to any
'feedback' that wasn't a taped recording of your own view is ad hominems and
obscenities.
> Basically, it looks like AA is not a
> place for ideas anymore.
And anytime anyone questions you, you insult the group and by implication
the majority of the groups posters. I've been impressed by the generally
high level of intelligence in AA. You on the other hand seem only able to
recognize intelligence as defined as 'willingness to swallow anything coming
out of W. Barwell.'
> Sad!
Tell me.
>
>
>> You might be better served to put this on
>> a website somewhere
>> and link to it in your sig. People would have
>> the option of going there
>> or not depending on their level of interest
>> or curiosity. You could
>> also use some of your structural arguments
>> extemporaneously in replies
>> to actual posts instead posting entire
>> dry and _lengthy_ academic
>> outlines every time some bozo asserts
>> the existence of god. Truly, it
>> gets old.
>
>
> When some bozo comes into AA and says
> "You Atheists can't prove god does exists"
> I do that for him, not those who should
> know what is coming.
In truth, so far, you've done nothing but paste ancient arguments and tack
ad hoc assertions onto them while calling the whole spew a 'new argument.'
>
> You don't HAVE to read what you should
> by now know what is coming.
> I am not going to sit down and write from
> scratch something for this weeks "prove god
> does not exist!" bozo. He asks, he gets.
> He flees,
Hate to tell you this, Barwell, but I don't see anyone 'fleeing' from you.
>
> The fact none ever manage to show where
> that carefully composed attack is wrong,
1. Your attacks are obviously not 'carefully composed.' You've had to
modify your assertions based on my criticisms a number of times. Witness
the fact that you hadn't even heard of process theology, open theism,
feminist theology, new thought theology before I noted that your argument
didn't account for anything but orthodox christianity.
2. I've repeatedly shown how your arguments are fallacious, and the only
thing you've done with that 'feedback' is post ad hominem attacks,
obscenities, and [for about a week] ANSCII graffiti.
> It means I have not left an obvious flaw
> every nitwit using that attack on Atheists
> will pick up, I have nothing to patch or fix.
More narcissistic raving. You're arguments are sloppy and stuffed with
numerous logical flaws that have been repeatedly pointed out to you by
several posters.
>
> It took me two years to get to the point I
> can do this
Well, you can start anytime.
> Yes, it is in a sense boring.
> But it is also a step towards final
> arguments that cannot be destroyed
> simply or easily.
You're a long way from that point, Barwell.
> I have been taking this stuff to other forums,
Yes. I'm sure that alt.pro-wrestling and alt.slack are just the place for
your sort of brilliance.
> where maybe people will care about ideas.
> I won't try discuissing ideas much in AA.
Of course not. There are people in AA who won't swallow the Kool Aid.
dh
That's true of most things I've found. People decide what they want to
believe, and then stick with things that reinforce what they've chosen to
believe. Anything that conflicts with what they've chosen to believe
causes the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, and is therefore usually
rejected in any way they can do it...even if that includes accepting or
inventing unlikely or absurd ideas as long as they back up what the person
wants to continue believing. If it were not for cognitive dissonance, people
would be completely different. Would that be better, or worse?
>Nevertheless, there are people out there who ask intelligent questions and
>the "arguments" they have are truly philosophical in the sense that they're
>attempts at constructing viable statements and not the blatant propaganda
>that you see coming from Mr. Barwell on the one hand and some of the
>creationists/Intelligent design rhetoriticians on the other.
>
>What I've found particularly ironic is that Mr. Barwell chooses to attack in
>his latest screeds, one of those philosophies that has really attempted to
>remain open-minded on the issue. By going after process theology [which is
>largely the preserve of academic philosophers, theoretical astrophysicists
>and evolutionists], Barwell has demonstrated to my satisfaction that he
>intends to attack even people who dare to ask questions about whether or not
>reality might include something called god and what kind of characteristics
>that god would have to possess in order to conform with scientific law,
That appears to be what people do here. No one appears to consider
how God could exist, but instead they appear to only dwell on how much
and why they think he could not. The restrictions that Mr. Dance invented
and tried to impose on the Universe are just a different version of the same
type desperation to cling to the belief that he could not exist, because that's
what he wants to believe.
>and
>lump them in with the orthodox Roman Catholic-style Christians [which is
>quite literally the only religion he's come up with an argument against].
>
>Barwell's religious bigotry thinly disguised as his 'classes' argument makes
>Barwell no better than a medieval witch hunter, the kind that roamed the
>country searching for innocent people who 'had the marks of the devil' so he
>could summarily pronounce them guilty and execute them. People like Barwell
>are an insult to atheism.
Weak and strong. But to me strong atheism is in a similar way sort of
an insult to itself, and so is agnonsticism.
>He's not an atheist at all, merely an anti-theist zealot with a bad case of malignant
>narcississm.
Do you think he might ever overcome that?
dh
>> The whole idea is useless. The "best" he could do even if he
>> were successful would be to "prove" that some of the concepts
>> people have about God are incorrect. If God does exist, this "proof"
>> could not somehow cause him to become non-existent. Also if God
>> does exist, this "proof" is proof that Mr. Barwell isn't capable of even
>> considering the possibility in a realistic way....in fact even if God does
>> NOT exist Mr. Barwell isn't capable of considering the possibility of his
>> existence in a realistic way. But neither is anyone else I've seen posting
>> other than myself. If you can provide some example(s) of someone else
>> trying to, I'd sure like to see it/them.
>
>That would be because there is no realistic way for a god to exist,
There are many, though the number and ways themselves would vary
depending on which definition of god is being considered at the time.
>we can see into the atom down to the quark level and beyond.
>Put simply. Where is God?
God could be anywhere, everywhere, or nowhere. There are other
possibilities as well.
>What is the mechanism for the assertions of the theists
>And while I am aware that Barwell is using the logic disproofs, the
>scientific ones work just as well.
Such as?
>And as for the logic - the disproofs above are enough to destroy the
>idea of the christian god in the mind of a logical person.
How so?
>A start, certainly.
Not yet, if ever.
Zogby
> ... most atheists I
> know don't go around insisting that there is proof that
> it's impossible for any god to exist.
Most atheists I know do not go around arguing _ad ignorantiam_ (as you lot
continue to do) that there might be a god of some sort because there is no
proof that hypothesis is false. "Atheism is characterized by an absence of
belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Sniper
> "Sniper" <sni...@gotcha.com> wrote in message
> news:boadnYw3A9wHqEzZ...@adelphia.com
>
>>... most atheists I
>>know don't go around insisting that there is proof that
>>it's impossible for any god to exist.
>
> Most atheists I know do not go around arguing _ad ignorantiam_ ...
Most atheists I know do not go around changing
their handles numerous times to avoid killfiles.
Skeptic's Handles - Chronological
Donald Alford <dral...@pacificrim.net> 1-May-1995
Ace (dral...@pacificrim.net) 17-Nov-1995
Donald R. Alford (DRAl...@gnn.com) 15-Sep-1996
D R <nos...@please.com> 12-Jul-1998
Donald Alford <donald...@email.msn.com> 26-Aug-1998
I M Notajoiner <nos...@all.atall> 27-Aug-1998
Fred Skinner <nos...@all.all> 29-Oct-1998
Fred Skinner <y...@NOSPAMuswest.net> 3-Mar-1999
Donald Alford <y3k...@uswest.net> 16-Apr-1999
Ho Hum <ho...@weareallone.net> 21-May-1999
Ho Hum <nos...@forme.please> 7-Jun-1999
one <o...@world.net> 22-Jul-1999
Frazier <fr...@stones.com> 30-Jul-1999
PsychStudent <psychs...@earth.net> 3-Aug-1999
Skeptic <nos...@all.all> 18-Aug-1999
Hum <hohu...@my-deja.com> 19-Aug-1999
Skeptic <abuse...@uu.net> 4-Sep-1999
Diesel <abuse...@uu.net> 5-Sep-1999
Fred <som...@amazon.com> 6-Oct-1999
Skeptic <abuse...@uunet.com> 14-Nov-1999
bfskinner bfsk...@my-deja.com 14-May-2000
Creon <doug...@nospamathome.com> 19-May-2000
Bo Hica <abuse...@uunet.com> 3-Jun-2000
Dick Dragon <nos...@all.net> 8-Jun-2000
Dr. Sinster <Slather-i...@alloverthe.net> 18-Jun-2000
Dr. Sister <Slather-i...@alloverthe.net> 20-Jun-2000
Shleptic <NOSPAMab...@uunet.com> 22-Jun-2000
Skeptic Schemeptic <NOSPAMab...@uunet.com> 23-Jun-2000
Dr. Sister <NOSPAMab...@uunet.com> 24-Jun-2000
Frisbyterian <NOSPAMab...@uunet.com> 24-Jun-2000
Skeptic <NOSPAMab...@uunet.com> 24-Jun-2000
Dick Dragon <Matt-Sweetma...@alloverthe.net> 25-Jun-2000
Frisbyterian Skeptic <NOSPAMab...@uunet.com> 26-Jun-2000
Dr. Sinster <SkepticsN...@uunet.com> 29-Jun-2000
The Thinkerator <SkepticsN...@uunet.com> 30-Jun-2000
Ima Skeptic Too <D...@home.com> 1-Jul-2000
The Theenker <SkepticsN...@uunet.com> 1-Jul-2000
Whosya Daddy <D...@home.com> 1-Jul-2000
Skeptic <D...@home.com> 2-Jul-2000
Skeptic <SkepticsN...@uunet.com> 2-Jul-2000
The Theeeenker <SkepticsN...@uunet.com> 2-Jul-2000
Tom Wetsuit <SkepticsN...@uunet.com> 6-Jul-2000
Gawud <d...@home.com> 11-Jan-2001
Todd Field toadfr...@hotmail.com 6-Jun-2001
Huxley <som...@microsoft.com> 30-Jun-2001
Boggs <muddy...@nospamhotmail.com> 5-Dec-2001
muddyboggs muddy...@hotmail.com 19-Dec-2001
Muddy Boggs <muddy...@nospamhotmail.com> 4-Mar-2002
Ho Hum (sp...@spam.com) 27-Apr-2002
Rooster <nos...@all.all> 24-Jul-2002
Nick <nos...@all.all> 20-Aug-2002
Abu ben Hogan (benh...@nospamhotmail.com) 21-Sep-2002
Rooster <roo...@hotmail.com> 23-Sep-2002
Rooster <abuse...@uunet.com> 24-Sep-2002
Yoda <yo...@hotmail.com> 28-Sep-2002
McSweeny <m...@hootmon.com> 14-Oct-2002
Sam Spade <ssp...@hotmail.com> 15-Oct-2002
Steven V. Snyder <2098sn...@hootmail.com> 11-Nov-2002
Roger Bush <ro...@bush.com> 21-Dec-2002
Hans <ha...@hotmail.com> 27-Dec-2002
Hans Van M. <ha...@hotmail.com> 27-Dec-2002
Y3K oilo...@hotmail.com 15-Jan-2003
T. Jefferson <abuse...@uunet.com> 1-Mar-2003
Wolf Blister <wo...@uunet.com> 25-Mar-2003
Spike Nail <abuse...@uunet.com> 28-Apr-2003
Proulx <p...@az.net> 4-May-2003
Bob D. <bobd...@comcast.com> 6-May-2003
Oil-O-Matic <ai...@nospam.com> 27-May-2003
Stanley Leverlock <st...@nospam.com> 27-May-2003
Whitey <to...@hotmail.com> 31-May-2003
Y3K <y...@hotmail.com> 1-Jun-2003
Ben <someone @microsoft.com> 2-Jun-2003
Stanley/Oilman/Ben/Septic/Whatever <st...@nospam.com> 2-Jun-2003
Otto <ottum...@hotmailt.com> 13-Jun-2003
Krait Bungarus Caeruleus <k...@wesltink.com> 18-Jun-2003
KB <k...@hotmail.com> 19-Jun-2003
KBC <k...@westlink.cop> 24-Jun-2003
Romeo <ro...@shakespear.net> 24-Jun-2003
Ray <r...@hotmail.com> 27-Jun-2003
Rhode Island Red <rirroos...@hotmail.com> 27-Jun-2003
Albert Briggs <bri...@briggs.com> 6-Jul-2003
Bill Gates <bi...@microsaused.com> 7-Jul-2003
ABC <a...@hotmail.com> 9-Jul-2003
PBJ <p...@nospam.com> 9-Jul-2003
Bob White <thre...@hotmail.com> 14-Jul-2003
Tim <tim...@nospam.com> 16-Jul-2003
DR Feelgood <drfeelg...@hotmailspamblock.com> 17-Jul-2003
D. Wolfe (wo...@stancion.com) 19-Jul-2003
C Ketchikan (c...@ket.net) 31-Jul-2003
Arn <arnol...@hotmailspamblock.com> 3-Aug-2003
Threeball Hall <hall...@hotmail.com> 3-Aug-2003
Vital Basics <vb3...@hotmail.com> 19-Aug-2003
Salmon Loaf <sal0...@hotmail.com> 21-Aug-2003
Page Downey (pd9...@hotmail.com) 29-Oct-2003
C. Tailor (ct9...@hotmail.com) 30-Oct-2003
Paige Downey (pd9...@hotmail.com) 30-Oct-2003
Duck <qua...@webfoot.net> 31-Oct-2003
John McTavish <jmct...@hootmon.net> 31-Oct-2003
Pat <badaddress...@nowhere.net> 3-Nov-2003
Pat Hand <badaddress...@nowhere.net> 3-Nov-2003
Sven <s...@nospam.com> 14-Nov-2003
Slim (slim...@mnm.com) 17-Nov-2003
Mekkala's Alleged \Blithering Fucking
Idiot\ <slim...@mnm.com> 18-Nov-2003
Al (a...@nospam.com) 20-Nov-2003
Hy (h...@hrh.net) 20-Nov-2003
JR1 (j...@jr.com) 22-Nov-2003
JR2 (j...@jr.com) 23-Nov-2003
B. Corporel (bcorp...@hotmail.com) 1-Dec-2003
Y3K (y...@netscrape.com) 29-Dec-2003
B. Corporeal <bcor...@hotmail.com> 1-Jan-2004
Jaco Bandolim (jb...@sparknode.com) 6-Jan-2004
Jaco Mandolin (jm...@sparknode.com) 8-Jan-2004
Arno <arno...@hotmailspamblock.com> 13-Jan-2004
Art <art3...@hotmailspamblock.com> 28-Jan-2004
Art2 (art23...@hotmailspamblock.com) 28-Jan-2004
Arnold (arnol...@hotmailspamblock.com) 5-Feb-2004
Navigator (n...@nav.com) 10-Feb-2004
Navigatorator <na...@navi.com> 1-Mar-2004
Skepticus <sk...@theatheism.web> 11-Mar-2004
Dixit <di...@nospam.net> 29-Mar-2004
Dixit <d...@nospam.com> 31-Mar-2004
The Other Alan <othe...@nospam.com> 6-Apr-2004
Dixit <d...@nospam.com> 17-May-2004
Diixiit <di...@nospam.com> 14-Jun-2004
Boggs <muddy...@hotmail.com> 27-Jul-2004
X <X...@nospam.net> 8-Oct-2004
eggs (eg...@nospam.com) 29-Nov-2004
XL X...@XL.net 17-Dec-04
Long <lo...@nospam.net> 16-Jan-2005
Tygasi tyg...@tygasi.net 30-Jan-2005
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnos...@nospam.net> 2-Feb-2005
Jake <j...@nospam.net> 20-Feb-2005
Incubus <i...@in.net> 15-Mar-05
JHC j...@nospam.net 16-Apr-05
Loadnlock <l...@nospam.net> 17-Apr-2005
Pesche <pes...@nospam.net> 9-May-2005
Sam Jankis <s...@nospam.net> 15-May-2005
Deep Thought <deepthou...@nospam.net> 5-Jun-2005
MagicRub <m...@nospam.net> 8-Jun-2005
Deep Thought <d...@algia.org> 12-Jun-2005
Tiger <T...@nospam.net> 12-Jul-2005
Jones <j...@nospam.net> 5-Aug-2005
SquareKnot <SquareK...@nospam.net> 7-Oct-2005
todd t...@rog.com 8-Nov-2005
OS XI oes...@gmail.com 8-Nov-2005
Mac <m...@nospam.net> 9-Nov-2005
Miller <m...@miler.org> 15-Nov-2005
Richo <richo98...@hotmail.com> 17-Nov-2005
MagicRub <m...@nospam.net> 12-Jan-2006
Bullet <bul...@nospam.net> 12-Jan-2006
Pitt <p....@....com> 8-May-2006
Rien <r...@nospam.com> 18-May-2006
BLPD <b...@nospam.com> 30-May-2006
Peter <p...@wherisya.com> 5-Jun-2006
Bush Lied People Died <b...@nospam.com> 5-Jun-2006
George g...@nospam.com 13-Jun-2006
Zogby z...@comcast.com 9-Jul-200
Gandalf Grey
<dh@.> wrote in message news:5e84d2t6ppmlofb7r...@4ax.com...
There was an interesting study by a scientist named J. F. Schumaker in the
late 80's that dealt with paranormal beliefs. Schumaker's physical findings
with non epileptic subjects demonstrated that positive endorphins are
released when people think about paranormal things. He also went on to
classify those who believe such things as prone to 'absorption' and 'fantasy
proneness.' He speculated that people are disturbed by death in varying
degrees of intensity and that those who are the most disturbed by the
concept find neurological comfort in paranormal beliefs that take the edge
of the notion that death might be nothing more than a big dirt nap, so to
speak. His conclusion was that some people believe in certain things
because the belief protects their mental health and preserves their ability
to continue to operate in the real world without mental breakdown.
Who can say? We tend to see only a certain dimension of personality on the
internet. From what I've seen and read of Barwell, he seems to suffer from
at least a mild form of narcissistic personality disorder. For most of us,
there's our comments, then there's us. But for Barwell, the dividing line
between his arguments and his psyche are blurred or non-existent. It's not
just a matter of his hysterical replies to dissent that concern me. It's
the way he talks about his arguments and his 'role' here on the internet.
Years ago, the great skeptic Martin Gardner wrote a list of several
characteristics that are the hallmark of what he called "the crank."
Gardner was writing about pseudoscience, but his remarks are apropos for
cranks of any kind.
In no particular order, these characteristics are.
1. The presumption that the crank has found a great truth that everyone else
has missed. Barwell has read "all" the great arguments and he's found
several wonderful points that "everyone else" has missed.
2. The presumption that everyone who disagrees with the crank cannot be
correct even though the crank usually refuses to explain why. Typically,
Barwell's critics are "just wrong, idiots, fools."
3. The presumption that there are conspiracies out to destroy the work of
the crank. People who disagree with Barwell are "thread killers" who work
in "thread killing squads."
4. The presumption that the most obvious and greatest theories and problems
of history are really simple for the crank to see through. Einstein was a
piker, all the great philosophers were fools. Only the crank has the
answer.
5. The tendency to create special words and terms like "omnigenesis," "class
of OEC gods" "magnipotence" and other 'neologisms' to give the crank's work
a look of great
complexity and novelty that it really doesn't have.
6. The tendency to need five pages to state what could have been understood
in a single sentence, all the better to blow more smoke and confuse more
readers. The crank gets caught up in his own verbiage and tends to babble.
If you have the time and the patience to read the some dozen "arguments"
Barwell has posted representing scores of pages of material, you'll note
that they're all the same argument.
When I came across this list a few weeks ago, the resemblance between
Gardner's "crank" and Barwell was stunning. In my opinion, what Gardner is
describing is a form of "intellectual narcissism."
Barwell sees himself as one of the world's great thinkers. His internal
image of that great thinker allows him to use outrageous distortions and
obvious gimmicks without internally recognizing that he's simply running a
con. The ability to lie repeatedly in order to "protect" an original lie
without perceiving oneself as "a liar" is a red flag for narcissism.
One example is the "process theology" thing that Barwell has been going
hysterical about for awhile now. Barwell didn't even know what Process
Theology was until I wrote about it in one of my critiques of his argument.
At that time, he was confusing Process theism with Process Metaphysics and
even recently had to be educated on the fact that it was Alfred North
Whitehead and not Charles Hartshorne who had developed Process Philosophy.
Over the last week or so he's had to google information on the subject
repeatedly but has never owned up to the fact that it's a subject he really
knows nothing about. His ignorance on the subject is so extreme that he's
recently posted an article that he believes debunks the philosophy, when in
fact, the article is a defense of PT against an internal debate on the
subject.
I even dropped a little test into one of my criticisms by stating that
process theology and "open theism" are modern theologies. Barwell
immediately followed up by professing that open theism was directly related
to process theology, when the fact is that open theism is closely related to
fundamentalist evangelism and process theology isn't even a christian
theology.
This ability to simply adopt whatever is being said into the crank's 'owned'
knowledge is very typical of what is now diagnosed as narcissistic
personality disorder. Everything in the world is fluid but the narcissist's
internal image. Any idea or fact that serves the internal image becomes
'theirs.' Anything that disagrees with them threatens the internal image
and becomes 'the enemy.'
So, in summary, I suspect that Barwell suffers from a form of Narcissism and
that makes me doubt that Mr. Barwell will change. Narcissism is a
potentially dangerous and always debilitating disorder that tends to either
burn itself out in middle age if it is an acute case or grows progressively
worse when it is not acute. My guess is that Mr. Barwell will continue to
approach like a moth to the flame whenever anyone hints that they might
agree with him, and will continue to threaten to desert us all whenever
anyone disagrees with him. You'll note that pathology in several of his
later posts. He is either complaining about how there's nothing for him in
AA or howling about how he is destined to serve as the only shining light in
the groups depending on his current mood swing or whether he's responding to
a dissenter or anyone who gives him even the slightest positive feedback.
It's sad really.
wcb
>
> That's true of most things I've found. People decide what they want to
> believe, and then stick with things that reinforce what they've chosen to
> believe. Anything that conflicts with what they've chosen to believe
> causes the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, and is therefore usually
> rejected in any way they can do it...even if that includes accepting or
> inventing unlikely or absurd ideas as long as they back up what the person
> wants to continue believing. If it were not for cognitive dissonance,
> people would be completely different. Would that be better, or worse?
>
So is that why you reject good evidence god cannot exist?
wcb
The problem with science is that god is "magic".
Why he can do anything. like Santa Claus.
"Why, god is invisible you know! Silly man, did you
think you could see god in a microscope?
Us Christiana outwit you again!"
This never works because with god utterly
undefined at the physical level, they say,
well the bible says he can so shut up.
Look at creationism, 70 of Americans believe Adam
and Eve were real people, and ignore the contradictory
genesis creation accounts.
You point them at that and they pick their snouts,
glare at you and refuse to admit just because there
are two contradictory accounts that the bible is wrong.
Its like these morons here, Gandy is always wrong but
cannot be made to think, Sniper, no better, dh@ also.
When people stop thinking, no amount of effort seems
to make them think. Once reason is abandoned, science
is of no interest to them. Nothing is.
Google polls on creationism. Creationism has won despite
the two Genesis creation tales utterly contrdicting each other.
People are in fact, basically stupid. Animal grunting stupid.
Logic works on those few who can handle logic. I am finding
as years go on, logic is not something most people can do.
If you can't look at Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and realize
the bible cannot be true if in Genesis one it says animals
were created first, then last, man, and in Genesis two, man was
created first then, animals, you aren't going to be able to
handle any sort of facts about science.
People this low grade, bestially stupid are not going
to be able to handle abstract arguments about atoms,
quarks or anything else.
We are surrounded by morons. About at the same
intellectual level as slightly retarded, illiterate goat
herd boys from backwoods Pakistan.
VIEWS ON EVOLUTION/CREATIONISM
God created humans in present form
All Americans
55%
Kerry voters
47%
Bush voters
67%
Humans evolved, God guided the process
All Americans
27%
Kerry voters
28%
Bush voters
22%
Humans evolved, God did not guide process
All Americans
13%
Kerry voters
21%
Bush voters
6%
Do you think quarks will impress anybody here?
Science doesn't work with scientifically
illiterate morons who also lack reasoning
ability on top of that.
wcb
>
> Most of the posters who disagree with you, you ignorant
> little turd, are atheists. The fact is, most atheists I
> know don't go around insisting that there is proof that
> it's impossible for any god to exist.
If so, it is because most atheists are abysmally ignorant.
Its easily done.
What sepeartes the ignorant from the truely stupid
(you and Gandy, Sniper at al) is that an merely
ignorant atheist can learn.
Deeply, totally stuoid atheists cannot and
despit ebeijg atheists, are wrong about the
idea god cannot be disproven,
I am right, the Gandy goodsepack is wrong.
You are just as wroing as Chung or Duke
for th same reason., Stupidity, utter lack of
learning ability, sense of logic, common sense
reason and rationality.
Breaking gods down into classes and
systematically debunking these classes
is easy and competent.
But not for you.
Chung and Duke can't deal with it either.
Gandy has a proven inability to handle logic
at the lowest, simple levels.
My problem here is, I am beset by a small
pack of unthinking morons. Who cannot think
and thus wil never be persuaded due to
stupidity, and who are too stupid to be
embarressed by their inability to think
and shut up.
You are no better.
You are a moron.
That is all.
This newsgroup really has few people.
Most those who do not care care only
about their petty little squabbles and
bullshit, most not importnat. Battling Pastor
Dave, Chung, Duke, posting newes of latest
christian pedophiles, and politics, or just bullshit.
The entire nesgroup is NOT exactly a mental hive of high
ability.
And of course the Gandy Goosesquad is about the
worst on the newsgroup as far as 'atheists' go.
Just stupid. Not ignorant, but lacking logic,
simple reasoning ability, reason.
I now know you are just as sensless as Gandy.
You are a stupid shit monkey and yiou can't ever
be more than that. You are about as reasonable as
Fred Stone.
Fred is incapable of reason and learning, like you
and is thus irrelevant and you will never be right
about anything for the right reason ever, its beyond
your meager capabilities.
You are so stupid, you are too stupid to
see you are stupid.
Gandalf Grey
> Sniper wrote:
>
>>
>> Most of the posters who disagree with you, you ignorant
>> little turd, are atheists. The fact is, most atheists I
>> know don't go around insisting that there is proof that
>> it's impossible for any god to exist.
>
> If so, it is because most atheists are abysmally ignorant.
I'm sure the group appreciates the fact that you're so much more intelligent
then all of them, Barwell.
> Its easily done.
Except that you haven't even BEGUN to do it.
> My problem here is,
Your problem is you're a narcissistic incompetent, Barwell.
Gandalf Grey
> dh@. wrote:
>
>>
>> That's true of most things I've found. People decide what they want to
>> believe, and then stick with things that reinforce what they've chosen to
>> believe. Anything that conflicts with what they've chosen to believe
>> causes the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, and is therefore usually
>> rejected in any way they can do it...even if that includes accepting or
>> inventing unlikely or absurd ideas as long as they back up what the
>> person
>> wants to continue believing. If it were not for cognitive dissonance,
>> people would be completely different. Would that be better, or worse?
>>
>
> So is that why you reject good evidence god cannot exist?
You'd have to provide it before he'd need to choose whether to reject it,
Barwell.
Gandalf Grey
> Lucifer wrote:
>
>>> The whole idea is useless. The "best" he could do even if he
>>> were successful would be to "prove" that some of the concepts
>>> people have about God are incorrect. If God does exist, this "proof"
>>> could not somehow cause him to become non-existent. Also if God
>>> does exist, this "proof" is proof that Mr. Barwell isn't capable of even
>>> considering the possibility in a realistic way....in fact even if God
>>> does NOT exist Mr. Barwell isn't capable of considering the possibility
>>> of his existence in a realistic way. But neither is anyone else I've
>>> seen
>>> posting other than myself. If you can provide some example(s) of someone
>>> else trying to, I'd sure like to see it/them.
>>
>> That would be because there is no realistic way for a god to exist, we
>> can see into the atom down to the quark level and beyond.
>> Put simply. Where is God?
>> What is the mechanism for the assertions of the theists
>> And while I am aware that Barwell is using the logic disproofs, the
>> scientific ones work just as well.
>> And as for the logic - the disproofs above are enough to destroy the
>> idea of the christian god in the mind of a logical person.
>> A start, certainly.
>
> The problem with science is that god is "magic".
The problem with your arguments is that the logic is invisible.
Sniper
> Sniper wrote:
>
>>Most of the posters who disagree with you, you ignorant
>>little turd, are atheists. The fact is, most atheists I
>>know don't go around insisting that there is proof that
>>it's impossible for any god to exist.
>
> If so, it is because most atheists are abysmally ignorant.
LOL! Yeah, that's the ticket, Barwell. The reason
about the only person besides yourself who thinks
you're a genius is "Skeptic", idiot of a thousand
handles, is that they are all abysmally ignorant?
I wonder if there's medication for your sickness?
Sniper
> Sniper wrote:
>
>>Most of the posters who disagree with you, you ignorant
>>little turd, are atheists. The fact is, most atheists I
>>know don't go around insisting that there is proof that
>>it's impossible for any god to exist.
>
> If so, it is because most atheists are abysmally ignorant.
> Its easily done.
What's not so easily done apparently, is
covering up your own ignorance, Barwell.
I notice you haven't bothered to respond
to my question in a prior exchange here:
Barwell wrote:
::When the Universe was first born, there was
::no matter and no life. It took hundreds of
::millions of years to cool down so life
::might exist.
Sniper replied:
:<Snort>. Excuse me, Professor Einstein, but if
:there was no matter, what exactly cooled down?
Well professor, what exactly cooled down?
> What sepeartes the ignorant from the truely stupid
> You are a moron.
[snip]
> Just stupid. ...
[snip]
> I now know you are just as sensless as Gandy.
>
> You are a stupid shit monkey
[snip]
> You are so stupid, you are too stupid to
> see you are stupid.
When you were done beating yourself up in
public, maybe you'll answer the question:
Well professor, what exactly cooled down?
wcb
>
> LOL! Yeah, that's the ticket, Barwell. The reason
> about the only person besides yourself who thinks
> you're a genius is "Skeptic", idiot of a thousand
> handles, is that they are all abysmally ignorant?
I have known many atheists and may of them don't
care to learn anything about it. Its "Fuck off
with the god shit already". That is as far as
they ever take it.
When it comes to true ignorance, its you and Gandy
and fool who are the champs. You are logic
challenged morons.
Don't kid yourselves you are better than Skeptic.
You are not.
You are idiots. Incapable of real thought.
Skeptic is a bit above you and for me, has far more
respect than Gandy or you.
Gandalf Grey
> Sniper wrote:
>
> When it comes to true ignorance, its you and Gandy
> and fool who are the champs.
And anyone else who dares disagree with the blinding light of Barwell's
Brilliance.
Keep telling yourself that, Barwell.
Kurt Nicklas
Dumb arguing with dumbest. No surprise that you're both
atheists and you're doing the atheist version of 'how many angels
can sit on the head of a pin'.
What a loon you are, Ricky.
wcb
>
> What's not so easily done apparently, is
> covering up your own ignorance, Barwell.
>
> I notice you haven't bothered to respond
> to my question in a prior exchange here:
>
> Barwell wrote:
> ::When the Universe was first born, there was
> ::no matter and no life.  It took hundreds of
> ::millions of years to cool down so life
> ::might exist.
>
> Sniper replied:
> :<Snort>. Excuse me, Professor Einstein, but if
> :there was no matter, what exactly cooled down?
No matter, we got matter after it cooled down enough
for quarks to form.
Then when it got cool ecough, particle, then atoms.
This very early and very brief epoch without matter
is known as the Planck epoch.
But you didn't know that it seems.
Only during inflation do things cool down enough
to form a hot plamsa of quark-matter.
And only when that cools down sufficiently do we
get quarks and leptons.
Not until the reheating phase of inflation do we get
particles, matter as we know it.
Of course you didn't know this either.
When the universe began, there was no matter.
What? You didn't know that?
You don't know cosmology?
We didn't get matter until inflation had proceeded.
There was no matter in the earliest quantum gravity era.
Not until the 4 force had sorted themselves out
and became 4 seperate forces could there be matter.
Why don't you clowns ever know anything before you shoot
off your ugly, ignorant mouths?
Matter did not exist until inflation started.
Without matter, no life. Matter took several phases
of cooling until we could have atoms, and hence life
as we know it was possible. But not for another
billion years or so until the physical Universe
sorted itself out.
Again, I have to write things dumbed down for you guys?
wcb
You are like Duke and Chung.
You think you know something, you do not.
I am at least intelligent, which is more
than you can claim.
When have you ever posted anything worth
reading? Something new or useful?
All you are is a flaming moron with
nothing worth reading.
When have you posted anything worth
thinking about or remembering?
Anything thought provoking, anything
intellectually stimulating?
Never you say? You just flame people?
Maybe you should try something other
than net stalking me.
You and Gandy.....
----------------------------------
CAN GOD EXIST? STRONG ATHEISM SAYS NO.
1.THE SELF DESTRUCTION OF THE CONCEPT OF
OMNIPOTENCE
A. Omnipotence is derived from Latin words
omni - all, potent - power, potency.
B. It thus means all potent, all powerful.
Having all possible powers and abilities.
It means god has all possible powers. Many
theologians hasten to add that god is not
omnipotent in regards to illogical or impossible
things, he cannot make for example, a married
bachelor.
C. It also means lessor powers and entities have
no possible way of affecting god, or in limiting
good in any possible manner.
D. Except for such logical exceptions nothing
can limited god, he is unlimited in ability and
power.
2. GOD AND TIME
A. Time exists
B. But if god is to be omnipotent, time cannot
limit god in any way.
C. Time is what gives us a past, present and
future. We cannot see the future, nor reach
into the future at will.
D. If god is so limited, god is not omnipotent,
time, past and present limit god. Time is more
powerful than unlimited god.
E. Thus past present and future, time, do not
and cannot limit god, for god there is no
past, present or future, all is now.
F. God then can see all of creation at once,
directly, and can experience or interact
with any and all things at once.
G. If time exists, god must have created it, and
he created our inability to see more than a
small part of time, now and not see future nor
past directly.
3. GOD, CREATION, AND TIME.
A. God created all, this is a basic claim
of many religions, Judaism, Christianity,
Hinduism, Islam. The Bible and Quran and
other sacred books are explicit about god's
creation of all.
B. If all is now, and for God there is no past,
and no future in essence, all is for practical
purposes now, and all that was, is and shall
be are now, existant.
C. Thus god created all now, at one time,
complete in all particulars to the last quark
and last fraction of a second in all
particulars and connections to all the rest of
the things in the Universe.
D. A god contemplated his creation, he then had to
think about what he was to create in all
particulars. If he created a man named John
Smith born in 1950, he had contemplate all of
Smith's existence as he created it. Each
atom, each act, each inclination of Smith had
to be created at once.
E. And god had to contemplate creation of each
atom, each act, every second, every inclination
of Smiths life and existence. He had to say
"Yes, I will create that" or "No, I will not
create that".
F. He had to contemplate the last detail of
Smith's life, decide what he would specifically
create Smith as doing and create it all.
If Smith is evil and damned it is totally
God's doing. If good and saved, it is all
totally God's doing.
G. Since all is at once, and all is created at
once, and god creates all, he must likewise
create at once, all sentient beings of his
universe, mortals, angels, demons, djinn.
H. Thus because all must be at once because god
is not limited by time in any way and thus not
past and present, and since he creates all,
there can be no free will at all in this
Universe.
I. All exists only because all was created by god
as it was created in all its particulars to the
smallest degree possible, with god's personal
knowledge and purpose and will.
4. OMNIGENESIS
This idea that god creates all now, totally,
in all physical particulars for all time to
the smallest details should have name as it is
a powerful concept that is destructive to so
many claims. Omnigenesis, creation of all
would be an apt term. If god is sovereign over
all time, and there is no past, no future, just
now, created in its totality by god, then
omnigenesis is the state of reality and no
free will can exist. Omnigenesis is a state
of the universe that all else preceeds from.
5. GOD AND OMNIBENEVOLENCE.
1. God is said to be good, all good, supremely
good. Often denoted by the word
omnibenevolent.
2. There is evil.
3. Evil comes in two type, natural evil,
drought, floods, hurricanes and moral evil,
evil deriving from acts of mankind, murder,
rape, lying as examples.
4. But if god made all man's acts to the last
detail including evil ones, then evil exists
only because god exists.
5. God also creates all natural evils that befall
man.
6. Since all evils are directly caused by god and
only god, as nobody has free will except god,
all evil is caused directly and only by god.
7. Therefore god is evil.
5. GOD AND OTHER CLAIMS ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
THAT FAIL HERE.
1. God is claimed to be loving, merciful,
and just.
2. But making a man evil and then condemning him
to hell for being something he has no choice in
being is unjust, unmerciful and not loving.
7. GOD'S FREE WILL
A. If god creates all in one now, no real past
and present, all at once, he also creates in
this all at once creation, all interactions he
has with all aspects of creation. Every
action, every omniscient inspection of all of
creation as it is before him, any possible
interaction at all imaginable.
B. This must mean God is frozen in time as he
makes all his interactions with the Universe
creates also at once. All is including all
god does. He also lacks free will. All is an
eternal now, frozen, unchangeable, unchanging,
static, we are all like insects frozen in
amber forever.
8. GOD AND TIME IN RETROSPECT AT THIS POINT.
A. Suppose we say we cannot have this, we must
rethink this.
B. We must drop then, all explicit claims of
omniscience and thus incidentally, omnipotence.
C. We must drop all claims of perfection, and
omnipotence explicitly also. They lead to god
being sovereign over time.
D. We must explicitly drop all references to
sovereignty or power over time, the future and
the past. Again, omnipotence leads directly to
that claim.
E. If time is now more powerful than god, if
time affects and limits god, god cannot have
created time.
F. Time is thus outside god and not create
by him so we must drop explicit claims god
created the entire Universe.
G. Since he cannot have created the entire
Universe he cannot be in any way a necessary
being, he is under time, limited by time,
and must use time so he is contingent on time
and a contingent being.
H. Thus time shows us god is not as claimed,
perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent, and creator of all.
Few theories in history implode as
spectacularly as omnipotence when we start
examining time in light of claims of
omnipotence.
9. CONCLUSION
1. Perfection -> omnipotence -> omniscience ->
power over time -> creation of all now -> man's
lack of free will -> God's creation of all evil
-> destruction of all good qualities such as
love, mercy and justice -> and finally lack of
free will for god himself.
2. This does not work.
3. And the whole chain does not work. Start any
place from say perfection, or omnipotence,
which leads to sovereignty over time and it
leads to collapse of about all assertions made
by theology and religion about god.
10. Basically, omnipotence contains the seeds of
its own destruction, dragging down everything else
with it. We end up with an incoherent world where
there can be no love, mercy, justice. Sin and
evil and punishment make no sense when we are
puppets, when all we do to the smallest atom was
gods, specific, knowing, purposeful creation.
Free will means nothing, original sin, means
nothing, heaven, hell and Satan lose all reason to
exist. This world is incoherent and madder than
Alice's Wonderland, or H. P. Lovecraft's fantasy
worlds of mad gods and a Universe gone wrong. A
metaphysical dystopia even Satan could not
design.
God as perfect, omniscient, omnipotent or
sovereign over time cannot be. Nor does it end
there. A God that is omniscient, or has power over
time cannot be. One can try to soften claims for
God by dropping omnipotence, perfection, and many
other claims, but explicit sovereignty over time
and explicit omniscience both doom weaker types
of gods weakened specifically to get around
omnipotence or perfection puzzles.
Soverignty over time dooms all other classes of
possible gods and also shows any other classes of
gods cannot have created all including time also,
not just the class of omni-everything creator
gods.
And as omnipotence soon drags us into this
problem with time, free will and evil,
omnipotence is impossible for all other possible
classes of gods other than just omni-everything,
creator gods.
(End)
Gandalf Grey
> Sniper wrote:
>
>>
>> What's not so easily done apparently, is
>> covering up your own ignorance, Barwell.
>>
>> I notice you haven't bothered to respond
>> to my question in a prior exchange here:
>>
>> Barwell wrote:
>> ::When the Universe was first born, there was
>> ::no matter and no life. It took hundreds of
>> ::millions of years to cool down so life
>> ::might exist.
>>
>> Sniper replied:
>> :<Snort>. Excuse me, Professor Einstein, but if
>> :there was no matter, what exactly cooled down?
>
> No matter,
Translation: Barwell has no clue. But he KNOWS that matter came first
because the anti-theist god revealed it to him.
Another Argument from Ignorance from Barwell.
What else is new?
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>> news:12d748t...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> Sniper wrote:
>>>
>>> When it comes to true ignorance, its you and Gandy
>>> and fool who are the champs.
>>
>> And anyone else who dares disagree with the blinding light of Barwell's
>> Brilliance.
>>
>> Keep telling yourself that, Barwell.
>
> You are like Duke and Chung.
> You think you know something, you do not.
Wrong, Barwell. I'm just bright enough to realize that not knowing
something is NOT the same as knowing something else. In other words, I'm
bright enough not to operate on the Argument from Ignorance.
wcb
In another thread, I just corrected you on photons.
You haven't a clue. When This Universe began,
we had no matter at all.
We didn't get around to matter as we know it for some seconds.
Matter as atoms until later. A hot Universe without
stars and galaxies for some 300,000 years. A Universe
that could sustain life, not for some billion years.
So for about a billion years we did not have a
fine tuned Universe made for life.
You are a know nothing idiot.
wcb
>
> Wrong, Barwell.  I'm just bright enough to realize that not knowing
> something is NOT the same as knowing something else.  In other words, I'm
> bright enough not to operate on the Argument from Ignorance.
You don't know shit.
And never can because you cannot reason,
literally you are incapablee of simple,
4th grade level logic. Yiou are logic dyslexic.
Despite that, you shit on everything with vast
arrogance.
YOU drooled and drivelled aboyt process theology.
I showed you that youir PT boys admited god does not
work for physics. You jumped up and down and howled
and shit and spewed ignorance. I showed you Whitehead
had made up his own physics in by 1927 and had guessed
wrong compounding the error. REAL physics based on
REAL data not a metaphysicians bad guess showed his
metaphycial god is based on error, no wonder it did
not work.
Then you grabbed whatever irrelevant physics you could
dig up on google and spewed that crap as if it solved
Whitehead's problem, guessing at physics abd guessing
wrong and hanging a god on his wrong guess!
No wonder PT does not work!
You challneged me to PROVE PT god is impossible and it
took me 5 minutes to do so.
WHAT YOU DID NOT EVER DO IS HOMEWORK!
You shit off at the moth while NEVER bothering
to check anything. Then I rub your ugly face in
you error. You refuse even then to admit defeat
and just redouble you errors. And switch to another
shit throwing flurry of nonsense to divert attention
from your abject total failures.
A real smart person (NOT YOU!) would think before making
a crack after being burned again and again. Maybe google
a bit, and cut your loses privately.
The process theology site gave me all I need in 5
minutes to bust you.
You made no effort to check your blustering challenge
and thereby set yourself up.
Trying to cover up by spewing irrelevant physics crap from google
sprayed like shit all over was even stupider.
A real thinking human at THAT point would say, "I WAS WRONG".
I didn't look into this PT stuff except at a VERY superficial
level and I failed to go to the source and I failed to check myself.
Now that I showed you where Whitehead blew it, it
would be nothing to go back to his book, primary sources (which
ARE online!)and bust PT metaphysics/theology good and proper and
out for the count.
Here is YOUR problem.
You are lazy, superficial, wrong, arrogant, not capable
of careful reasoned work, never admit you are wrong when
you are wrong and never learn from the experience.
You cannot handle logic, spew irrelevant strawmen and ad hocisms
and general could not be right abouit anything, even by
sheer accident.
You are a clueless idiot and can never be more than that.
You bellowed "Prove the process theology god is impossible!"
It took me 5 minutes to see Whitehead had made up his own
physics, hung god on it and guessed utterly wrong.
This is why you will never be right about anything.
You make up all your shit off the top of your head and
you aren't smart enough, logicl enough or knowldgble
enough to get by doing that.
How many more times does it take for yiou to be embarressed deeply like this
before yiou learn.
I Gandy.
And not knowldgable.
Cannot handle logic
Let my hate for Barwell over rule what little sense I have.
And am too lazy to be debating people who CHECK
things and won't let me get by bloviating turgid nonsense.
Now. WILL YOU LEARN FROM THIS!?
No. You have proven incapable of simple learning not to
be an easily debunked bloviator.
I admit, I was utterly surprised just HOW BAD PT
is at bottom. This is about the same level as Elron
Hubbard's crap, his 'physics' was on about the same
level of turgid nonsense that once written up was
never abandoned no matter how stupid it was.
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).
This is drivel. Its pseudoscience. A real crafty Phd candidate could
get a nice phd exposing this for the pseudoscience it is.
And you never noticed.
You don't notice anything, even when your face is ground
into your errors.
You are totaly facile, glib, sallow, unreflective,
ad hocist to an extreme, irrational, and intellectually
lazy.
Just go away. I am tired of all your incompetent crap.
You keep losing yet just keep shitting.
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>> news:12d7i6f...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> Sniper wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What's not so easily done apparently, is
>>>> covering up your own ignorance, Barwell.
>>>>
>>>> I notice you haven't bothered to respond
>>>> to my question in a prior exchange here:
>>>>
>>>> Barwell wrote:
>>>> ::When the Universe was first born, there was
>>>> ::no matter and no life. It took hundreds of
>>>> ::millions of years to cool down so life
>>>> ::might exist.
>>>>
>>>> Sniper replied:
>>>> :<Snort>. Excuse me, Professor Einstein, but if
>>>> :there was no matter, what exactly cooled down?
>>>
>>> No matter,
>>
>> Translation: Barwell has no clue. But he KNOWS that matter came first
>> because the anti-theist god revealed it to him.
>>
>> Another Argument from Ignorance from Barwell.
>>
>> What else is new?
>
>
> In another thread, I just corrected you on photons.
I never made a comment concerning photons, Barwell. My comment was on your
bloated ego.
> You haven't a clue. When This Universe began,
> we had no matter at all.
Which means the process metaphysics is correct. Matter is not the
fundamental consituent of the universe.
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> Wrong, Barwell. I'm just bright enough to realize that not knowing
>> something is NOT the same as knowing something else. In other words, I'm
>> bright enough not to operate on the Argument from Ignorance.
>
> You don't know shit.
Which would be the only thing you're an expert on, poser.
> YOU drooled and drivelled aboyt process theology.
Actually, the only one drooling about PT is you, Barwell.
> I showed you that youir PT boys admited god does not
> work for physics.
No they haven't. I've already posted the rest of the discussion that you
snipped. So that's another lie we can chalk up for you.
You jumped up and down and howled
> and shit and spewed ignorance. I showed you Whitehead
> had made up his own physics in by 1927 and had guessed
> wrong compounding the error. REAL physics based on
> REAL data
This from a guy who can't answer a question on the original state of the
universe.
**********************************
> Barwell wrote:
> ::When the Universe was first born, there was
> ::no matter and no life. It took hundreds of
> ::millions of years to cool down so life
> ::might exist.
>
> Sniper replied:
> :<Snort>. Excuse me, Professor Einstein, but if
> :there was no matter, what exactly cooled down?
No matter, we got matter after it cooled down enough
for quarks to form.
****************************************
That's our Barwell. We got matter when WHAT cooled down, Barwell?
Looks like the process theorists are way the hell ahead of you.
> Then you grabbed whatever irrelevant physics you could
> dig up on google
Says the guy who never heard of process theology before he was forced to do
a google search.
> No wonder PT does not work!
Prove it doesn't work, Barwell.
>
> You challneged me to PROVE PT god is impossible and it
> took me 5 minutes to do so.
Where have you done that, Barwell.
Cite please, and don't bother pasting someone else's opinion. Let's see
YOUR argument as to how a PT god is impossible.
> Just go away.
Not going to happen, Barwell. Get used to it.
Sniper
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
> I am at least intelligent, which is more
> than you can claim.
For once you're right, Barwell. We can not
claim that you are "at least intelligent".
Repost this for the thousandth time & tell
us just how intelligent you think that is?
Sniper
> Sniper wrote:
[]
>>Barwell wrote:
>>::When the Universe was first born, there was
>>::no matter and no life. It took hundreds of
>>::millions of years to cool down so life
>>::might exist.
>>
>>Sniper replied:
>>:<Snort>. Excuse me, Professor Einstein, but if
>>:there was no matter, what exactly cooled down?
>
> No matter, we got matter after it cooled down enough
> for quarks to form.
>
> Then when it got cool ecough, particle, then atoms.
>
> This very early and very brief epoch without matter
> is known as the Planck epoch.
>
> But you didn't know that it seems.
At t=10-12 sec, T=1015 K Electroweak force separated
into the Electromagnetic and Weak forces. All forces
were then separate. Gravity, Strong, Weak & Electro-
magnetic. The condition then became right for matter
to exist separate from photons _instead_ of as a hot
soup of matter and photons in equilibrium. Matter as
we see it now didn't exist as separate, but contrary
to your claims, it did exist in a soup with photons.
Energy's converted into matter as matter's converted
into energy. And the same thing in different states.
So, it would be more accurate to say that matter, as
we can now observe it, did not manifest until things
cooled down, though the basic componants were there,
from the very start when the cosmos were first born.
> Only during inflation do things cool down enough
> to form a hot plamsa of quark-matter.
> And only when that cools down sufficiently do we
> get quarks and leptons.
>
> Not until the reheating phase of inflation do we get
> particles, matter as we know it.
>
> Of course you didn't know this either.
Oh, BTW, a dictionary definition of the hot big bang
theory is: "the entire physical universe, all of the
matter & energy & even the four dimensions of time &
space, burst forth from a state of infinite, or near
infinite density, temperature, and pressure." Still,
I concede your point that matter (as we observe it),
didn't manifest right away but only after energy had
cooled down enough for atoms to form, very early on.
> When the universe began, there was no matter.
>
> What? You didn't know that?
> You don't know cosmology?
So asks the little boy who just came from Wikipedia
to tell everyone what he just learned from reading.
> We didn't get matter until inflation had proceeded.
> There was no matter in the earliest quantum gravity era.
>
> Not until the 4 force had sorted themselves out
> and became 4 seperate forces could there be matter.
>
> Why don't you clowns ever know anything before you shoot
> off your ugly, ignorant mouths?
So asks the little boy who just came from Wikipedia
to tell everyone what he just learned from reading.
> Matter did not exist until inflation started.
>
> Without matter, no life. Matter took several phases
> of cooling until we could have atoms, and hence life
> as we know it was possible. But not for another
> billion years or so until the physical Universe
> sorted itself out.
>
> Again, I have to write things dumbed down for you guys?
You're the master at writing things "dumbed down".
dh
>dh@. wrote:
>
>>
>> That's true of most things I've found. People decide what they want to
>> believe, and then stick with things that reinforce what they've chosen to
>> believe. Anything that conflicts with what they've chosen to believe
>> causes the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, and is therefore usually
>> rejected in any way they can do it...even if that includes accepting or
>> inventing unlikely or absurd ideas as long as they back up what the person
>> wants to continue believing. If it were not for cognitive dissonance,
>> people would be completely different. Would that be better, or worse?
>>
>
>So is that why you reject good evidence god cannot exist?
As yet I haven't encountered any.
dh
That would also be true for atheists and agnostics. It just makes them
feel better to believe God does not exist, than that he does. The same
sort of thing probably takes place in their brains when they take refuge in
the idea that God could not exist, and therefore it makes them feel safe
from him having influence on them. Different ends of the same thing...
That sounds right.
Yes, it is. So much time and thought wasted on uselesness, and then
even more attempting to give the uselesness some value.
Gandalf Grey
<dh@.> wrote in message news:t5k9d2dce4inpfhev...@4ax.com...
I'll have to agree that what you're saying is possible. One of the truly
sad things about our 'reality' is that there are always at least two reasons
for believing something. One would be the obvious...it's true. The other
is because for some reason we 'need to believe it.'
The three requirements of knowledge according to Russell, et.al. are.
1. You have to believe something is true.
2. You have to have sufficient reason to believe it is true.
3. It has to be true.
The 'need to believe' destroys point 2. Whenever 'knowledge' is based on
psychological requirements and not on logic or evidence, I think it could be
truthfully said that we don't "know" what we think we know.
That's why zealotry of any kind is a dangerous thing.
Keeping "an open mind" in the face of incontrovertible evidence is silly of
course, but when we're talking about things like cosomology and universals,
there's never going to be much in the way of evidence....certainly not
conclusive evidence.
We can catch theories on logical contradictions and so on, and that's all to
the good. It keeps us all on our toes, but pretending we can 'prove' any of
this conclusively is at best the arrogance of ignorance and at worst a
reflection of psychological insecurity.
Well, that's the trick, isn't it? When we construct these props to personal
need, we are forced to try to give them some credibility. I think that's
true of all of us. It's only the zealous few who feel the need to make 'the
world' drink the same Kool Aid we're drinking.
dh
We're too early in development to know about that, imo.
>We can catch theories on logical contradictions and so on, and that's all to
>the good. It keeps us all on our toes, but pretending we can 'prove' any of
>this conclusively is at best the arrogance of ignorance and at worst a
>reflection of psychological insecurity.
Maybe concentrating on which alleged charcteristics appear to be
impossible and therefore could not be attributed to God if he exists would
be a more worthwhile approach. But so far the main objective with
non-theists or whatever appears to be to show that God could not exist,
so anything considering how he actually could would go against that.
Or conceed that they have less than we're trying to say they do, if any
at all.
Gandalf Grey
<dh@.> wrote in message news:uopfd29gl6rftig6f...@4ax.com...
I agree. It's either that, or we're running into a psychoneurological wall
and there's no way beyond it because we don't have the hard-wiring to
understand the concepts. The other possibility is that we don't have the
language to voice the concepts. There's a group of fairly intelligent
people working on problems like this right now and some of them are saying
that we're looking at an abyss that is in part formed by our lacking the
mathematical grammar to cope with the divide.
Yeah. But like most mature adult minds, you're assuming the individual has
the integrity to admit to a personal failure. Some people just aren't built
to succeed at that kind of honesty, and some aren't even going to try.
>
wcb
>
>
> Yeah.  But like most mature adult minds, you're assuming the individual
> has the integrity to admit to a personal failure.  Some people just aren't
> built to succeed at that kind of honesty, and some aren't even going to
> try.
>
Russell's paradox!
Fallacy of Divisons!
Fallacy of Composition!
You make major errors all the time and refuse to correct yourself.
Corrected, you repeat lies.
You are thoroughly dishonest as well as wrongheaded.
And thus a major hypocrite.
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Yeah. But like most mature adult minds, you're assuming the individual
>> has the integrity to admit to a personal failure. Some people just aren't
>> built to succeed at that kind of honesty, and some aren't even going to
>> try.
>>
>
> Russell's paradox!
> Fallacy of Divisons!
> Fallacy of Composition!
Tu quo que fallacy noted.
But, even were that the case, why would a supposed 'honorable man' like
yourself want to compound a felony by wrapping your arms around your own
errors?
Answer: you're a fraud.
dh
><dh@.> wrote in message news:uopfd29gl6rftig6f...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 10:58:15 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
>>
>>>Keeping "an open mind" in the face of incontrovertible evidence is silly
>>>of
>>>course, but when we're talking about things like cosomology and
>>>universals,
>>>there's never going to be much in the way of evidence....certainly not
>>>conclusive evidence.
>>
>> We're too early in development to know about that, imo.
>
>I agree. It's either that, or we're running into a psychoneurological wall
>and there's no way beyond it because we don't have the hard-wiring to
>understand the concepts.
If God exists I'm convinced that he understands how the mind
works, and computers, and has mastered all such things to the
point that he's blended it all together into life as we know it, and
also many other ways we know nothing about. I believe he would
be capable of as much or little input as he would want from each
individual life form, which would give him understanding that we
can't even begin to imagine. You could live your entire life with
someone and still not know what it's like to "be" them, when in
contrast I believe God could know what it's like to "be" any life
form he wants to. I can't prove it, but if he exists I believe that's
how it is, so the limitations Barwell etc try to place on him seem
extremely ignorant and childish to me.
>The other possibility is that we don't have the
>language to voice the concepts. There's a group of fairly intelligent
>people working on problems like this right now and some of them are saying
>that we're looking at an abyss that is in part formed by our lacking the
>mathematical grammar
And for most people the mathematical concepts and relationships
between things, I would think. I don't know anyone who has a good
understanding of the mathematical relationships between a photon
and gravity, for example...or even a photon and an electron...
>to cope with the divide.
It would take a lifetime just learning how to try to think about it,
and then we'd still have great limitations just because of ignorance
in other areas.
. . .
>>>>>It's sad really.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is. So much time and thought wasted on uselesness, and then
>>>> even more attempting to give the uselesness some value.
>>>
>>>Well, that's the trick, isn't it? When we construct these props to
>>>personal
>>>need, we are forced to try to give them some credibility.
>>
>> Or conceed that they have less than we're trying to say they do, if any
>> at all.
>
>Yeah. But like most mature adult minds, you're assuming the individual has
>the integrity to admit to a personal failure.
His case is the opposite extreme, where he just makes some things
up and then claims them to be true. But when his failures are clearly
pointed out to him, he refuses to learn from that information.
>Some people just aren't built to succeed at that kind of honesty, and some
>aren't even going to try.
That is if he can actually recognise his own failure. Whether he can
or not, as you said it's a sad thing. It's hard to say which would be the
sadder: If he's honestly stupid, or dihonestly less stupid?
Gandalf Grey
<dh@.> wrote in message news:k12kd2hvp5qurfko2...@4ax.com...
I agree.
wbarwell
> I can't prove it, but if he exists I believe that's
> how it is, so the limitations Barwell etc try to place on him seem
> extremely ignorant and childish to me.
>
Not MY limitations, stupid.
I just show you ANY claims made about god collapse.
God is rather disprovable. There is an entire Universe
out there and its trning out we can understand this
universe and how it works. But not if you stick with gods,
fairies and boogeymen.
The limitations of god are real, palpable and
stupid.
We will probably become something like gods
ourself over centuries. But not if you
believe in gods.
Sticking with failure is failure.
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent men without
religion, and religious men without intelligence."
[Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)]
Cheerful Charlie
Gandalf Grey
"wbarwell" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12dkd6v...@corp.supernews.com...
> dh@. wrote:
>
>> I can't prove it, but if he exists I believe that's
>> how it is, so the limitations Barwell etc try to place on him seem
>> extremely ignorant and childish to me.
>>
>
> Not MY limitations, stupid.
> I just show you ANY claims made about god collapse.
So far you haven't shown how much of any claim against ANY god collapses.
>
> God is rather disprovable.
Maybe so. But you haven't done it.
wcb
>
> So far you haven't shown how much of any claim against ANY god collapses.
>>
You are a flake and a kook.
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)
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
Gandalf Grey
"wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12dkmok...@corp.supernews.com...
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> So far you haven't shown how much of any claim against ANY god collapses.
>>>
>
>
> You are a flake and a kook.
But not enough of a flake to be fooled by your lame arguments.
> 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.
wcb
>
> But not enough of a flake to be fooled by your lame arguments.
A moron fooled by process theology pseudoscience is
a flake.
You are ignorant and logic dyslexic.
Go away.
You are a flake and a kook.
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  Â
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 relatedÂ
doctrines, theologies, and dogmas are eliminated.
THE MAJOR CLASSES OF GODS.
1.  The greatest god imaginableÂ
    A. Supergods - AshvaraÂ
The greatest god imaginable must be free of all limits
of logic.  But then that god, perfect, all good, allÂ
powerful has no limits to eliminating evil. Evil exists,
so this god cannot exist.  Its self contradictory    Â
2.  Omni-Everything class class godsÂ
Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, creation
of all combine to create multiple overlapping
incompatibilities and contradictions that show
the class of OEC gods cannot exist.
3.  TranscendentÂ
4.  ImmanentÂ
5.  MayaÂ
6.  IdealismÂ
These classes of gods map onto OEC class gods
and are thus shown to be impossible.  An OEC god isÂ
impossible whether its transcendent or immanent.
Each attribute simply adds further problems
to an OEC class god.
7.  DeismÂ
    A. Maps to OECÂ
    B. Maps to PantheistismÂ
Deism class gods thus fail.
8.  PantheismÂ
    A. AllegoricalÂ
    B. MetaphysicalÂ
Allegorical is useless.  There is no mechanismÂ
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 godÂ
This class of gods has failed.  Designed as aÂ
metaphysical rather than revealed god, process
theology from the beginning invented its own
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> But not enough of a flake to be fooled by your lame arguments.
>
> A moron fooled by process theology pseudoscience is
> a flake.
Actually process philosophy is the philosophy of science, Barwell. Process
Philosophy is the American philosophy of science as developed by Pierce,
James, Whitehead and Bergsen. It continues to be the philosophy of science.
Process theism is only a small part of a larger metaphysics that you don't
have the first clue about.
>
> You are ignorant and logic dyslexic.
Irony.
> Go away.
Or what?
> 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
wcb
>
> Actually process philosophy is the philosophy of science, Barwell.Â
> Process Philosophy is the American philosophy of science as developed by
> Pierce, James, Whitehead and Bergsen.  It continues to be the philosophy
> of science. Process theism is only a small part of a larger metaphysics
> that you don't have the first clue about.
>
Bullshit.
Most physicists don't know any of these jerks.
Again, Whitehead defined reality as a series of short lived
events particles lasting tiny fractions of seconds
being teh underlying reality.
It is simply false. Protons, electrons and other
particles can have lifespans that are unlimited.
A neutron by itself has a halflife of 11 minutes.
Some particles do have short halflives.
Whitehead was wrong and its not science at all,
its failed metaphysics. It was an idea that
turns out to be wrong.
You are simply ignorant and wrong.
You don't know Whitehead's basic claims, you
don't know basic physics.
Your blustering ignorance is just that.
Process baloney has as much to do with science as
phrenology.
All the name dropping above is just that.
PT is Whitehead's defined metaphysics and its
dead and gone.
No physicists need the others for jack all.
Rutherford discovered the electron and the fact
atoms were not single particles. Planck showed
us quantum physics. Einstein proved photons
are quantum in nature.
This is science. These other goofs played no
role in any thing real or notable.
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually process philosophy is the philosophy of science, Barwell.
>> Process Philosophy is the American philosophy of science as developed by
>> Pierce, James, Whitehead and Bergsen. It continues to be the philosophy
>> of science. Process theism is only a small part of a larger metaphysics
>> that you don't have the first clue about.
>>
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Most physicists don't know any of these jerks.
That's a lie.
Time as a self-reflective process Text - Physics Forums Library ... into a
process philosophy - perhaps not very far from the process philosophy ...
There is also a process physics under development by Reg Cahill at the ...
www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-61890.html - 21k - Cached -
Similar pages
Process Philosophy But of course, this cannot really be what process
philosophy actually is. ... Moreover, process philosophers have reason to
favor quantum physics over ...
plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/ - Similar pages
Chapter 6, Physics and Process Philosophy, T Chapter 6, Physics and Process
Philosophy, T. Eastman, P Clayton and H.Keeton, eds. State University of New
York, Press, Albany, NY, 2003 ...
www.georgetown.edu/faculty/earleyj/constraints.htm - 94k - Cached -
Similar pages
Amazon.com: World in Process: Creativity and Interconnection in ... To make
these connections, a brief introduction to process philosophy is provided so
that the new physics and process thought can be integrated. ...
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0791447502?v=glance - 88k -
Cached - Similar pages
process philosophy: Information From Answers.com Relationship of process
philosophy and process physics. Whitehead's view gained sudden prominence
again in 2003 to 2005 as various of Einstein's predictions ...
www.answers.com/topic/process-philosophy - 90k - Cached - Similar
pages
Process physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Process physics is a new
and radical information theoretic approach to the modeling of ...
assumptions to the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_Physics - 27k - Cached - Similar pages
Physics and the ultimate significance of time: Bohm, Prigogine ... Physics
and the ultimate significance of time: Bohm, Prigogine, and Process
philosophy. [The Physics Teacher 24, 376 (1986)] ...
link.aip.org/link/?PHTEAH/24/376/2 - Similar pages
Event Information This conference will explore the ways that the process
philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead can be used to produce an
interpretation of quantum physics that ...
www.physics2005.org/cgi-bin/wyp_events_dtl.cgi?wypid=69690 - 3k -
Cached - Similar pages
usppru The University of Saskatchewan Process Philosophy Research Unit
(USPPRU) is unique ... "The Physics and Philosophy of Measurement", Friday,
April 11, 2003 ...
ca.processnetwork.org/ - 41k - Cached - Similar pages
Process Thought and Modern Physics Process Philosophy and Modern Physics.
Yutaka Tanaka. Contents. Reality Indivisible -- Quantum Physics and the
Philosophy of Organism: ...
pweb.sophia.ac.jp/~yutaka-t/process/tetugaku/new/physics.html - 49k -
Cached - Similar pages
Amazon.com: Physics and Whitehead: Quantum, Process, and ... Leading
scholars explore the connections between quantum physics and process
philosophy. From the Back Cover Featuring discussions and dialogue by
prominent ...
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0791459136?v=glance - 79k -
Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.amazon.com ]
Metanexus Institute The basis for examining parallels of physics with
process philosophy, avers Jungerman, comes when supposing that the ultimate
units of existence are events. ...
www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/show_article2.asp?id=4941 - 34k -
Cached - Similar pages
WHITEHEAD'S PROCESS PHILOSOPHY. ('remedy' study notes 11-93) ...
Whitehead saw - as in particle physics - that things exist as a PROCESS - an
event thus ...
web.ionsys.com/~remedy/Whitehead's%20Process%20Philosophy.htm - 36k -
Cached - Similar pages
Toward a Science of Consciousness 3: What Does Quantum Mechanics ...
Burgers, JM (Reviews of Modern Physics,35:145, 1963) was the first to point
out that Whitehead's "process philosophy" is uniquely suited to accommodate
the ...
cognet.mit.edu/posters/TUCSON3/Malin.html - 12k - Cached - Similar
pages
SUPERMAX OF THEORIES PROCESS PHYSICS Process physics has its origin in a
paper by Reginald T. Cahill and ... employs identical assumptions to the
process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. ...
www.psyclops.com/hawking/forum/printmsg.cgi?period=month&msg=75133 -
19k - Cached - Similar pages
SUNY Press :: Physics and Whitehead Leading scholars explore the connections
between quantum physics and process philosophy. Featuring discussions and
dialogue by prominent scientists and ...
www.sunypress.org/details.asp?id=60837 - 79k - Cached - Similar pages
> Again, Whitehead defined reality as a series of short lived
> events particles lasting tiny fractions of seconds
> being teh underlying reality.
Wrong. Whitehead defined the ultimate basis of metaphysical existence as a
series of processes and events. In doing so he merely took the emphasis off
of matter and placed it on process. That's a metaphysics that's been
embraced by environmental science, ecology, physics, economics, sociology
and many other sciences. It is a school of philosophy that harkens back to
Charles Pierce, William James, Henri Bergsen and the school of American
philosophy that you don't know a damned thing about.
> You are simply ignorant and wrong.
> You don't know Whitehead's basic claims, you
> don't know basic physics.
Irony
"wcb" <wbarw...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12d7i6f...@corp.supernews.com...
> Sniper wrote:
>> What's not so easily done apparently, is
>> covering up your own ignorance, Barwell.
>> I notice you haven't bothered to respond
>> to my question in a prior exchange here:
>> Barwell wrote:
>> ::When the Universe was first born, there was
>> ::no matter and no life. It took hundreds of
>> ::millions of years to cool down so life
>> ::might exist.
>> Sniper replied:
>> :<Snort>. Excuse me, Professor Einstein, but if
>> :there was no matter, what exactly cooled down?
> No matter, we got matter after it cooled down enough
> for quarks to form.
Before WHAT cooled down, Brainiac?
And this from the guy who touts himself as a genius.
wcb
>
>> Most physicists don't know any of these jerks.
>
> That's a lie.
>
> Time as a self-reflective process Text - Physics Forums Library ... into a
> process philosophy - perhaps not very far from the process philosophy ...
> There is also a process physics under development by Reg Cahill at the ...
> www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-61890.html - 21k - Cached -
> Similar pages
A few jerks on a forum are not the working scientists of the
last century to date. Not the greats, the movers and shakers.
Show me process crap of Whitehead to be found in any
well known working scientists' papers.
Einstein, Bohr, Planck, Heienburg, Feynman, Gell-Mann?
Show me where any physics is based on Whitehead's process crap.
It is no more than physics is based on Genesis 1.
Bloviating bullshitter. You dig up bloviating net nonsense
from a freak like yourself and pass that off as science, as
a whole, all the best and brightest?
Liar. Fraud.
Perhaps some jerk named Cahill will someday
get something together? Surrrrrrreeeeee....
Jerk. That's your proof?
Lying, pompous, igorant, game playing Jerk!
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>>> Most physicists don't know any of these jerks.
>>
>> That's a lie.
>>
>> Time as a self-reflective process Text - Physics Forums Library ... into
>> a
>> process philosophy - perhaps not very far from the process philosophy ...
>> There is also a process physics under development by Reg Cahill at the
>> ...
>> www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-61890.html - 21k - Cached -
>> Similar pages
>
>
> A few jerks on a forum are not the working scientists of the
> last century to date. Not the greats, the movers and shakers.
Whitehead was one of the greats, you moron. His philosophy was effected by
and effected every name on your list, and is particularly significant in
Quantum Mechanics where it continues to play a central role to this day.
Time as a self-reflective process Text - Physics Forums Library ... into a
process philosophy - perhaps not very far from the process philosophy ...
There is also a process physics under development by Reg Cahill at the ...
www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-61890.html - 21k - Cached -
Similar pages
Process Philosophy But of course, this cannot really be what process
philosophy actually is. ... Moreover, process philosophers have reason to
favor quantum physics over ...
plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/ - Similar pages
Chapter 6, Physics and Process Philosophy, T Chapter 6, Physics and Process
Philosophy, T. Eastman, P Clayton and H.Keeton, eds. State University of New
York, Press, Albany, NY, 2003 ...
www.georgetown.edu/faculty/earleyj/constraints.htm - 94k - Cached -
Similar pages
Amazon.com: World in Process: Creativity and Interconnection in ... To make
these connections, a brief introduction to process philosophy is provided so
that the new physics and process thought can be integrated. ...
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0791447502?v=glance - 88k -
Cached - Similar pages
process philosophy: Information From Answers.com Relationship of process
philosophy and process physics. Whitehead's view gained sudden prominence
again in 2003 to 2005 as various of Einstein's predictions ...
www.answers.com/topic/process-philosophy - 90k - Cached - Similar
pages
Process physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Process physics is a new
and radical information theoretic approach to the modeling of ...
assumptions to the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_Physics - 27k - Cached - Similar pages
Physics and the ultimate significance of time: Bohm, Prigogine ... Physics
and the ultimate significance of time: Bohm, Prigogine, and Process
philosophy. [The Physics Teacher 24, 376 (1986)] ...
link.aip.org/link/?PHTEAH/24/376/2 - Similar pages
Event Information This conference will explore the ways that the process
philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead can be used to produce an
interpretation of quantum physics that ...
www.physics2005.org/cgi-bin/wyp_events_dtl.cgi?wypid=69690 - 3k -
Cached - Similar pages
usppru The University of Saskatchewan Process Philosophy Research Unit
(USPPRU) is unique ... "The Physics and Philosophy of Measurement", Friday,
April 11, 2003 ...
ca.processnetwork.org/ - 41k - Cached - Similar pages
Process Thought and Modern Physics Process Philosophy and Modern Physics.
Yutaka Tanaka. Contents. Reality Indivisible -- Quantum Physics and the
Philosophy of Organism: ...
pweb.sophia.ac.jp/~yutaka-t/process/tetugaku/new/physics.html - 49k -
Cached - Similar pages
Amazon.com: Physics and Whitehead: Quantum, Process, and ... Leading
scholars explore the connections between quantum physics and process
philosophy. From the Back Cover Featuring discussions and dialogue by
prominent ...
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0791459136?v=glance - 79k -
Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.amazon.com ]
Metanexus Institute The basis for examining parallels of physics with
process philosophy, avers Jungerman, comes when supposing that the ultimate
units of existence are events. ...
www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/show_article2.asp?id=4941 - 34k -
Cached - Similar pages
WHITEHEAD'S PROCESS PHILOSOPHY. ('remedy' study notes 11-93) ...
Whitehead saw - as in particle physics - that things exist as a PROCESS - an
event thus ...
web.ionsys.com/~remedy/Whitehead's%20Process%20Philosophy.htm - 36k -
Cached - Similar pages
Toward a Science of Consciousness 3: What Does Quantum Mechanics ...
Burgers, JM (Reviews of Modern Physics,35:145, 1963) was the first to point
out that Whitehead's "process philosophy" is uniquely suited to accommodate
the ...
cognet.mit.edu/posters/TUCSON3/Malin.html - 12k - Cached - Similar
pages
wcb
>
> Whitehead was one of the greats, you moron.  His philosophy was effected
> by and effected every name on your list, and is particularly significant
> in Quantum Mechanics where it continues to play a central role to this
> day.
>
He was a moron.
His 'physics' he pulled out of his ass.
It ain't true.
In 1999, Hartshorne admitted ths process god
did not work with physics.
You posted trying to prove this was no so
much shit, about some clown still WORKING
making this wor, maybe, someday.
Whitehead might have been a great mathematician, he
was a pseudoscientist at all else.
He jabbered a mile a minute, and it was all crap.
Some people get fooled by pseudoscientists that jabber
a mile a minute.
All this crap can't be wrong!
Yes it is.
The religion on-line essay that quoted
Hartshorne tells the tale. When you pull your
own metaphysical physics out your hairy butt,
and hang god on it, it ain't gonna work.
And no matter how an ignortant net kook like yiou
rants and raves, that is that.
Worse yet, on AA, nobody gives a shit.
But do waste your time of process pseudoscience.
prove you are a kook.
Whitehead screwed up. Its all a waste of time.
wcb
**WHY IS HE DOING THIS?
All of the above points to one inescapable conclusion: Richard Hanson is
running a one-man agitprop campaign intended to silence or dilute the
message of people he considers conservative "ratbastards" and "sheep."
In fact, with respect to alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, he even
admits to it:
Richard Hanson writes, quote:
Yeah, yeah...right, schmuck. Just like the last time you were going
to "retire." It's been a real hoot watching you and your alter ego,
Wayne declare you're leaving time and again only to see you post your
vomit again in a few days or even hours.
Just checked my butt, RatGirl. Not even a bruise.
I guess that's because I've been kicking YOUR Right Wing rear ever
since you began to post your replies.
Oh, well... It hardly matters. Your newsgroup's deader than a
wrapped mackerel. The majority of the posters are wrapped up in
replying to myself and the loyal progressives that post here leaving
you and your bizarre twit friends without the time to spew your usual
hate rhetoric.
All in all, it's very satisfying.
Ta, ta. Loonette.
I woof last. You can depend on it.
RH
Endquote
[Message-ID: <31db689b.4662...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>#1/1]
In other words, Gandalf Grey (Richard Hanson) openly admitted that he is
deliberately jamming this newsgroup, using massive cross posting, copyright
infringement, ad-hominem attacks, personal slander, mail-bombing, and other
tactics.
wcb
>
> Whitehead was one of the greats, you moron.  His philosophy was effected
> by and effected every name on your list, and is particularly significant
> in Quantum Mechanics where it continues to play a central role to this
> day.
>
> Time as a self-reflective process Text - Physics Forums Library ... into a
> process philosophy - perhaps not very far from the process philosophy ...
> There is also a process physics under development by Reg Cahill at the ...
> www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-61890.html - 21k - Cached -
> Similar pages
>
>
> Process Philosophy But of course, this cannot really be what process
> philosophy actually is. ... Moreover, process philosophers have reason to
> favor quantum physics over ...
> plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/ - Similar pages
>
>
> Chapter 6, Physics and Process Philosophy, T Chapter 6, Physics and
> Process Philosophy, T. Eastman, P Clayton and H.Keeton, eds. State
> University of New York, Press, Albany, NY, 2003 ...
> www.georgetown.edu/faculty/earleyj/constraints.htm - 94k - Cached -
> Similar pages
Typical Gandy. Backed into a corner he googles wildly for
anything that looks like it might be meaningful and
spraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaays wildly PThweeewwwwwww!
No, Einstein had no use for this stuff, nor Planck,
nor Heisenberg, Nor Dirac, nor Pauli, More Fermi, none of the REAL
physicists. None of the greats.
If you claim otherwise, put the approving quotes of
these people as regards Whitehead's metaphyisical
mumbo-jumbo and put it right here.
-------------------->
You are on. Show us its meanigful to anybody great
and worthy. Grabbing crap off off google and spraying
it around does not fool anybody.
You keep doing this which is now to be expected from
you, you are a jerk. That game doesn't fool anybody.
----------
PROCESS THEOLOGY AND GOD.
W.C. Barwell 8-12-06
Why process theology metaphysics and a
process theology god do not work and why
the process theology class of gods cannot exist.
Process theology was based on Alfred North
Whitehead's
process metaphyics, which was created at the turn
of
the century. Later, Whitehead tried to add god to
his
metaphysics and this became known as process
theology.
After the death of Whitehead, others, most
notable
Charles Hatshorne took up where Whitehead left
off.
What is the basics of Process
theology/metaphysiocs?
Based on pre-Socreatic Greek philospher,
Heraclitus,
all is change. How does that work with the real
world?
http://www.ctr4process.org/about/process/GodUniver
se.shtml
"A perspective from process theology...
by William Stegall
(Reprinted from Creative Transformation [Autumn
1994],
the quarterly magazine of Process & Faith)
...
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."
....
Here we see, Alfred North Whitehead made up his
own process
process metaphysical 'physics'. The problem is he
was doing this
at the turn of the century and guessed wrong. Real
physics
starting with Rutherford's discovery of the
electron dealt a lot
with real particles and their nature. We now know
particles
are not transitory as per Whitehead. Some
particles do have
short lifespanes but these usually do not last,
most certainly
not ina chain of 'events' Many such as electrons
are persistant.
Protons, made of quarks, are persistant. A Neutorn
by itself out of
a nucleus has a half life of 11 minutes.
Thus process metaphysics, based on an idea by
Heraclitus,
derived a phsyics that simply is false. The world
is not
a series of transcient particles in a chain of
being.
Thus hanging a new god off of this error is bound
to
create problems. Since these transient events do
not exist,
god that is a transient energy event is
impossible.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?tit
le=2829
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics
by David Ray Griffin
1. Introduction
Charles Hartshorne rests the case for his
philosophy on its coherence and its adequacy to
the facts of experience, including the
well-established teachings of the physical
sciences. And yet he has admitted over the years,
and continues to admit in the Library of Living
Philosophers volume (PCH), that there is one issue
on which he has not reconciled his philosophy with
physical theory. One of the problems raised in the
essay by William Reese is, Hartshorne says, "a
problem, even the problem, for me: how God as
prehending, caring for, sensitive to, the
creatures is to be conceived, given the current
non-Newtonian idea of physical relativity,
according to which there is apparently no unique
cosmic present or unambiguous simultaneity" (PCH
616). In responding to Lewis Ford, Hartshorne
says: "I also agree that relating the divine
becoming to the problem of simultaneity in physics
exceeds my capacity. . . . I feel incapable of
solving the problem, and it seems clear that
Whitehead did not solve it" (PCH 642; see also
724).
The failure to find a solution has not been for
want of trying. As Frederick Post helpfully
documented in 1973 in "Relativity Theory and
Hartshorne’s Dipolar Theism," Hartshorne has been
perplexed by this difficulty from the earliest
period of his writing (TPP 89). And several other
writers have joined the effort: John T. Wilcox
stimulated much of the discussion with "A Question
from Physics for Certain Theists" (JR 40) in 1961;
Lewis Ford asked "Is Process Theism Compatible
with Relativity Theory?" (JR 48) in 1968; Paul
Fitzgerald published "Relativity Physics and the
God of Process Philosophy" (PS 2) in 1972; then
Hartshorne himself, after hearing lectures by, and
having discussions with, Henry Stapp in 1977,
wrote an essay in response (PS 7:183-91); the
issue of Process Studies in which Hartshorne’s
essay appeared also contained an essay by Stapp,
which was "edited" by William B. Jones (PS
7:173-82). (After receiving Hartshorne’s essay,
Lewis Ford hoped to obtain from Stapp a summary of
his views understandable to non-physicists, so
that readers would know something of the position
to which Hartshorne was responding; upon failing
to get a new essay from Stapp, Ford called upon
Jones, who pieced together the essay for PS from
some of Stapp’s writings.1 In the next issue,
Jones offered his own contribution to the
discussion [PS 7: 250-61].)
Hartshorne’s response to Stapp’s views, which I
will discuss near the end of this essay,
constitutes a puzzling episode in the history of
his thinking on this issue: In this response,
Hartshorne seems to say that the problem has been
overcome; and yet in PCH, which appeared over a
decade later, he refers to it, as we have seen, as
the problem, freely saying that he has no
solution.
...
Thus we see that the process theology god, based
on metaphysical claims does not work with modern
physics.
It is not unreasonable to expect a god created out
of whole clothe, defined by Whitehead, and
others, and not based on real physics from the
beginning, is not going to work with real physics
a centurylater.
"A. H. Johnson reports having asked Whitehead: "If
God never ‘perishes’, how can he provide data for
other actual entities? Data are only available
after the ‘internal existence’ of the actual
entity ‘has evaporated’ (PR 220/336)." In
response, Whitehead reportedly said: "This is a
genuine problem. I have not attempted to solve it"."
Thus process theology is full of unsolved problems
that makes it less than succesfu at explaining
the world, much less god and god's interaction with
the world.
The process theology god does not work with real world
physics, and Whitehead's own internal metaphysics as
Whitehead admitted above.
For that reason, we may safely reject the process theology
class of gods as viable.
Other aspects of this god's failure are the fact this god
is defined as all good, and thus has all the disabilities
of the problem of evil, same as other types of gods.
If god is all good and powerful (but not all powerful)
where is god when Hiters or Stalin's kill tens of millions?
Why is this god so much like nothing?
There is then, no reason to consider this type of god,
it solves no problems. Even if it did worked with real world
physics which it does not.
End
Gandalf Grey
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> Whitehead was one of the greats, you moron. His philosophy was effected
>> by and effected every name on your list, and is particularly significant
>> in Quantum Mechanics where it continues to play a central role to this
>> day.
>>
>> Time as a self-reflective process Text - Physics Forums Library ... into
>> a
>> process philosophy - perhaps not very far from the process philosophy ...
>> There is also a process physics under development by Reg Cahill at the
>> ...
>> www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-61890.html - 21k - Cached -
>> Similar pages
>>
>>
>> Process Philosophy But of course, this cannot really be what process
>> philosophy actually is. ... Moreover, process philosophers have reason to
>> favor quantum physics over ...
>> plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/ - Similar pages
>>
>>
>> Chapter 6, Physics and Process Philosophy, T Chapter 6, Physics and
>> Process Philosophy, T. Eastman, P Clayton and H.Keeton, eds. State
>> University of New York, Press, Albany, NY, 2003 ...
>> www.georgetown.edu/faculty/earleyj/constraints.htm - 94k - Cached -
>> Similar pages
>
> Typical Gandy.
Yes. Typically proving that you're a liar and a fraud.
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> Whitehead was one of the greats, you moron. His philosophy was effected
>> by and effected every name on your list, and is particularly significant
>> in Quantum Mechanics where it continues to play a central role to this
>> day.
>>
>
> He was a moron.
> GOD IS DISPROVEN
wcb
>
>>> Whitehead was one of the greats, you moron. His philosophy was effected
>>> by and effected every name on your list, and is particularly significant
>>> in Quantum
He was an idiot.
...
are not transitory as per Whitehead. Some
particles do have
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?tit
le=2829
1. Introduction
documented in 1973 in "Relativity Theory and
Hartshorne’s Dipolar Theism," Hartshorne has been
perplexed by this difficulty from the earliest
period of his writing (TPP 89). And several other
writers have joined the effort: John T. Wilcox
stimulated much of the discussion with "A Question
from Physics for Certain Theists" (JR 40) in 1961;
Lewis Ford asked "Is Process Theism Compatible
with Relativity Theory?" (JR 48) in 1968; Paul
Fitzgerald published "Relativity Physics and the
God of Process Philosophy" (PS 2) in 1972; then
Hartshorne himself, after hearing lectures by, and
having discussions with, Henry Stapp in 1977,
wrote an essay in response (PS 7:183-91); the
issue of Process Studies in which Hartshorne’s
essay appeared also contained an essay by Stapp,
which was "edited" by William B. Jones (PS
7:173-82). (After receiving Hartshorne’s essay,
Lewis Ford hoped to obtain from Stapp a summary of
his views understandable to non-physicists, so
that readers would know something of the position
to which Hartshorne was responding; upon failing
to get a new essay from Stapp, Ford called upon
Jones, who pieced together the essay for PS from
some of Stapp’s writings.1 In the next issue,
Jones offered his own contribution to the
discussion [PS 7: 250-61].)
Hartshorne’s response to Stapp’s views, which I
will discuss near the end of this essay,
constitutes a puzzling episode in the history of
his thinking on this issue: In this response,
Hartshorne seems to say that the problem has been
overcome; and yet in PCH, which appeared over a
decade later, he refers to it, as we have seen, as
the problem, freely saying that he has no
solution.
...
Thus we see that the process theology god, based
on metaphysical claims does not work with modern
physics.
It is not unreasonable to expect a god created out
of whole clothe, defined by Whitehead, and
others, and not based on real physics from the
beginning, is not going to work with real physics
a centurylater.
"A. H. Johnson reports having asked Whitehead: "If
God never ‘perishes’, how can he provide data for
other actual entities? Data are only available
after the ‘internal existence’ of the actual
entity ‘has evaporated’ (PR 220/336)." In
response, Whitehead reportedly said: "This is a
genuine problem. I have not attempted to solve it"."
Thus process theology is full of unsolved problems
that makes it less than succesfu at explaining
the world, much less god and god's interaction with
the world.
The process theology god does not work with real world
physics, and Whitehead's own internal metaphysics as
Whitehead admitted above.
For that reason, we may safely reject the process theology
class of gods as viable.
Other aspects of this god's failure are the fact this god
is defined as all good, and thus has all the disabilities
of the problem of evil, same as other types of gods.
If god is all good and powerful (but not all powerful)
where is god when Hiters or Stalin's kill tens of millions?
Why is this god so much like nothing?
There is then, no reason to consider this type of god,
it solves no problems. Even if it did worked with real world
physics which it does not.
End
wcb
...
are not transitory as per Whitehead. Some
particles do have
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?tit
le=2829
1. Introduction
End
--
wcb
about process stupidity, go away.
...
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?tit
le=2829
1. Introduction
Hartshorne’s Dipolar Theism," Hartshorne has been
perplexed by this difficulty from the earliest
period of his writing (TPP 89). And several other
writers have joined the effort: John T. Wilcox
stimulated much of the discussion with "A Question
from Physics for Certain Theists" (JR 40) in 1961;
Lewis Ford asked "Is Process Theism Compatible
with Relativity Theory?" (JR 48) in 1968; Paul
Fitzgerald published "Relativity Physics and the
God of Process Philosophy" (PS 2) in 1972; then
Hartshorne himself, after hearing lectures by, and
having discussions with, Henry Stapp in 1977,
wrote an essay in response (PS 7:183-91); the
issue of Process Studies in which Hartshorne’s
essay appeared also contained an essay by Stapp,
which was "edited" by William B. Jones (PS
7:173-82). (After receiving Hartshorne’s essay,
Lewis Ford hoped to obtain from Stapp a summary of
his views understandable to non-physicists, so
that readers would know something of the position
to which Hartshorne was responding; upon failing
to get a new essay from Stapp, Ford called upon
Jones, who pieced together the essay for PS from
some of Stapp’s writings.1 In the next issue,
Jones offered his own contribution to the
discussion [PS 7: 250-61].)
Hartshorne’s response to Stapp’s views, which I
will discuss near the end of this essay,
constitutes a puzzling episode in the history of
his thinking on this issue: In this response,
Hartshorne seems to say that the problem has been
overcome; and yet in PCH, which appeared over a
decade later, he refers to it, as we have seen, as
the problem, freely saying that he has no
solution.
...
Thus we see that the process theology god, based
on metaphysical claims does not work with modern
physics.
It is not unreasonable to expect a god created out
of whole clothe, defined by Whitehead, and
others, and not based on real physics from the
beginning, is not going to work with real physics
a centurylater.
"A. H. Johnson reports having asked Whitehead: "If
God never ‘perishes’, how can he provide data for
other actual entities? Data are only available
after the ‘internal existence’ of the actual
entity ‘has evaporated’ (PR 220/336)." In
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>>>> Whitehead was one of the greats, you moron. His philosophy was effected
>>>> by and effected every name on your list, and is particularly
>>>> significant
>>>> in Quantum
>
> He was an idiot.
>
> PROCESS THEOLOGY AND GOD.
> W.C. Barwell 8-12-06
>
> Why process theology metaphysics and a
> process theology god do not work and why
> the process theology class of gods cannot exist.
Can't wait to see this.
>
> Process theology was based on Alfred North
> Whitehead's
> process metaphyics, which was created at the turn
> of
> the century.
Actually it was printed in 1930.
> Later, Whitehead tried to add god to
> his
> metaphysics
That's a lie. His speculations concerning a god show up in earlier works
than in "Process and Reality."
> and this became known as process
> theology.
>
> After the death of Whitehead, others, most
> notable
> Charles Hatshorne took up where Whitehead left
> off.
>
> What is the basics of Process
> theology/metaphysiocs?
> Based on pre-Socreatic Greek philospher,
> Heraclitus,
> all is change. How does that work with the real
> world?
Apparently quite well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_physics
> The process theology god does not work with real world
> physics, and Whitehead's own internal metaphysics as
> Whitehead admitted above.
Apparently you're not on safe ground with that statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_physics
Additionally, quantum mechanics fits quite well with process philosophy.
>
> For that reason, we may safely reject the process theology
> class of gods as viable.
As viable for what?
>
> Other aspects of this god's failure are the fact this god
> is defined as all good, and thus has all the disabilities
> of the problem of evil, same as other types of gods.
What problems are those? The only problem an all good god has with evil is
if that god is also all powerful.
Since no one has made that claim for process theology, your twisted
repasting of the Argument from evil won't work.
>
> There is then, no reason to consider this type of god,
> it solves no problems.
It doesn't need to "solve" a problem in order to be real, Barwell.
You were supposed to prove the logical impossibility of any possible god.
You're now reduced to screeching that the PT god "solves no problems."
Explain how that creates a logical proof.
If you can take time out from your attempt at right wing character
assassination of me, that is.
Gandalf Grey
> PROCESS THEOLOGY AND GOD.
> W.C. Barwell 8-12-06
>
> Why process theology metaphysics and a
> process theology god do not work and why
> the process theology class of gods cannot exist.
Can't wait to see this.
>
> Process theology was based on Alfred North
> Whitehead's
> process metaphyics, which was created at the turn
> of
> the century.
Actually it was printed in 1930.
> Later, Whitehead tried to add god to
> his
> metaphysics
That's a lie. His speculations concerning a god show up in earlier works
than in "Process and Reality."
> and this became known as process
> theology.
>
> After the death of Whitehead, others, most
> notable
> Charles Hatshorne took up where Whitehead left
> off.
>
> What is the basics of Process
> theology/metaphysiocs?
> Based on pre-Socreatic Greek philospher,
> Heraclitus,
> all is change. How does that work with the real
> world?
Apparently quite well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_physics
> The process theology god does not work with real world
> physics, and Whitehead's own internal metaphysics as
> Whitehead admitted above.
Apparently you're not on safe ground with that statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_physics
Additionally, quantum mechanics fits quite well with process philosophy.
>
> For that reason, we may safely reject the process theology
> class of gods as viable.
As viable for what?
>
> Other aspects of this god's failure are the fact this god
> is defined as all good, and thus has all the disabilities
> of the problem of evil, same as other types of gods.
What problems are those? The only problem an all good god has with evil is
if that god is also all powerful.
Since no one has made that claim for process theology, your twisted
repasting of the Argument from evil won't work.
>
> There is then, no reason to consider this type of god,
> it solves no problems.
It doesn't need to "solve" a problem in order to be real, Barwell.
Gandalf Grey
> Nobody in AA gives a runny rat's bottom
> about process stupidity, go away.
Or what, Barwell? You going to copy your troll friend, Kurt Nicklas and
post some lies about me?
Thanks for revealing your true nature.
> PROCESS THEOLOGY AND GOD.
> W.C. Barwell 8-12-06
>
> Why process theology metaphysics and a
> process theology god do not work and why
> the process theology class of gods cannot exist.
Can't wait to see this.
>
> Process theology was based on Alfred North
> Whitehead's
> process metaphyics, which was created at the turn
> of
> the century.
Actually it was printed in 1930.
> Later, Whitehead tried to add god to
> his
> metaphysics
That's a lie. His speculations concerning a god show up in earlier works
than in "Process and Reality."
> and this became known as process
> theology.
>
> After the death of Whitehead, others, most
> notable
> Charles Hatshorne took up where Whitehead left
> off.
>
> What is the basics of Process
> theology/metaphysiocs?
> Based on pre-Socreatic Greek philospher,
> Heraclitus,
> all is change. How does that work with the real
> world?
Apparently quite well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_physics
> The process theology god does not work with real world
> physics, and Whitehead's own internal metaphysics as
> Whitehead admitted above.
Apparently you're not on safe ground with that statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_physics
Additionally, quantum mechanics fits quite well with process philosophy.
>
> For that reason, we may safely reject the process theology
> class of gods as viable.
As viable for what?
>
> Other aspects of this god's failure are the fact this god
> is defined as all good, and thus has all the disabilities
> of the problem of evil, same as other types of gods.
What problems are those? The only problem an all good god has with evil is
if that god is also all powerful.
Since no one has made that claim for process theology, your twisted
repasting of the Argument from evil won't work.
>
> There is then, no reason to consider this type of god,
> it solves no problems.
It doesn't need to "solve" a problem in order to be real, Barwell.
wcb
>
>> Process theology was based on Alfred North
>> Whitehead's
>> process metaphyics, which was created at the turn
>> of
>> the century.
>
> Actually it was printed in 1930.
>
Roots of that go back further, to about WWI.
He didn't wake up one morning in 1929
and write it all down before breakfast.
(1929) Process and Reality, New York: Macmillan
At the University of London, Whitehead turned his attention to issues in the
philosophy of science. Of particular note was his rejection of the idea
that each object has a simple spatial or temporal location. Instead,
Whitehead advocated the view that all objects should be understood as
fields having both temporal and spatial extensions. For example, just as we
cannot perceive a Euclidean point that has position but no magnitude, or a
line that has length but no breadth, it is impossible, says Whitehead, to
conceive of a simple spatial or temporal location. To think that we can do
so involves what he called "The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness," the
error of mistaking the abstract for the concrete.[2]
As Whitehead explains, it is his view "that among the primary elements of
nature as apprehended in our immediate experience, there is no element
whatever which possesses this character of simple location. ? [Instead,] I
hold that by a process of constructive abstraction we can arrive at
abstractions which are the simply located bits of material, and at other
abstractions which are the minds included in the scientific scheme."[3]
Whitehead's basic idea was that we obtain the abstract idea of a spatial
point by considering the limit of a real-life series of volumes extending
over each other, for example, a nested series of Russian dolls or a nested
series of pots and pans. However, it would be a mistake to think of a
spatial point as being anything more than an abstraction; instead, real
positions involve the entire series of extended volumes. As Whitehead
himself puts it, "In a certain sense, everything is everywhere at all
times. For every location involves an aspect of itself in every other
location. Thus every spatio-temporal standpoint mirrors the world."[4]
Further, according to Whitehead, every real-life object may be understood as
a similarly constructed series of events and processes. It is this latter
idea that Whitehead later systematically elaborates in his imposing Process
and Reality (1929), going so far as to suggest that process, rather than
substance, should be taken as the fundamental metaphysical constituent of
the world. Underlying this work was also the basic idea that, if philosophy
is to be successful, it must explain the connection between objective,
scientific and logical descriptions of the world and the more everyday
world of subjective experience.
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>>> Process theology was based on Alfred North
>>> Whitehead's
>>> process metaphyics, which was created at the turn
>>> of
>>> the century.
>>
>> Actually it was printed in 1930.
>>
> Roots of that go back further, to about WWI.
>
> He didn't wake up one morning in 1929
> and write it all down before breakfast.
Unlike most of your arguments, net punk
wcb
>
> Can't wait to see this.
>
You bleated how all those great scientists used Whiteheads
crap in physics.
I called you on your bullshit.
Where is the list of all the great and
well known physicists that mention whitehead's crap
in their writings. Einstein, Dirac, Pauli, Heisenberg?
Where is it Hanson?
Where is the list?
Process bullshit is bunkum.
Gandalf Grey
> PROCESS THEOLOGY AND GOD.
> W.C. Barwell 8-12-06
>
> Why process theology metaphysics and a
> process theology god do not work and why
> the process theology class of gods cannot exist.
Can't wait to see this.
>
wcb
> Unlike most of your arguments, net punk
Where is that list of famous scientists you
say supports Whiteheads's process idiocy?
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.
Revisions:
Ver 1.0: Original FAQ
Ver 1.1: Minor text changes and inclusion of additional cited material and.
Examples of Grey's reprisal and debating tactics included.
**WHO IS GANDALF GREY AND WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT HIM?
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfg...@infectedmail.com> is a major abuser of the
Usenet system.
Grey illegally reposts some 8000 copyrighted print/web articles per year
into at least 9 political newsgroups. On an annual basis, Grey dumps over
80 megabytes of copyrighted traffic into Usenet. Using these actions, Grey
is attempting to drown opposing voices by "jamming" the newsgroups with a
massive amount of illegally reprinted copyrighted material that supports his
political views.
It is this behavior, and ONLY this behavior, that qualifies Grey for
notoriety. His other posts, and the content of articles whose copyright
protection he has violated is irrelevant to this FAQ, which is solely
devoted to his behavior and not his politics.
**WHAT IS GREY'S POSTING HISTORY?
Grey's abuse of Usenet has been an on-going event since at least March of
1995 under a series of identities. "Grey" is only his latest handle or
identity when posting in political groups. This current identity dates from
November 1996 when he dropped his previous public persona
are...@ix.netcom.com (RH) in an attempt to "go underground."
His notice of identity change is dated from 11/28/1996. It reads in part:
Quote:
From: are...@ix.netcom.com (RH)
Subject: !GOODBYE?
Date: 1996/11/28
Message-ID: <329f18e5.355...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
references: <329DE53D.1...@globaldialog.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Netcom
x-netcom-date: Thu Nov 28 5:32:22 PM CST 1996
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups:
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.newt-ging
rich,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.dear.whitehouse,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.pol
itics.usa.conservatives,talk.politics.misc
[snip]
I want to thank all the many lurkers who have written me letters of
support for my endeavors. To those liberal and progressive posters
who choose to remain, I wish luck and wit and the patience necessary
to deal with the mentally ill. To those lunatics who favored me with
their attention, don't think I've stopped watching you or that you can
ever really be free of me. I'm as close to you as your guilty
consciences, as inevitable as your worst nightmares.
RH
End Quote
The "RH" stands for Richard Hanson (sometimes spelled by others as Hansen).
Richard Hanson is Gandalf Grey's name in real life.
It should be noted that Hanson did not entirely abandon the use of his
"area51" identity for Usenet Posting. He continued to use this identity to
post on non-political news groups until at least 1998, if not later.
However, Hanson has used "Gandalf Grey" for political messages since 1996.
Neither "area51" nor any previous identity has been used to post in the
political newsgroups since 11/1998, as far as this author can determine.
**WHAT WERE GREY'S PREVIOUS ONLINE IDENTITIES?
He adopted and began to use the handle of are...@ix.netcom.com (RH) at the
end of July, 1996 and used this for approximately 6 months before abandoning
it for the current "Gandalf Grey" in political posts.
Prior to using his "area51" persona, Hanson used the handle
"R...@zetetic.org". He used this handle for about 2 weeks, until this
identity was linked to the handle he was using for the previous year:
"rhan...@ix.netcom.com(Hanson)."
Hanson began posting political messages on or about March 2, 1995 using
"rhan...@ix.netcom.com(Hanson)." An early article establishes his liberal
credentials and his point of view:
Quote:
From: rhan...@ix.netcom.com (Richard Hanson)
[snip]
Subject: Re: !ATTENTION LIMBICILES!
Date: 2 Mar 1995 19:12:59 GMT
[snip]
Message-ID: <3j55br$...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
[snip]
I agree with virtually everything you've said here. The only problem
is, I think a lot of the reactionary CNs [conservanazis] are too stupid
to recognize the sarcasm of your posting.
The problem is that for many years we've all realized that there was a
sizeable rightest minority in America. And I think we've all sat at
enough dinner tables with the "silent majority" to hear the kind of
sniveling bigotries that make it all too clear what the conservatives
actually "stand" for. The only thing that made the conservative
postion tolerable was that most of these people kept their mouths shut,
realizing that most people would at least pay lip service to the
fundamental principles of democracy.
wcb
>
>> The process theology god does not work with real world
>> physics, and Whitehead's own internal metaphysics as
>> Whitehead admitted above.
It doesn't work, punk.
Its a farce.
The Richard Hanson faq
http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd
The Gandalf Grey Usenet Abuse FAQ, Version 1.1:
**IS HE A "NET LEGEND?"
No. Hanson is an abuser, not a legend.
Quote:
From: tri...@clemson.campus.mci.net (Chris Kevlahan)
Subject: Dear Mr. Hanson
Date: 1996/04/17
Message-ID: <4l1i12$...@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
wcb
>> Nobody in AA gives a runny rat's bottom
>> about process stupidity, go away.
>
> Or what, Barwell?
The Richard Hanson faq
http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd
Quote:
net.legends committee
Hanson
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Dear Mr. Hanson
Sincerely,
**WHAT IS HIS PERSONAL HISTORY AND BIO?
The information about Richard Hanson comes from the Usenet archives at
Google.
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.
....
Go away Mr. Sophmore debate scum.
Gandalf Grey
news:12dqd9m...@corp.supernews.com...
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>>> The process theology god does not work with real world
>>> physics, and Whitehead's own internal metaphysics as
>>> Whitehead admitted above.
>
> It doesn't work, punk.
Apparently quite well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_physics
> The process theology god does not work with real world
> physics, and Whitehead's own internal metaphysics as
> Whitehead admitted above.
Apparently you're not on safe ground with that statement.
Gandalf Grey
"Kurt Nicklas wannabee, wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12dqdej...@corp.supernews.com...
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>> Nobody in AA gives a runny rat's bottom
>>> about process stupidity, go away.
>>
>> Or what, Barwell?
wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12dmllu...@corp.supernews.com...
> THE PROBLEMS OF A GOD THAT IS GREATER THAN ANYTHING IMAGINABLE
> (Short version)
> W.C. Barwell 8-10-06
>
> God is considered to be the greatest thing imaginable.
1. Define your term.
2. Recognize that this is a Anselmian term and only represents one small
theological concept.
> There are biblical proof texts for this claim
Which you cannot use if we note that the bible is both self-contradictory
and contradictory of reality as we know it.
If you're going to present a logical proof, you need to stop appealing to
authority.
> , there
> are no gods other than god and god is all powerful.
> "God does as he pleases", he has no limits.
Which does not preclude the possibility that god has at least as much
self-restraint as a moderately moral human being. In other words, there's
no reason to believe that God does not place self-imposed limits on god's
own power.
>
> ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL PROOF
> Anselm used this as the start of his ontological proof.
> Consider the greatest thing imaginable, god. God must have
> existence or he is not the greatest thing imaginable.
The Ontological 'proof' has been disproved by other older arguments. Do you
have anything that's novel?
>
> A MAGIC GOD
> Now let us start from there and see where this all leads.
But you're not "starting from there." See above.
> A god that is not limited by logic is greater than a god
> that is limited by logic.
Non sequitur. According to the Doctrine of Simplicity, all of god's
attributes flow as a whole from the nature of god. If god created all, then
god created the underlying logic of reality. This means that the underlying
logic of reality flows from the nature of god. Therefore, god IS logic and
the workings and limitations of logic are the limitations imposed on reality
by God.
> A god not limited by logic
> is essentially "magic", he can do whatever he wants to do
> without limits.
This does not follow. See above.
>
> LOGIC LIMITED GOD CANNOT BE OMNIPOTENT
But since god IS logic. Your argument does not apply.
> GOD AND LOGIC AND EVIL
> God is explicitly claimed to be all good, hating evil,
> and wishing to eliminate evil. Why cannot an all powerful
> and all god god not eliminate all evil.
This has been handled by the Logical Argument from Evil and the Evidential
Argument from Evil. What do you have that is novel or an improvement on
what already exists?
> HIDDEN SOLUTIONS
> Some theodicists claim that we simply cannot see the hidden
> solutions of god to problems of theodicy. But we still
> have a lot of evil, the idea that maybe there is a hidden
> reason for this evil is ludicrous.
Prove it.
> PROBLEMS FOR GOD
> A. God cannot be omnipotent as claimed.
No argument of yours makes this plain.
> God is limited by logic.
Non sequitur. See above.
> B. Nor can god be the greatest thing imaginable.
You haven't shown this at all.
> The greatest thing imaginable cannot exist as
> shown above
Where have you shown that?
> D. We don't know what logic is, where it comes from.
1. That's not necessarily true.
2. Even if it was true, it would fail as an argument against the possible
existence of a god.
> It would seem then a Universe that has logic in it
> god cannot control is something beyond god, god cannot
> have created it. Contradicting claims god created all.
That's ridiculous. Nothing you've written suggests that logic might not
have been created by god or is an artifact of everything being created by a
god.
1. As has been shown, Logic may emanate from the very nature of god.
2. Logic may be an unavoidable artifact of creation itself.
3. The fact that 'something might be beyond god' does not mean that god
would not still be the most powerful being or force in the universe.
> E. If to avoid that somebody claims logic is not part of
> the Universe, what is it?
But no one needs to claim that. You seem to be drawn to dualism for the
same reason that it was once so popular. You don't understand the nature of
various forces in the universe, hence you're drawn to a reality built out of
simultaneously acting forces without visible connection.
> F. What is logic, one thing, many? Where does it come from?
> Logic is a great problem for god. And theology.
Logic is a great problem for you, Barwell. You haven't shown that it's a
great or even small problem for god.
> G. We do not see disembodied beings doing things, thinking
> and acting. And we do see things that do these things are made
> of matter and energy, subject to laws of physics. There is no
> logical way for a god to exist.
There is no logical reason for a god NOT to exist, in the terms of your
arguments.
> Logic seems then to rule out god.
Non sequitur.
> We must imagine some utterly unknown supernatural physics
> that we do not see, to explain beings we do not see. and
> all that leaves the problem of logic unexplained.
1. We need to imagine utterly unknown things RIGHT NOW in order to explain
physics.
2. Things unseen do not either explain or fail to explain logic. You're
attempting to conflate knowledge with logic. You have no reason to make
that conflation.
>
> So the question, "What is the greatest imaginable thing?"
> leads to the observation that the greatest imaginable god
> cannot exist and other problems for god. A. - G.above are
> surely not exhaustive.
Or even explanatory, since everything you've said is either non-novel or
obscurantist.
> And theology has nothing to say
> worth listening to on the subject of logic. without which
> it can say little about god, really.
1. The fact is that on its face, your argument has nothing to say worth
listening to about logic.
2. As poor a job as much of the theology out there has dealt with logic, a
great deal of theology is far more logical and honest than you're being.
wcb
>
>>>> The process theology god does not work with real world
>>>> physics, and Whitehead's own internal metaphysics as
>>>> Whitehead admitted above.
>>
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.
---
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>>>>> The process theology god does not work with real world
>>>>> physics, and Whitehead's own internal metaphysics as
>>>>> Whitehead admitted above.
>>>
> PROCESS THEOLOGY AND GOD.
Apparently quite well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_physics
> The process theology god does not work with real world
> physics, and Whitehead's own internal metaphysics as
> Whitehead admitted above.
Apparently you're not on safe ground with that statement.
wcb
>
> It doesn't need to "solve" a problem in order to be real, Barwell.
>
It ain't possibly real goofy.
here is a cleaned up version, I will sometime
soon scan process crap for a long list of assertions
not proven, most of 'em goofy and bizarre.
Now, where is that list of great physicists
that you claimed were influenced by this process
theology pseudoscience?
Dirac, Pauli, Hiesneberg, Fermi, Rutherford,
Einstein, Fitzgerald?
You made a claim, back it up, asshole!
PROCESS THEOLOGY AND GOD.
W.C. Barwell 8-12-06
Why process theology metaphysics and a
process theology god do not work and why
the process theology class of gods cannot exist.
Process theology was based on Alfred North
Whitehead's process metaphyics, which was created
post WWI, Whitehead's "Process and Reality" was
published in 1929, and is considered the basic
document of process theology/metaphysics.
Whitehead did add god to his metaphyical phyics,
metaphysics and his metaphyical theology became
known as process theology.
After the death of Whitehead in December of 1947,
others, most notable Charles Hartshorne took up
where Whitehead left off.
What is the basics of Process theology/metaphysics?
Based on pre-Socratic Greek philospher, Heraclitus,
all is change. How does that work with the real
world?
http://www.ctr4process.org/about/process/GodUniver
se.shtml
"A perspective from process theology...
by William Stegall
(Reprinted from Creative Transformation [Autumn
1994], the quarterly magazine of Process & Faith)
...
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."
....
Here we see, Alfred North Whitehead made up his
own process process metaphysical 'physics'. The
problem is he was doing this in the 1920's and
guessed wrong. Real physics starting with J.J
Thompson's discovery of the electron in 1984 dealt
a lot with real particles and their nature. We
now know particles are not transitory as per
Whitehead. Some particles do have short lifespans
but these usually do not last, most certainly
not in a chain of 'events' Many such as electrons
are persistant. Protons, made of quarks, are persistant.
A Neutron by itself out of a nucleus has a half life
of 11 minutes.
Thus process metaphysics, based on an idea by
Heraclitus, derived a phsyics that simply is
false. The world is not a series of transcient
particles in a chain of being. Many particles
are extremely persistant.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?tit
le=2829
1. Introduction
that makes it less than succesful at explaining
the world, much less god and god's interaction with
the world.
The process theology god does not work with real world
physics, and Whitehead's own internal metaphysics as
Whitehead admitted above.
For that reason, we may safely reject the process theology
class of gods as viable.
Other aspects of this god's failure are the fact this god
is defined as all good, and thus has all the disabilities
of the problem of evil, same as other types of gods.
If god is all good and powerful (but not all powerful)
where is god when Hiters or Stalin's kill tens of millions?
Why is this god so much like nothing?
There is then, no reason to consider this type of god,
it solves no problems. Even if it did worked with real world
physics which it does not.
Whitehead's metaphyics is defined, not derived from
observation such as physics is. This metaphysics is
a huge melange of odd ideas, terms, claims, and
definitions, none of which are proven, many of which
are vague, poorly defined and not well explained.
It is thus not true, nor useful, and this metaphysics
is not even capable of making its defined god work
with everyday physics.
Thus, process metaphysics is at best a peudoscience,
and its god not viable as a class of gods or a specific
god.
(End)
End
dh
>dh@. wrote:
>
>> I can't prove it, but if he exists I believe that's
>> how it is, so the limitations Barwell etc try to place on him seem
>> extremely ignorant and childish to me.
>>
>
>Not MY limitations, stupid.
>I just show you ANY claims made about god collapse.
>
>God is rather disprovable. There is an entire Universe
>out there and its trning out we can understand this
>universe and how it works. But not if you stick with gods,
>fairies and boogeymen.
>
>The limitations of god are real, palpable and
>stupid.
>
>We will probably become something like gods
>ourself over centuries.
Which should but does not tell you something.
>But not if you believe in gods.
That has nothing to do with it. It's another limitation
that YOU are attempting to create.
>Sticking with failure is failure.
That's what people have been pointing out about
your failure.
dh
>Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> So far you haven't shown how much of any claim against ANY god collapses.
>>>
>
>
>You are a flake and a kook.
>
>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.
Gandalf Grey
> You made a claim, back it up, asshole!
Couldn't have said it better myself.....
From: wbarwell <wbarw...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.talk.creationism,alt.philosophy.debate,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Does God Exist?
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 05:42:21 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <cq0gu6$7...@library2.airnews.net>
References: 1103304751.6b9de4428728e571de47f367dde14ea9@teranews
Barwell wrote:
One cannot prove god exists, but one can easily disprove
god exists. Since god does not exist, that is why he cannot
be proven to exist. Since god can be proven not to exist,
he cannot possibly exist.
Gandalf Grey
<dh@.> wrote in message news:1pvrd25gt3cftc7ml...@4ax.com...
Well put.
Gandalf Grey
> Gandy net bully shits off again.
>>> IS THERE A GOD? NO.
>>> Strong Atheism's answer.
>>> Part 1.
>>>
>>> 1. First of all, this proof "God" does not exist
>>> is aimed at an entire class of gods, not particular
>>> gods.
>>
>> This remark alone is an explict admission that you've been lying up to
>> this point.
>
> No, its just an admission I underestimated the intelligence
> of SOME of my audience.
That's a lie. You explicitly stated originally that you had a simple proof
that no god can exist.
So now you're lying about it after failing to demonstrate such a proof.
>
>
>>
>>>This is the class of gods that are
>>> omni-everything and creator of all. If I can
>>> disprove an entire class of gods, all particular gods
>>> that belong to that class are collectively disproven
>>> too. This is an efficient, and sensible approach to
>>> disproving god, by which I mean the god of major
>>> religious and theological traditions.
>>
>> No, it is not. Since your argument aims at attributes of God, not at the
>> existence of god per se. The god of the major traditions might still
>> exist apart from the attributes the theologians have ascribed to that
>> god.
>>
>
> 1. Tom is a doctor.
> 2. Tom has never been to college and is illiterate
> 3. Since doctors are literate and have to attend college, Tom
> is obviously not a doctor as claimed.
So what?
1. Bill exists.
2. It is said that Bill never picks his nose.
3. But Bill does pick his nose.j
4. Hence Bill does not exist????
Your argument fails. No single attribute or group of attributes necessarily
implies existence would be possible were it proved those attributes were
false.
>
> What I do is point out that the class of omni-everything gods
> similarly contains claims that disprove each other.
When are actually going to do that? You've failed to prove, for example
that omniscience cannot exist without omnipotence.
You keep making claims about what you're going to do, but you never actually
do it.
>
> Naturally, all claim specific examples of that class likewise
> are impossible.
Do you even know what the above sentence means?
>
> You reek of stupidity and intellectual incapability.
Ad hom in place of a defence noted.
>
>> 1. Bill Smith exists.
>> 2. It is said by his admirers that Bill Smith always tells the truth.
>> 3. But Bill Smith cannot always tell the truth.
>> 4. Hence Bills Smith does not exist?????
>
>
> That is just dumb. Just pathetic.
Ad homs 2 and 3
A particularly, glaringly stupid
> strawman.
Ad hom 4
You have to be the most dishonest man I have met
> on the net this month.
Ad hom 5
If you're done throwing your usual hysterical fit, answer the criticism.
>
> A class of gods is said to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and
> creator of all.
Said by who? You? Who made you the decider of what a "class of gods" is
going to consist of.
And even if we give you your homegrown class of gods, you fail to prove
anything by it. The fact remains that any god within this class of gods
could still exist were it shown that one or a combination of the assertions
made about that god is not true.
Once again....
>> 1. Bill Smith exists.
>> 2. It is said by his admirers that Bill Smith always tells the truth.
>> 3. But Bill Smith cannot always tell the truth.
>> 4. Hence Bills Smith does not exist?????
> If god creates all, and is omniscient, he knows what his creations will do
> in the future. Any possible god must then examine each potential act and
> all it to come to pass or something else to be substituted. he and olny
> he creates or decides what is created.
Not necessarily. A creator god could know exactly what's going to happen in
a deterministic universe by simply knowing the beginning position of all
molecules and physical entities. That does not mean that god has to examine
each potential act and 'will it' to come to pass. Foreknowledge is not the
same as actively forcing everything to a particular end.
> Free will cannot exist for man. Man can decide exactly nothing at all.
So? The same holds true in the deterministic world of the scientific
materialist.
>
> Thus all evil is god's doing, personally and knowingly, all evils from
> greatest to smallest.
Absurd. Foreknowledge does not imply personal responsibility. You presume
that omnipotence has to be a part of the mix. It doesn't. There's no
logical law that insists that a creator god must be all powerful.
>
> Evil =/= omnibenevolent as explicitly claimed.
Claimed but nowhere proven. There's nothing about being all good that
implies that god can will evil out of existence. Again, you presume that
god must be omnipotent, but there's no logical necessity for this
conclusion.
>
> All gods that are said to be omniscient and creator of all are thus
> contradictory
Nope. You're utterly wrong. Omniscience nowhere implies creation, and both
together are not at all contradictory. You can assert it but you can't
prove it.
> Omnibenevolent implies good and evil exist, do I have to make THAT
> explicit
> too, for the jerk squad? I think I shall just in case.
Ad hom 6. Who was the "King of Ad homs," again?
>
> Omnipotence. Omnipotence mean all powerful. That means not
> affected by other forces or powers. Time is does not affect god.
That presumes that Time is a "power." You have no justification in making
such a claim. Like most of your claims, it's rhetorical. Time could be
just as real for an omnipotent being as it is for any other being.
> God is outside and transcedent to time.
Why?
> Time does not affect god so
> theer is thus no past, present, future. To god all is now.
> Thus god created all at once in all its particulars to the smallest
> physical
> degree.
Not necessary and going way too far as a presumption. According to
materialistic determinism, the closest thing to a dogma in science, the only
thing necessary to bring all things to their present state is to arrange
them in a particular sequence at the beginning. Everything follows from
that. Hence God need not know the smallest physical particular of
everything, nor did everything have to be created at once.
> Thus again, there is no free will and all evil acts are thus god's
> doing.
There may in fact be no free will, but that is not necessarily god's doing.
All things that occur happen because of the initial state. If god is not
omnipotent, god is as powerless to prevent evil as anyone else. God may in
fact have foreknowledge, but that does not imply control.
>
> Thus the class of all gods that are said to be omnipotent, are thus
> transcedent to time, not bound by time, and thus free will cannot exist
> mthus evil is all god's doing.
You haven't shown this. Omnipotence does not imply transcendence to time
because you haven't shown how time is a "power."
You fail again.
Do you see where you're going wrong yet?
> All gods of the class of god that are omnipotent are thus all evil.
That may be true, but you haven't actually addressed the issue. You've
talked about the supposed contradiction of omnibenevolence and omniscience
while leaving omnipotence essentially untouched.
> And "Bob's" yer uncle.
Irrelevent comment noted.
>
>
> Thus the concept of a class of creators gods that are
> omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent is impossible.
You haven't shown that.
> And last but not least, little Gandalf flailing his arms futility as he
> trails smoke and fire into the eternal pit of bad ideas and lack
> of reasoning ability.
Ad hom 7 noted.
>> An obvious absurdity.
>>
>> And so your argument fails. The fact that God cannot logically be
>> omnipotent in the extreme sense that the Christian tradition insists,
>> does
>> not in itself prove that God does not exist.
>>
>
> It does show the god that is indeed dogmatically claimed to be omnipotent
> cannot exist.
> Obviously.
>
Only in your preselected strawman universe. And as I've shown, you've
failed miserably even to prove your own handpuppet argument.
If you can't even prove a pre-selected, skewed strawman argument, how are
you possibly going to attack the real article, Barwell?
> "Extreme sense" is your strawman.
>
> For example Aquinas states god is only omnipotent in regards to real
> thhings, not say bad definitiions like "unmarried batchelors".
> I don't have to pick a strawman extreme omnipotence to do the job.
As demonstrated, you flop before you even make it to omnipotence.
>>> Judaism,
>>> Christianity, Islam, Brahamnistic Hinduism.
>>> Some have complained that this does not disprove all
>>> gods. True, but this is not meant to, it is meant
>>> only to deal with the gods that are the main problem
>>> for this world,
>>
>> Another unsupported assertion. Nowhere does your original argument prove
>> this universal claim. Religion in general has caused tremendous
>> suffering
>> in the world, but your argument nowhere addresses this particular
>> problem.
>>
>
> Supported. You are being irrational here.
Bald assertion without support noted.
>
>
>>> the gods of 4 1/2 billion believers.
>>> The god that is the source of fundamentalism,
>>> bigotry, fanaticism, anti-intellectualism and
>>> backwardness. There are a few other classes of gods
>>> but numerically by believers, these are not that
>>> widespread or important.
>>
>> According to whom? You may be competent to recognize what is
>> 'widespread'
>> but who are you to decide what is "important?"
>>
>
> According to all with brains.
Dismissive reply noted. Where's your actual evidence? Where's your actual
defence?
> for example, without religious idiots in the US would we be having
> problems with creationists assaulting science teaching in schools, and in
> may cases, all but gutting science education in backard states and cities?
I repeat...who are YOU to decide what is important?
>
> You are a fool. and wrong.
Ad hom 8.
>
>>> But it is possible to sort
>>> them into a few classes of gods and likewise disprove
>>> each class.
>>
>> Which you have not done and cannot do. Hence, another lie on your part.
>>
>
> Which I do, stop lying, it makes the peanut gallery laugh at your
> pretensions.
Ad hom 9. If you've done it, you should be able to point to it
specifically. You can't because you haven't and can't.
>
>>> Here I am primarily looking at the class
>>> of omni-everything creator gods. This does not mean
>>> other classes of gods cannot also be likewise disproven.
>>
>> And it doesn't mean they can be.
>>
>
> You lame and wrong opinion.
> as if you know zip about it.
Ad hom 10
>
>>> Or are totally unimportant. But basically the
>>> omni-everything class of gods is so far above any
>>> other god that once it is debunked, its hard to
>>> step down to distinctly second rate gods.
>>
>> Why is this so and why should it be so? 100s of years ago, the vast bulk
>> of
>> humanity believed that space was filled with an ether. Did this make the
>> fact that it was not filled with ether "unimportant?"
>>
>
> Non sequitur.
It's a perfect analogy. You're attempting to float the notion that the only
gods that need 'debunking' are the gods of the most powerful and numerous
religious traditions.
1. You havne't succeeded in debunking them
2. You haven't demonstrated why those particular gods are the only important
ones.
3. You haven't offered any rational basis upon which a god becomes "second
rate."
>
>
>
>
>
>>> Its like
>>> stepping down from a Cadillac to a bicycle.
>>
>> Why? You're making a value judgement about something that you're
>> attempting
>> to prove or disprove. Hence, you're committing the naturalistic fallacy.
>>
>>>
>
> Fallacy.
Bald assertion without support noted. If it's a fallacy you should be able
to prove that it's a fallacy.
>
>
>>> 2. A BASIC DEFINITION THE CLASS OF GOD,
>>> OMNI-EVERYTHING AND CREATOR OF ALL
>>> Also known here as the Grand God of Grand Theology.
>>>
>>> There is no evidence whatsover for god. All we
>>> have to work from is claims, or assertions made
>>> about god. I have chosen the following 8 as they are
>>> all part of all great and large religions and
>>> theological traditions of the world.
>>
>> But mostly because you've decided that they are the weakest factors. In
>> other words, you still haven't attacked the assertion of God's existence,
>> only assertions concerning God's attributes.
>>
>
> I need only weak factors to work with and basically all basic claims of
> this
> class of god are indeed, weak,
> Sorry, thems just the facts. All we have are weak assertions.
You've made one honest statement above. William Barwell NEEDS weak factors
to work with. This is the case because you can't handle stronger factors.
>
> I mean, what facts are there that save omnipotence, omnibenevolnece
> and omniscience, free will and this class of gods.
> Nothing. Nothing at all.
Real existence is hardly "nothing." And, as noted, you've flopped trying to
debunk everything save omnipotence, and THAT is only because you've never
actually attempted to deal with it.
>
>
>>> Most of 4 1/2
>>> billion believers will agree with most of these,
>>> and these are all dogmatic to most main religions.
>>
>> Fallacy of composition. Not even all Christians agree with these points.
>>
>
> Most...
So what. That's precisely what makes it the fallacy of composition.
You keep smacking into that fallacy, and you keep embracing it as though it
were a great truth. All it is is a great mistake.
>
> We will fid a few wimpy newage type salad bar christians and so on.
> But conservatives, evangelicals, fundies and moslems mostly agree god is
> omni-everything. Sorry.
Fallacy of *argumentum ad numerum*. I don't give much of a damn what most
people think. I give a damn about whether a logical proof is a logical
proof.
When are you going to come up with one.
>
>
>>> If we can show these create contradictions, we can show that
>>> the class omni-everything creator gods, the Grand God,
>>> cannot exist.
>>
>> No, you cannot. All you can prove is that any particular attribute is
>> illogical within that particular argument.
>>
>
>
> We can. You simply are wrong. As usual.
But you can't demonstrate why. Again, Barwell runs away from defending his
own argument.
>
>>> All we have to work with are assertions
>>> and logic.
>>
>> Get on with it, Barlow.
>>
>
> Read faster.
>
>>>
>>> The general overarching definition of god as per
>>> the major religions of the world is:
>>>
>>> A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
>>> B. God has free will.
>>> C. God is the creator of all.
>>> D. God is omnipotent.
>>> E. God is omnibenevolent.
>>> F. God is omniscient.
>>> G. God is that which nothing more powerful
>>> can be imagined.
>>>
>>> These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
>>> for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
>>> Islam, and Hinduism.
>>
>> 1. you're utterly wrong about the beliefs that form Hinduism and
>> obviously
>> have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
>
> I do, you do not.
Hinduism does not incorporate all the characteristics you list, you fool.
Hinduism is not even monotheistic.
>
>
>> 2. Judaism is NOT Christianity, and you're attributing to the one what is
>> strictly true only of the other.
>
>
> I didn't say it was, did I?.
>>> These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
>>> for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
>>> Islam, and Hinduism.
> You lied again.,
>>> These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
>>> for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
>>> Islam, and Hinduism.
> Strawman, reading comprehension problem, basic inability to read and
> understand simple english sentence written at a 6th grade level for your
> reading pleasure.
Ad hom 11
>
>> 3. The same can be said for Islam.
>>
>>>
>>> Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
>>> logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
>>> omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
>>> attributes, and may be considered special aspects
>>> of omnipotence.
>>
>> No they aren't and you can't prove that they are. There is no logical
>> reason that a being could not be omnibenevolent without being omnipotent.
>> The same is true of omniscience. Neither knowledge nor goodness are
>> power, hence neither omnibenevolence nor omniscience are Omnipotence.
>
> Sighhhhhhhhhh. Omnipotence means all powerful. Including logically,
> omniscience, and the power of being morally perfect and more.
Sorry, omniscience and omnibenevolence are not necessary attributes of
omnipotence. They aren't even implied by omnipotence. Some of the kindest
people in the world are relatively powerless.
> Simply wrong. You are not logical nor thinking.
Bare assertion, unsupported by an argument or facts.
> Since being evil is by all accounts of theology a defect, god cannot have
> defects because then he is not all powerful.
Circular argument. Plus being flat out wrong.
1. All accounts of theology do not account evil as a defect in god, only in
man. Many accounts of god attribute the direct creation of evil to god.
2. Evil is considered a defect in man by the major theologies, not a defect
in god.
>
> This is old dogma.
Dogma that you have no understanding of judging from your arguments.
>>
>> We're beginning to see that your argument is as fallacious in its details
>> as it was in its major presumption.
>
>
> We see you are still wrong about everything
Then you should be able to present arguments and facts as to why I'm wrong,
not a dozen ad homs and unsupported assertions.
So far, you've made no defense of your argument, Barlow.
>
>
>
>>> 3. We can abstract a class of gods, omni-everything,
>>> creator gods from these 8 characteristics.
>>
>> Except that you haven't proved the 8 characteristics at this point.
>
> You are obviously a goofball.
> 1. God is personal, god has conciousness and will
> 2. God is intelligent
> 3. God has free will
> 4. God created all
> 5. God is omnipotent
> 6. God is omniscient
> 7. God is omnibenevolent
> 8. God is that which is so great, nothing greater
> can be imagined.
>
> All are dogmatic among these basic religious traditions.
1. No they aren't.
2. No one of them, nor any group of them has anything to do with the
existence of God.
Let's go back to our analogous argument.
>> 1. Bill Smith exists.
>> 2. It is said by his admirers that Bill Smith always tells the truth.
>> 3. But Bill Smith cannot always tell the truth.
>> 4. Hence Bills Smith does not exist?????
This is your basic problem. Even a malicious creep like Martin McPhillips
could see it. You're attempting to prove something about the EXISTENCE of
god by making a mess of attacking arguments ABOUT God.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> 5. CLASSES OF GODS
>>>
>>> It is important to note here in 2. that this is a
>>> definition not for a particular god, but an
>>> entire class of gods. This is key to this disproof
>>> which is general in nature.
>>
>> Except that your list is both incomplete and internally illogical as I've
>> shown.
>>
>>>
>>> 6. If we disprove the entire class of gods by examining
>>> the logical implications of a few claims, all secondary
>>> claims are also destroyed.
>>
>> 1. That's not necessarily true.
>> 2. You haven't disproved the entire class.
>
> we are about t get there, stop squawking and keep reding.
Give me something of value to read.
>
>>
>>> We need not examine claims of god's simplicity or whether
>>> god is immanent or transcendent or other similar claims.
>>
>> Which you can't begin to do.
>
> I could, its for another time.
>
> Classes of transcedent or immanent gods go away when
> they are claimed to be of class of omni-everything anyway.
> Other problems go away automatically, following them in flames
> the hole of bad ideas.
You haven't shown this to be the case as demonstrated above. Since you
haven't succeeded in dealing with the 8 points you mention, you obviously
can't dismiss derivative claims.
>
> Siggghhhhhhhh. This isn't going anywhere, is it?
> Waste of my time to see you failing to think.
Ad hom 12. When are you actually going to present a logical argument,
Barwell?
>>
>>> We need not break down omnibenevolence into secondary
>>> associated claims such as such as mercy, justice, or
>>> implied claims, though we might mention their destruction
>>> in passing when appropriate, and damage done to such
>>> concepts of damnation, or punishment or sin.
>>
>> Such destruction as you have NOT caused, due to the flaws mentioned
>> above.
>>
>>>
>>> 7. If we disprove a class of gods,
>>
>> But so far you haven't.
>>
>>> 9. THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
>>>
>>> Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
>>> to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
>>> Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
>>> their basic definitions of what god is at god's
>>> most basic level.
Hinduism does not. It is not Christianity or Judaism or Islam. Islam is
not Christianity. Christianity is not Judaism. Their claims about god are
distinctly different. And even if we assume that your 8 points about god
are representative of SOMETHING, you haven't made a successful claim about
any one of them much less all of them.
>>
>> But I've shown that they do not hold to the god you've constructed, nor
>> are they equivalent to each other.
>>
>>> I chose these since the majority of
>>> believers 4 1/2 billion approximately belong to these
>>> traditions and related religions and sects.
>>
>> Fallacy of *argumentum ad numeran* It makes no difference how many
>> people
>> believe what. A proof is supposed to address truth, not popular opinion.
>> At this point, you've failed to even accurately describe what the major
>> beliefs believe in. You're certainly in no position to make statements
>> about the importance of those beliefs taken as an illigitimate group.
I see that you agree that you've committed the *argumentum ad numeran* as
you offer not even an ad hom in its defense.
>>
>>> 10. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
>>>
>>> The problem of evil was first written down by
>>> Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
>>> It is found in Christian writer Lactantius's
>>> Treatise on the Anger of God.
>>>
>>> A basic formulation is:
>>> A. God is defined as powerful
>>> B. God is defined as as good.
>>> C. Evil exists.
>>> D. God therefore, is not powerful as claimed.
>>> E. Or God is not good as claimed.
>>> F. Or god is neither powerful or
>>> good.
>>> G. Or god is not existant.
>>
>> Not a true representation of the argument. The argument does not prove
>> that
>> god does not exist UNLESS god must be powerful and good as asserted. And
>> even then, even assuming that god must be either good or powerful, god
>> might
>> not be the one and still be the other. Therefore the argument from evil,
>> which reaches its most powerful form much later than the pre-socratics
>> that
>> you seem to be limited to, does not prove the non-existence of god. It
>> only
>> proves that god cannot be both ALL-powerful and all good. If god were
>> simply powerful, god might not be powerful enough to eliminate evil. The
>> true argument claims that god is omnipotent, that god could unilaterally
>> prevent the occurance of evil in the world if god wanted to. The further
>> assumption that god must be infinitely good creates a god that MUST want
>> to create a world in which no actual evil exists.
>>
>> Hence, the original form of the argument does not prove a thing. The
>> final form of the argument only proves that IF a god MUST be, by
>> definition BOTH infinitely good and infinitely powerful, then such a god
>> is a logical contradiction.
>>
>> [argument from free will clipped since it derives from your fallacious
>> presentation of the argument from evil]
I see that you agree with my criticism of your lame argument from evil,
since you offer no defence.
>>
>>> 13 OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
>>> FREE WILL DISPROVEN PART 2.
Obviously you bow to my criticisms in the remainder of your screed, as you
offer no defense.
>>>
>>> God is defined as creator of all in these
>>> religions.
>>> And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
>>
>> Not in all of the religions you've named. Thus your argument fails right
>> here.
>>
>>>
>>> A. God created the Universe and all in it.
>>>B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
>>> in the Universe and he knows the future of the
>>> Universe and its contents.
>>
>> In some traditions.
>>
>>> C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
>>> in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
>>> man named John Smith in it.
>>
>> This is not omniscience vs. creatorhood. There is no necessary reason
>> that a creator logically must also know the full details of all possible
>> futures.
>>
>>> D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
>>> damned, God will know that.
>>> E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
>>> state will have a John Smith, god may then
>>> contemplate the future state of Smith and
>>> decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
>>> F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
>>> specific personal and will choice made solely
>>> by god.
>>> G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
>>> because of a choice made by god. In fact all
>>> moral evil done by creations of god will be
>>> evil and do evil only because of personal and
>>> willful creations of god allowing evil acts
>>> to be done, by direct decision of god.
>>> H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
>>> creator god, it is solely and only because
>>> god allows evil.
>>
>> Non sequitur. An omniscient god that is not omnipotent might not have a
>> choice as to whether to allow evil or not.
>>
>>> I. If evil exists solely because of personal
>>> choices of god, god then is not as defined,
>>> omnibenevolent.
>>
>> Non sequitur. You haven't proved that evil necessarily exists due to
>> god's
>> choice. If god is not omnipotent, evil may exist regardless.
>>
>>> J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
>>> Universe cannot have any free will, not even
>>> in principle. A Universe with a god that
>>> creates all and knows all precludes free will
>>> for all beings god creates in the strongest
>>> possible manner.
>>
>> Non sequitur. Mere knowledge does not imply control. God might know
>> everything that is knowable and still not know the future, or god might
>> know everything including all possible futures [though I doubt it].
>> Nevertheless, the fact that god knows everything does not logically imply
>> that God denies free will to actors in the world. In a purely
>> deterministic universe, which is a scientific materialistic assumption,
>> there is also no
>> such thing as true 'free will'. What does god's foreknowledge of such a
>> universe have to do with the actual precluding of free will? Simply
>> knowing that the universe is predetermined is to know that there can be
>> no
>> such thing as true free will, but knowing and causing are two different
>> things. Your argument implies that if a scientist believes that the
>> universe is deterministic and the scientist is right, then the scientist
>> is responsible
>> for destroying free will. That's an absurdity.
>>
>>>
>>> The Grand God of Grand
>>> Theology is thus self destroying,
>>
>> Not from what you've shown.
>>
>>> THE SITUATION SO FAR.
>>>
>>> 1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
>>> Grand God has been defined here with as few
>>> terms as possible.
>>
>> Actually, you've been as wordy as you can be in order to cover the
>> numerous logical flaws in your argument.
>>
>>> 2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
>>
>> As I've shown, it does not.
>>
>>> 3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
>>> flawed.
>>
>> As I've shown, free will or its absence need have nothing to do with god
>> one way or another.
>>
>>> 4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
>>> doom claims of god's omnibenevolence
>>
>> No they don't, as I've shown. In fact, as I've shown, they have nothing
>> to do with one another.
>>
>>> man's free will free will cannot exist for
>>> man.
>>
>> If this is true, it need have nothing to do with god.
>>
>>> All evil is the direct and knowing
>>> creation of god contradicting claims of
>>> omnibenevolence.
>>
>> You haven't even begun to show that. You haven't even addressed it.
>> Hence, I can only presume that you've pulled that claim out of thin air.
>>
>>> 5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
>>> free will cannot be a good quality, much less
>>> necessary.
>>
>> Again, you havne't demonstrated that.
>>
>>>
>>> 14. GOD AND TIME.
>>>
>>> Both Augustine and Boethius described god as being
>>> transcendent to time, outside and beyond it.
>>> Thus there is no past, present, or future to god,
>>> all is now. Since all is now, god must have
>>> create all things at once at once.
>>
>> Again, you're conflating terms. Here you conflate timelessness and
>> creation when you haven't proved that both must be necessary attributes
>> of
>> a god.
>>
>>> Any explicit claims of omniscience, and creatorship of god
>>> doom free will and more. Any claim god is outside of time
>>> forces us to the claim god is effectively omniscient.
>>
>> 1. you haven't doomed free will.
>> 2. Being outside of time is not a necessary corollary much less a cause
>> of
>> omniscience.
>>
>>>
>>> 15. If evil exists, god is evil.
>>
>> Another assertion out of left field. Please show your proof of this
>> assertion. You've not even addressed this question to this point.
>>
>>> We have no free will which
>>> means secondary attributes of God such as mercy, love, justice
>>> are pretty meaningless in face of a god that creates many
>>> of us morally evil.
>>
>> If such a god existed, that might be true. But you offer no evidence to
>> suggest that god must have had a choice in the fine details of creation.
>> I.e., you haven't offered proof that god must be omnipotent. Hence, your
>> derived assumptions that he must not be merciful, loving or just, are
>> what
>> is truly meaningless here.
>>
>>> Heaven, hell, damnation, sin, punishment,
>>> salvation, nothing much makes with such an omniscient god.
>>
>> How so? How does Omniscience imply any of the above?
>>
>>> Augustine's free will defense of God in face of Epicurus's
>>> problem of evil is utterly undone by his claim god is sovereign
>>> over time because he is all powerful.
>>
>> You haven't shown this to be the case.
>>
>>>
>>> 16. TIME AND GOD'S CREATION OF ALL.
>>> If we say god is omnipotent, all powerful, he is outside
>>> of time and free will is impossible and all else is simply an
>>> Universe utterly alien, incoherent and mad and most certainly
>>> not anything the great theological traditions tell it it is.
>>
>> That does not follow. The fact that Augustine said that god is all
>> powerful and outside of time, does not mean that god is either all
>> powerful or outside of time, OR that either of these attributes are
>> necessary attributes
>> of god. Omnipotence does not imply being outside of time. Being outside
>> of time does not imply omnipotence.
>>
>>> And if to avoid this we say god is not outside of time, this
>>> implies time is outside and beyond god and he cannot have
>>> created it. Thus contradicting claims of being the creator of
>>> all. Especially ex nihilo as many religions claim.
>>
>> Not all religions make a ex nihilo claim.
>>
>>>
>>> 17. Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
>>> collapsed.
>>
>> Apparently not, since you haven't made an argument that would lead to
>> such
>> a collapse.
>>
>>> As has Grand Theology.
>>
>> 1. Only the Grand Theology that you deliberately made up out of a
>> patchwork, skewed selection of elements would be impacted by even that
>> small part of your lengthy argument that was actually valid.
>>
>> 2. Since no such theology exists save in your skewed list, it cannot be
>> said that you've said much of anything about the major tenets of Western
>> Theology.
>>
>> 3. Your argument seems to be an argument about what you think is most
>> popular in most of theology.
>>
>> 4. Since what you think is most popular is not even representative of all
>> the world's MAJOR theologies [you haven't even touched the dogma of
>> hinduism] your argument is at best a strawman.
>>
>> 5. As has been shown, you're points are mostly non-sequiturs even against
>> the trumped up list you've created.
>>
>> In short, your argument is a strawman, and you haven't even succeeded in
>> debunking your own strawman.
>>
>>> As pointed out,
>>> this destroys the claims and viability of an
>>> entire class of possible gods, all secondary and
>>> tertiary claims for such a god of this class also
>>> fail, as do dogmas or secondary or tertiary
>>> claims hanging off this class of gods in any way.
>>>
>>> 18. If a this entire class of omni-everything creator gods
>>> cannot exist as defined, specific gods cannot
>>
>> Once again, you're attempting to slip in a general statement about any
>> specific god when you haven't even made a successful argument against the
>> strawman god you've created.
>>
>> Your argument fails, even in this altered version, in both its specific
>> and its general claims.
In summary of part 1, your argument fails on every level, Barwell.
Regardless of
whether you zero in on particular attributes of god, or you move out to a
general view, you've failed to prove your assertion that ANY class of god
can be disproven by anything you've come up with to this point.
> DOES GOD EXIST? STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - NO.
>
> 1. OMNIGENESIS, DETERMINISM, FREE WILL,
> METAPHYSICAL CHAOS AND THEOLOGICAL NIHILISM.
>
> Omni - all, genesis - creation.
> Omnigenesis = creation of all.
>
> Here I shall coin a word for further discussion.
> Omnigenesis means creation of all, to the smallest
> physical detail.
Actually it doesn't. It means simply all creation. As thus, it doesn't
imply a god per se.
Also it doesn't imply anything beyond creation. Many native myths and
religions are also based on a creator god who is not omnipotent, omniscient,
and so on.
> If god is in any way omniscient,
> and creator of all, then he in fact creates all
Translation: If god creates all, god creates all.
Not terribly insightful, Mr. Barwell.
> , omnigenesis,
> to the smallest detail,
Non sequitur. God does not have to create the smallest detail of all things
in order to "create all." Even taking god completely out of the picture,
the big bang is one theory on how initial conditions could begin a process
that includes the present condition of the universe. It would be absurd to
assert that the big bang created all in the finest detail, although it would
not be absurd [if the big bang existed] to assert that the big bang created
all.
Your argument therefore fails at this point in the following manner.
1. God creates all.
2. God is omniscient.
3. If god creates all, god must create every detail of everything created.
The argument above does not follow logically.
all of creation to the smallest
> quantum level material, to the smallest Planck quantum
> distance, Planck quantum time, dimensions, fields,
> everything, all of it. All that is, was, and shall be and can be.
> At higher levels emergent qualities arising from these
> basics create our physical world and us. It creates us,
> our actions, our consciousness, feelings, nature, mental
> inclinations and surrounding environment. One man may
> be a lawyer in California, another an illiterate peasant
> in Bangladesh. One man may be good, another an evil
> psychopath. Omnigenesis means god creates all things
> and all of this and all men's actions and existance
> to the smallest details.
Since I've already demonstrated that the above is not a logical implication
of 'creation' as creation, the only thing you're left with is the "argument
by assertion," the fallacy that contends that an argument consists of merely
repeating unsupported or illogical assertions.
In other words, what you're really saying is God created everything down to
the finest detail because Barwell says that god created everything down to
the finest detail.
>
> It removes all possibility of free will.
Of course it doesn't. It doesn't remove all possibility of free will,
because it is not a logical consequence of creation.
At this point you're tacking free will as another assertion onto your
original argument by assertion.
Since your original argument is illogical and does not follow from the
initial premise, this additional conclusion does not follow either.
>
> 2. THE OMNISCIENT, CREATOR GOD
>
> God creates all, all our acts, inclinations, personalty,
> to the smallest detail. This is extreme determinism.
No it's not. Hard determinism does not require god at all.
> 3. Omnigenesis destroys free will utterly and totally.
As I've shown, that does not follow from your initial premise. A god that
creates all does not logically imply a god that creates every detail.
>
> This destroys compatibilism,
This could only be written by someone who has no understanding of
compatibilism. Even if your argument were valid, which it is not, classic
compatibilism does not deal with anything other than external constraint.
Unless your creator god restrains his creation physically from performing
actions, this god does not undermine classic compatibilism.
Therefore free will does not mean what you evidently believe it means,
because "will" is not effected by classic arguments of compatibilism and
determinism.
> the doctrine god creates
> all but we have free will, and even though god knows what
> we do, he does not interfere with our free will to choose
> what we do. Many people hold this doctrine is incoherent
> and impossible that knowing what we do destroys free will.
Another argument by assertion. "Many people" hold many things to be true.
Interested students should note that this is a recurring theme in weak
arguments. The proponent of the argument states that many people assert
that something is true and then attempts to move on, hoping that the
objection has been dealt with. It is in effect the Appeal to Popular
Opinion in one of its forms. Mr. Barwell, would have to actually explain
how these "many people" have made a valid argument to uphold his assertion.
As always, assertions are not arguments.
>
> But omnigenesis makes that argument moot anyway, we can
> have no sort of free will at all and thus no sort of
> compatibilism can be true. Compatibilism is now irrelevant
> and meaningless as a dodge to exlain way free will
> vs God's foreknowlege of the future.
But, as has been demonstrated before,
1. God or no god, compatibilism is problematic to modern notions of "free
will." Hence, god need have nothing to do with "free will"
2. Your entire argument to this point is flawed, hence, your so-called
"omnigenesis" has nothing to do with free will because there is no such
thing as omnigenesis as you've described it.
> God knows the future because he knowingly creates its every
> tinyest detail.
Unsupported and uncalled for assertion based on your own initial premesis.
>
> 4. THERE ARE 3 ASPECTS OF CREATOR GODS
> OMNIGENESIS FORCES US TO CONSIDER.
Since omnigenesis as it occurs in your argument is a fallacious concept, it
doesn't "force us" to consider anything.
>
> A. The Clock maker, determinate universe, and foreknowledge
>
> This is idea that god is omniscient, has foreknowledge
> of the future because the universe is determinate.
> That god somehow winds up the Universe and lets it go
> and it goes on unfolding in a determinate manner.
> Laplace's demon is said to be able to know the future
> relying on determinism like this. God is theorized
> as just a sort of Laplacian demon here. This god created a
> determinate Universe and knows the future since he can
> calculate the future state of the Universe from a starting
> state due specifically to the determinate quality of
> the Universe.
>
> But omnigenesis means there is no wind up universe
> that unfolds,
And omnigenesis is unproven because your argument is flawed, hence the
'deist' god of the clockwork universe is quite possible.
> B. God and omnipotence and time.
>
> If god is omnipotent,or even just magnipotent, greatly
> powerful, he is beyond being affected by mundane
> things. Time does not affect god,
What forces "Time" to be a "mundane thing" ?
If time is not a mundane thing, how is it that you can know that time cannot
effect God?
> But again its omnigenesis. God creates all. And there
> is no past, future all is now. Thus all is created at
> once, now, in all its finest details. We are back to
> omnigenesis as above.
And omnigenesis cannot be true according to your own initial premises.
>
> We are driven there
Only by your repeated assertions, not by logical necessity. That is why
your argument fails.
> C. Omnigenesis - Creator of all and Omniscience
> As seen above in 2., a god that is simple said to
> be creator of all and omniscient even with no
> particular theory how he knows all, out of time,
> or creates a determinate word that unfolds, no
> theory as to how he knows all, also dooms free will
> in the strongest manner possible. Just the fact this
> god is omniscience and creates all is sufficient
> to create omnigenesis and doom all free will.
But the doom of free will isn't necessitated by the existence of any kind of
god.
Here again, your argument fails to account for how god directly needs to be
involved in the failure of free will in a logical sense. Since it is not
necessary for god to create all particulars in order to create all, it is
not necessary for god to have anything to do with free will.
>
> D. Three theories of creation, omniscience
> 1. Deterministic, clock maker style Universe.
> The theoretical deterministic prime mover's world.
> 2. Omniscient - creator god.
> 3. Omnipotent god transcendent to time.
>
> All 3 theories lead to total omnigenesis.
Of course they don't. Your theory of omnigenesis is flawed. Therefore
nothing but your own flawed thinking "leads to it."
> 5. OMNIGENESIS AND METAPHYSICAL NIHILISM
>
> God is alleged all good, totally good, omniscient,
> creator of all. And the omni-everything creator
> class of gods including the gods of Judaism, Islam,
> Christianity and others have these attributes explicitly,
> and also have other attributes.
1. Your class of gods has already been proven not to exist in anything other
than your mind in many other essays.
2. Significant differences exist in the beliefs you list as to the
attributes of god.
3. Since your theory doesn't work concerning "omnigenesis," if follows that
your theory won't work for a class of gods anymore than it works for a
single god. It does not work for any single god, even the one you've
attempted to invent. Therefore, it does not work for any class of gods
other than the class of gods that contains exactly one god, which is the god
you invented.
> Heaven, hell, sin, salvation, damnation lose all
> coherent sense and meaning. Where is love in
> creating one man evil and many his victims?
> How can that be loving, merciful or just?
The above is a pale attempt at summoning the ghost of the Argument from
Evil. Nothing you've written above is implied by your flawed theory of
'omnigenesis' even if your theory was correct.
Again, you've essentially constructed an argument by assertion alone.
Arguments consist of more than assertion, Mr. Barwell.
> 6. SOULS
>
> And supposedly this god creates souls,
Which is also unnecessary from the premises leading to 'omnigenesis.'
Hence your remarks on souls do not follow from your premises.
> 7. CHAOS, NIHILISM, IRRATIONALITY, UNREALITY OF ALL
>
> We achieve then total, absolute, furious metaphysical nihilism.
Not in any fashion you've described.
1. Your argument does not imply nihilism as a conclusion.
2. God is not necessary for nihilism to exist.
> This is In the end, taken to their logical ends are all
> theology religion, and omni-everything, creator god class
> religion can possibly hope to achieve.
Actually, nothing that you've written implies these ends. Furthermore,
quite a few atheists end up embracing nihilism, Mr. Barwell. Your argument
does not speak to the rather evident truth that the emergence and growth of
nihilism parallels the historical lapse of belief in god in both Europe and
the United States.
Though I do not consider this historical fact an argument for religion in
general, it certainly cannot be construed as an argument for the salutory
benefits of anti-theism.
> Materialism must be true, the only truth possible.
You have not even begun to demonstrate that the above is true, Mr. Barwell.
Your omnigenesis argument, is hopeless flawed on its face. And you
certainly have not shown that materialism is the only alternative to a
belief in the god you've created for your argument.
In summary.
1. Your argument is flawed due to non-sequiturs [creation does not imply
creation of each and every particular element of reality] and the argument
by assertion [the assertion of omniscience, the assertion of freedom from
time, the assertion of the necessity of souls, and so on...none of which
have you supported with logical arguments].
2. Materialism is not the only alternative to your argument.
Hence, omnigenesis leads to nothing because omnigenesis as you've described
it does not exist. And materialism is not the only alternative to your
argument, hence it is not the only possible truth.
> In the end, we have two stark choices, sane materialism, or
> total metaphysical nihilsm. There is really then, only one choice.
A crowning end to your typical lack of rationality.
If we have indeed only one choice, we do not logically have a choice.
wcb
>
> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> news:12ds8ab...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Gandy net bully shits off again.
>
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.
Revisions:
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.newt-ging
rich,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.dear.whitehouse,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.pol
itics.usa.conservatives,talk.politics.misc
[snip]
RH
End Quote
Quote:
[snip]
But unfortunatetly, so is fear, and hatred of what is feared, and thus
was created the conservative movement. The saddest thing about this
fundamental struggle is that, although I have seen quite a few
misguided
liberal leaders in my day, I've never met one that I would call
intentionally evil. I can't say the same for the conservatives. Oh
sure, most conservatives are just plain moronic. But their
leaders--there's something amazingly evil about rich powerful men
getting more rich and more powerful by feeding on the fears and hatreds
of the terminally idiotic. Every time I listen to a Limbough or a
Buckley, I shudder at the real evil in America. These men would and
will snuff out their followers in an instant, and their only real
vision
of America is a dark world where they and only they rule.
The victory of conservativeism will not spell the end of liberalism so
much as it will sound the death knell for democracy itself.
Regards,
RH
End quote
As will be shown later, his devotion to his cause has directly led to the
objectionable behavior that continues to this day.
Prior to 1995, most of Hanson's posts were aimed at other groups. He was a
prominent poster in the StarTrek news group alt.tv.star-trek.voyager, for
example.
**WHY IS WHAT HE DOES HE DO HERE IN THE NEWSGROUPS SO OBJECTIONABLE?
On March 2, 1995, Hanson wrote:
Quote:
Now with demagogues like the newt and Rush "Limbo" commandeering the
airwaves, the sheep have decided that being conservative is *in.* Now,
it's okay to mouth almost any conservative obscenity, because, after
all--didn't Rush say it was okay to be a bigoted ratbastard? Didn't
Newt say that liberals are baaaaad? Oh yes, the sheep have definitely
gotten out of the dip to voice their now fashionable creed. Social
concern is baaaaad! Clinton is baaaaad! Hillary has a brain and can
actually speak in words of more than one syllable--that's baaaaad!
Endquote
[see: Message-ID: <3j55br$...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> above]
With this declaration and his expressed view that Conservatives are "evil,"
Hanson begins a campaign to counter what he perceives to be "conservative
obscenity" being posted on the Internet by those "ratbastard" conservative
"sheep."
Editor Paul McCloskey wrote in 1993:
"Consider this: My $1000 PC is now a personal broadcasting station
that reaches more people than the CBS affiliate in Washington D.C. I
can get more local viewers with a single e-mail posting to the
Internet than Sally Jessy Raphael can get in a single sweeps month
... (Hey Washington Post! POOF! You're a newsletter!)"
[Paul McCloskey, Forward to "The Internet for Dummies," IDG Books Worldwide,
Inc., San Mateo, CA, 1993]
Expressing a point of view in the marketplace of ideas is not an unworthy
activity. Hanson certainly has a right to express his opinions. The Internet
is an unprecedented medium to allow full and free discourse in a market
place of ideas that hasn't been seen since classical times, and he has every
right to use this medium to advance his point of view.
However, *HOW* Hanson sends his message is the issue of this FAQ. Hanson
clearly abuses the medium in promoting his message.
The focus of Hanson's original attention was newsgroup
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater. Prior to Hanson's participation, the
"whitewater" newsgroup was a relatively low traffic one used to communicate
the events within and about the Clinton Whitewater "scandal."
Once Hanson began posting to the newsgroup, several things happened. The
posts became personally confrontational, grew large in number, and major
newsgroup cross posting began, as well as dumping entire news articles from
copyrighted sources.
A complaint about Hanson's tactics from 1996:
Quote:
From: wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann)
Subject: CROSSPOSTING
Date: 1996/04/14
Message-ID: <4kpslo$...@cloner2.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
organization: Netcom
x-netcom-date: Sat Apr 13 8:50:16 PM PDT 1996
newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Let me ask the regulars here a question. The regulars that are
MUCH
more knowledgeable about the Net than I am. Who are the people that
are either starting the multiple crossposted posts and who are the
people that are adding all of the newsgroups into the headers so that
they go to in the area of twenty newsgroups? If we all know who is
the people really responsible for this, maybe we can quit responding
to their posts and maybe they will decide to be more cooperative .
This newsgroup is in FAR WORST shapoe than it has ever been in. It is
almost worthless the way it is. Why should a person need to download
200 messages to get maybe ten that are responsive? Doesn't anyone
care? Thank you.
Endquote
Another earlier complaint about Hanson's cross posting, coupled with an
explanation for the behavior was:
Quote:
From: riv...@news.accessone.com (Michael Rivero)
Subject: Re: Crossposting
Date: 1996/02/18
Message-ID: <4g8fmd$...@pulm1.accessone.com>#1/1
references: <4g7p4u$...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
organization: Accessone
newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
In article <4g7p4u$...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
John Benedetto <bened...@mundo.eco.utexas.edu> wrote:
>I read this group sometimes while working, but it is taking longer and
longer
>to access because there are so many damn crosspostings. Please, I
know this
>has been said a thousand times before, and in some sense I am just
wasting
>people's time and space also, but please stop crossposting irrelevant
>material. At its most generous, this group is about:
>
> * Whitewater
> * Foster's death
> * Mena and Iran-Contra connections to current politicians
> * other current political corruption issues
>
>Anyway, it is NOT a general discussion group about politics, so
please,
>please, please stop sending that stuff here. It is becoming a real
waste of
>time. I'm sure Pat Buchanan, gun control, etc. are all fascinating
issues,
>but they are not for this group.
>
Last year, when Whitewater started heating up, most of the topics you
object to were being discussed on alt.conspiracy. At about the same
time the
hard core porno started showing up, alt.conspiracy was flooded, junked
up,
if you will, with posts about aliens, Elvis, Jewish conspiracies, and
so
forth, which were notable for one consistant fact; they were NOT posted
to the groups set aside for the subjects being posted about.
Because alt.conspiracy had no specific subject under discussion,
requests
for the various junk posts to return to their dedicated groups were
ignored, or responded to in quite arrogant terms.
Needless to say, the flood of junk persisted, making alt.conspiracy
almost impossible to read without the benefit of kill files and an
intelligent newsreader.
In radio terms, such a practice of overwhelming meaningful
communications
with useless noise is called "jamming" and having jammed
alt.conspiracy,
the same tactic is obviously being tried here.
The strategy is fourfold. Make the group hard to read. Design the
junk to
help discourage the casual browser. Remove the sexual content so that
fewer
people will even bother logging into the internet. Crosspost the
discussions
one is losing to inappropriate groups to alienate the rest of the net
from the
political groups, again to discourage the casual browsers.
Those who have studied the COINTELPRO scandel from the 70's will
recognize
a very old set of tricks brought into the high-tech age.
Endquote
The implication was that alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater was being
deliberately jammed by people opposed to discussing Whitewater in public or
on the Net. These people were perceived to be Clinton supporters anxious to
"spin" the issue in favor of Bill Clinton.
The act of "jamming" alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater is an attempt to
stifle debate. That in itself, is abuse.
**WHEN DID GREY START APPROPRIATING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL FOR HIS OWN USE?
Hanson started republishing copyrighted material without permission in 1996.
This was noted (and complained about) at that time.
Poster '"John Q. Public" <j...@globaldialog.com>:" in Message-ID:
<318606F0....@globaldialog.com>#1/1 posted this complaint:
Quote:
Hanson:
This is the crap he's referring to.
Let's get back on topic, which is your efforts to disrupt
The whitewater ng. You're not playing nice, Hanson."
"John Q.Public" was referring to Hanson completely republishing an entire
copyrighted article (that he already republished) in response to a poster
complaining about it. This is one behavior that Hanson continues to use
today. That is a clear attempt to "shout down" opposition to his tactics.
Such attempts to stifle such criticism of his behavior is abusive.
While, Hanson wasn't the only poster illegally republishing copyrighted
materials, an analysis of archival data from Google shows that author of
many (if not most) of these "jamming" posts in the whitewater newsgroup was
Richard Hanson.
Today, Hanson continues to "jam" the newsgroups through the same tactics of
illegal republication of copyrighted articles as well as the repeated
republication of the *SAME* article in response to complaints about him. In
other words, Hanson has not changed his tactics --not one bit in over 8
years of posting.
Author Kurt Nicklas performed an analysis on Hanson's posting tactics on
4/27/1996:
Quote:
I thought all of the posters on this newsgroup might be interested
to know some statistics on our buddy Richard Hanson who is of late
trying to distrupt this group by flooding it with off-topic posts.
Lurkers, pay attention and ask yourself if the following stats
depict an individual positively obsessed with disrupting rather
than contributing:
Between March 3, 1995 and April 26, 1996 Hanson posted 899
articles, 90% of which were follow-ups and not originals:
416 (!) to a.ce.c.ww
127 to talk.politics.misc
108 alt.fan.newt-gingrich
99 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
44 rec.arts.startrek.current (a TREKKY, it
seems!)
27 alt.politics.usa.republican
10 alt.flame.rush-limbaugh
The balance went to other, mostly political groups but only 4 to
alt.president.clinton, a mere 2 to alt.activism and one pitiful
post to misc.activism.progressive. [Message-ID:
<4ltrpt$...@rbdc.rbdc.com>#1/1]
End Quote
This analysis is remarkably similar to one the author performed in 2001:
Base newsgroup: Alt.politics.bush
Date/Time: 8/13/01 10:13 - 8/23/01 19:30
Total Bytes submitted: 3561KB
Average # Newsgroups: 5
Total Article submitted: 601
Total Original Articles: 231 (not beginning with "Re:")
Total COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS: 162
[Originally Posted: 8/24/2001]
Since then, the average number of news groups cross-posted to by Hanson is
up
to 9, the number of number of annual copyrighted articles is up to 8000, and
the average number of copyrighted megabytes per annum is 80 megabytes.
**IS THERE BEEN ANY CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR SINCE THEN?
Not really. Hanson used back then, and continues to use such juvenile
tactics today as "changing subject headers" and deliberate personal slander,
and outright lies about his opponents to demean them. The following words
of Hanson's were posted in 1996.
Examples:
"No. John... I'm not a "conduit" for anyone like you are. So, cough
it up, HackBoy. How much IS the RNC paying you for the vomit you're
posting here?" [Message-ID: <31c0f66b.19480...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>#1/1]
"Shut up, Wayne.
I don't care what you send to your lawyer. You are now so guilty of
so many violations that no one in the world will ever give you any
credibilty in any court over any subject.
Go do your worst, scumbag.
RH"
[Message-ID: <31d8a773.3570...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>#1/1]
"Grow the fuck up, Shitstick" [Message-ID:
9kemio$f6...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net]
"You're a crack-up, RatGirl.
Nice to see you visiting. Playing Australian tag-team posting with
your schizophrenic double Wayne again, I see.
How are things in alt.fetish.scatological?
RH" [Message-ID: <31edc7be.12095...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>#1/1]
"Why should I cite Goebbels when Pat spends so much of his time doing
same?
RH" [Message-ID: <31e74b46.24746...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>#1/1]
Other complaints (and evidence of "jamming") from 1996 include inappropriate
posts to the newsgroup, massive cross-posting, and worst of all, mail
bombing.
Quote:
From: wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann)
Subject: Re: HANSON SENDING UNSOLICETED E-MAIL WITH PHONY ADDRESS
Date: 1996/07/02
Message-ID: <4ra83v$...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
references: <4r7nrk$...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>
<31d7d9c3.968...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
organization: Netcom
x-netcom-date: Mon Jul 01 11:21:19 PM CDT 1996
newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
rhan...@ix.netcom.com(Hanson) wrote:
>wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann) wrote:
>> HANSON do NOT ever e-mail me again, particularly since you
>>have a phony address.
>Don't tell me what to do, Wayne. And if I find out you're emailing
>copies of articles to any progressive poster in this group you can
>count on a lot more email than you're getting now.
>RH
>>
Let me make this VERY clear for you. I have asked you
several times to NOT send me any e-mail. You have done it
again. I have written to Netcom about it and I have
sent copies of everything to and have talked to my lawyer
about it. Now just so even an idiot like you should be able
to understand this. DO NOT E_MAIL ME AGAIN. [snip]
Endquote
Further, even today, Hanson sometimes acts rather immaturely and in a
juvenile fashion in dealing with his opposition. His long-time tendency to
respond by reposting verbatim (or essentially verbatim) earlier posts and
copyrighted articles is just a continuing indication of his desire to "shut
the opposition down."
For modern examples of this tendency, see:
Message-ID: 3f78a3a3$0$164$9a6e1...@news.newshosting.com
Message-ID: 3f787843$0$231$9a6e1...@news.newshosting.com
Message-ID: 3f78a3d8$0$251$9a6e1...@news.newshosting.com
With the exception of "mail bombing," Hanson continues to use such tactics
under his current handle: Gandalf Grey <gandalfg...@infectedmail.com>
**WHY IS HE DOING THIS?
All of the above points to one inescapable conclusion: Richard Hanson is
running a one-man agitprop campaign intended to silence or dilute the
message of people he considers conservative "ratbastards" and "sheep."
In fact, with respect to alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, he even
admits to it:
Richard Hanson writes, quote:
Yeah, yeah...right, schmuck. Just like the last time you were going
to "retire." It's been a real hoot watching you and your alter ego,
Wayne declare you're leaving time and again only to see you post your
vomit again in a few days or even hours.
Just checked my butt, RatGirl. Not even a bruise.
I guess that's because I've been kicking YOUR Right Wing rear ever
since you began to post your replies.
RH
Endquote
[Message-ID: <31db689b.4662...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>#1/1]
In other words, Gandalf Grey (Richard Hanson) openly admitted that he is
deliberately jamming this newsgroup, using massive cross posting, copyright
infringement, ad-hominem attacks, personal slander, mail-bombing, and other
tactics.
With an admission of his intentions, the case against him as being a Usenet
abuser is proved.
Quote:
net.legends committee
Hanson
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Dear Mr. Hanson
Sincerely,
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.
About Richard Hanson
Richard Hanson graduated from Portland State University (1979) with a
B.S.
in Biology. He later obtained a Teaching Certificate and propagandized
many innocent students with progressive ideas until the authorities
caught
on. He is the author of two novels, thirty short stories and several
political articles and is presently working on a textbook on moral
philosophy. Mr. Hanson lives in Oregon with his wife, where he raises
and
trains boxers, and is actively involved in politics and the Animal
Rights
movement.
End quote:
[Message-ID: 4lk6sg$...@panix2.panix.com]
By the way, Hanson agrees that this is his biography in message:
[Message-ID: <4mk1p7$...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>#1/1]
Quote:
Dear Mr. Reedstrom:
1. the bio posted on this group is about me.
2. the bio was not posted by me.
3. I have never used the facts in my bio as evidence of any
'expertice' on my part, nor have I made any claims to expert knowledge
of any kind in any article posted on any political newsgroup.
4. I somehow do not feel the need, therefore, to justify myself to you
or anyone else in these groups.
I hope this explains the situation to you. If not, tough.
RH
Endquote
[Message-ID: <4mk1p7$...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>#1/1]
Editor's Note: It was alleged in 2001, that Hanson lived in Hillsboro,
Oregon. The location of his current residence is controversial. The author
has shown evidence of him posting from the Sea-Tac area of Washington State,
using an Earthlink dialup server there, though the consensus is that he
still lives in Hillsboro, Oregon.
The important thing about this self-bio is to note: 1) He is the author of
books and ought to know something about copyrights and protection of his own
intellectual property, and 2), he is using the same tactics that he deplored
back in January, 1995.
As to the correlation between Richard Hanson and Gandalf Grey identity,
Martin McPhillips <journa...@nyc.rr.com> writes:
Quote:
Sure. You just share the same streaming demonic energy,
same political views (such as they are), same verbal tics,
same posting habits, and the same home as Richard Hanson
of Hillsboro, Oregon, who has been depressed his entire
life, is suicidal, and is a pretty clear case of borderline
personality disorder. Given that you share so much
with Richard, you should tap him on the shoulder tonight
and let him know that you're occupying the same body
he does.
Endquote
]Message-ID: <3AE390DB.94C3B...@nyc.rr.com>]
**ARE GANDALF GREY AND RICHARD HANSON ONE AND THE SAME?
An analysis shows that Gandalf Grey (today) does indeed use the exact same
tactics and posting style as Richard Hanson in 1996).
Example:
Grey uses false and misleading subject headers, as does Hanson.
"From: rhan...@ix.netcom.com(Hanson)
Subject: Re: PAID RIGHT WING HACK TRIES ANOTHER DODGE [was Re: Is
TRICKY DICK! HANSON BEING PAID? (was Re: John Q. Public ...)"
[Message-ID: <31c0f66b.19480...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>#1/1]
Grey uses 3rd party slandering in the exact same manner as Hanson does:
"So the Discip is still posting, and as brief but boring as usual. Jim
certainly seems to bring out the rabies in William. I kill filed the
little jerk ages ago. Judging from the tone of his response, he
hasn't aged well.
RH" [Message-ID: <31edbff4.10101...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>#1/1]
"It's just more of the same old buckshot routine, Larry. Come up with
enough innuendo and maybe some of it will rub off. Judging from
John's tone, lately, I don't even think he really cares anymore.
Certainly, most of his original passion is gone. Of course, when
you've wedded yourself to the idea of Clinton as solely responsible
for every problem in the last forty years, it's difficult to not seem
a bit foolish. And not facing up to the fact that corruption is a
bipartisan game would make anyone look foolish after awhile.
John's just looking foolish sooner than later.
RH" [Message-ID: <31edc096.10263...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>#1/1]
Grey illegally reprints copyrighted articles without permission, as does
Hanson"
See: Message-ID: <31f9bd04.5657...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
Grey (and Hanson) complain about spamming the net and ad hominem attacks,
while he and Hanson does that exactly that, a tactic in hypocrisy that is
unchanged since 1995:
See: Message-ID: <31f4089c.2570...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>#1/1,
Message-ID: <31f07741.3834...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>#1/1,
Message-ID: <31edc4b6.11319...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
Grey expresses the exact opinion about Republicans that Hanson does. Hanson
calls the Republican Party, the "Party of Hate"
Usenet poster "Liberty" responds with a dead-on description of Grey's
tactics:
"The Party of Hate, eh? I never knew what hate was 'till I started hanging
around with phony liberals who sounded a lot like you, sir."
[libe...@panix.com (liberty) to Richard Hansen]
Because the style, wording, tactics, and method of "jamming" the newsgroups
is identical between Hanson and "Grey" - including the fact that one ceased
posting when the other began -- the case to link Gandalf Grey and Richard
Hanson is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
**SO WHAT IS SO BAD ABOUT HIS SO-CALLED COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS?
The most damaging thing about Hanson/Grey's behavior comes from his
acknowledged biography.
By his own admission, Richard Hanson is a published author. Therefore he
has no excuse to pretend to be ignorant at to the illegality of his actions.
The fact that he is using other people's copyrighted property in an illegal
manner is unconscionable for anyone who claims to be an author. To say it
is hypocritical to expect protection for his own works, while abusing the
protection of others whose works he appropriates is an understatement.
He, of all people, knows how hard it is to write, how hard it is to become
published, and how much of themselves authors pour into their work - yet HE
willingly violates the rights of other authors in order to silence
ideological opponents.
Such behavior goes beyond "bad" behavior, especially in the age of the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. Such behavior becomes a criminal
enterprise.
The technical result of Hanson's tactic of "jamming" the newsgroups is to
drown out other posters, specifically posters who do not share his ideology.
While any copyright violation is a "bad thing," the occasional poster who
cribs an article is generally not considered a threat to the system of
copyrights that protect the creators and owners of copyrighted material.
However, Hanson's wholesale republishing of other's work (8000 copyrighted
articles per year), without the permission of, or any compensation to, the
owners of the material goes far beyond anything that any rational person
would consider acceptable. Contrary to what Hanson claims, his massive
republishing effort can not be justified as "fair use."
"Historically, fair use was a narrow exception to copyright law that applied
to education and critical commentary. It has become an excuse for people
whoare lazy or simply too cheap to purchase a copyright license. " [Lance
Rose, "Is Copyright Dead on the Net?,"
http://www.eff.org/IP/is_copyright_dead.paper]
Both statute and case law exclude extraction and republication of entire
works from any claim of "Fair Use." While this FAQ is not intended to be a
primer on copyright law, there is no, ZERO, NADA, case law on the books that
permits verbatim republishing of copyrighted articles by people not licensed
to do so, especially articles that appear on commercial news websites where
advertising revenue and payment for reprint rights are involved.
Further information about copyrights and the law can be found at:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/copyrt.htm
An example of a recent copyright violation case and it's settlement can be
found at:
http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/freerep/Default.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/702701/posts
Unlike the controversy over the music sharing peer-to-peer networks where
people volunteer to store on their own computers and swap music MP3's
amongst themselves, Richard Hanson is "pushing" articles that he does not
own onto thousands of servers around the world in a clear violation of both
federal and international copyright law.
**IS GREY A PAID POLITICAL OPERATIVE?
Apparently. Without seeing his "pay stub" it is not possible to be entirely
sure. However there is enough circumstantial evidence to credibly advance
the hypothesis.
Authors: disci...@crl.com (William R. Discipio Jr), "John Q. Public"
j...@globaldialog.com, Pat Kelso k...@engr.latech.edu, Martin McPhillips
journa...@nyc.rr.com and also <abigr...@inx.net>, and others identify him
with the Democratic Party establishment in Oregon. Specifically, he has
been identified as an associate of current US Senator Ron Wyden (D) and as a
former Assistant Secretary of State for Oregon. The latter claim that
Hanson is (or was) a government official) is probably not true, though
Hanson implies an official connection to the Secretary of State of Oregon in
a post dated 7/5/1996:
Quote:
Your smears are of no interest to anyone. If you have real
information, I suggest strongly that you post it. I will be referring
any information I see here to the appropriate authorities.
As I said before, these are very serious charges.
You might want to start thinking very seriously about what the
repercussions might be. Mr. Tyrell is a known liar. I personally
would love to see a very white hot light aimed at one of his lies and
I certainly won't mind if I get you into the light with him.
[snip]
RH
Endquote
[Message-ID: <31dc6669.10406...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>#1/1]
And
Quote:
I will be bringing any information you bring to the net to the
attention of the state authorities. If you really believe these are
charges that have not been investigated you should post them, if you
have information on charges that have already been posted....
As I said before, this is a serious matter. You might want to
consider just what you're thinking about doing. The people of Oregon,
both Republicans and Democrats are very proud of their state. I can
assure you, that they aren't going to take kindly to lies or to the
reposting of already disproved charges as fact."
Endquote
Message-ID: <31dc654f.10125...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
Then there is the scale of his efforts and the amount of personal time to do
what he does.
Richard Hanson has posted tens of thousands of anti-Republican, anti-Bush,
anti-conservative messages since 1995. Over the late 2002- early 2003
period, Hanson/Grey has consistently and illegally posted at an annual rate
of over 8000 copyrighted messages. This works out to 21.9 copyrighted
articles per calendar day, 2.7 per hour, over an 8 hour day. This rate of
posting does NOT include replies, flames, and other traffic - it ONLY
includes copyrighted articles that he finds on the net and republishes.
Either Hanson is independently wealthy, or he is employed by SOMEBODY and
posting on their dime. The fact that Hanson is allowed to spend his days
posting political articles on company time implies a lax attitude of his
employer - or his employer is a POLITICAL one. If the later, given the
nature of his republishing effort and ideology, there is only one
possibility here as to whom that may be: the Democratic party.
The case for Hanson being a paid political operative is very strong.
**OKAY, YOU'VE CONVINCED ME. I'VE NOW COMPLAINED ABOUT GREY'S BEHAVIOR IN
THE NEWSGROUPS AND GREY IS CALLING ME A FASCIST/STALINIST/OTHER NAME. HOW DO
I DEAL WITH GREY WHEN HE SO SLANDERS ME?
The important thing for you is to recognize that Hanson slanders you because
he wants to diminish your credibility, and he wants to silence you. This
has been part of his behavior and clear motivation since 1996 and earlier.
Hanson routinely slanders people who oppose him. This is easily shown from
the record. His repeated accusation of fascism or Stalinism against people,
without any evidence other than the fact that they oppose him, is certainly
defamatory.
You have few LEGAL options, however. [Note: the author categorically rules
out any violent confrontation as a legal, valid, response.] You may
certainly respond to his slanders and express your personal opinion of him
in return. You may ignore him. You may killfile him. Or you may attempt to
sue him for defamation. As it is clear that he is expressing his unfounded
personal opinion about you, you would have to show that his expressions have
in fact harmed you in some way. This is Usenet -- Good luck!
The fact that Hanson routinely commits slander (and has done so for years)
is amply shown by the evidence of his posts. For example, here a list of
sample slanders Grey/Hanson has committed against the author of this FAQ
over the past several years:
"Somewhere in the Bush Junta White House, a toilet backed up and
George of the Jungle...wrote" Gandalf Grey, 3/4/2001
"You're not even a blip on my radar screen, Fascist boy." Gandalf Grey,
3/29/2001
"You're just a chimp flinging feces, Jungle George." Gandalf Grey, 3/29/2001
"So fling some more fascism, rightie. We're laughing at you." Gandalf Grey,
3/29/2001
"And you're one of the right wing "republican bastards" along with the
Federalist Club, the Christian Coalition, Judicial Watch and the American
Nazi Party." Gandalf Grey, 3/29/2001
".....is because George of the Jungle is an obsessive preteen with delusions
that he can turn himself into an army by changing his name" Gandalf Grey,
8/19/2001
"Paid Stalinist and would-be net-nazi "George of the Jungle"
<antis...@nospam.forme.edu> wrote in message..." Gandalf Grey, 3/8/2003
"Lifelong Stalinist, "George of the Jungle" <antis...@nospam.forme.edu>
wrote in message..." Gandalf Grey 3/18/2003
"Boy Stalinist, "George of the Jungle" <antis...@nospam.forme.edu> wrote in
message..." Gandalf Grey, 3/18/2002
"Lifelong Stalinist and police state groupie "George of the Jungle"
<antis...@nospam.forme.edu> wrote in message..." Gandalf Grey, 3/19/2003
"Stalinist whore "George of the Jungle" <antis...@nospam.forme.edu> wrote in
message..." Gandalf Grey, 3/20/2003
"George is the classic example of the Usenet neocon loser. He long ago
stopped posting anything of substance and now shows up only to spew venom
before skulking back under his rock. He's gone the way of Dana and Kurt
Nicklas and Bithead." Gandalf Grey, 8/17/2003
"Paid Right Wing Stalinist "George of the Jungle"
<antis...@nospam.forme.edu> wrote in message..." Gandalf Grey, 8/18/2003
"Fuck off, Stalinist." Gandalf Grey, 8/21/2003
"Stalinist troll "George of the Jungle" <antis...@nospam.forme.edu> wrote in
message..." Gandalf Grey, 8/21/2003
"None of your fucking business, Dick." Gandalf Grey, 8/21/2003
"Lifelong Neocon Stalinist "George of the Jungle"
<antis...@nospam.forme.edu> wrote..." Gandalf Grey, 9/1/2003
"Bigoted Stalinist "George of the Jungle" <antis...@nospam.forme.edu> wrote
in message..." Gandalf Grey, 9/4/2003
When challenged or criticized for such tactics, Hanson usually relies on the
use of the "You, too" argument. The "You, too" argument is technically a
debating fallacy also known as "Tu Quoque." It is an attempt to justify
behavior and tactics in terms of that of others. It is a commonly used by
those who cannot defend either their behavior or the behavior of those they
support, so they attempt to create an "equivalency" by pointing to the
behavior of others as justification for their own bad behavior. Another
term for this fallacious behavior is "moral equivalency.'
Hanson practices "tu quoque" both in justifying his massive copyright
violations and in response to criticism of his use of personal slander
against his critics.
Another tactic used by Hanson to deflect criticism of his copyright
violations and his use of slander is plain denial. For example, he adds the
following statement to the end of each copyrighted article he republishes:
"I am making such material available in an effort to advance
understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,
and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of
any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US
Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107"
Such a declaration is a plain denial of both case law and statute which
clearly prohibits the republishing of entire works without permission. This
bit of nonsense is an attempt to deny his real motivation behind his
behavior: to drown out voices he does not approve of. Clearly, Hanson
believes that his mission entitles him to violate the law in such an
egregious manner.
Another term for behavior that is clearly wrong but is justified to oppose
what is perceived to be wrong is sometimes called "Moral Relativism," or
"the ends justify the means."
**SO WHAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE HERE?
You must understand why Hanson is posting in Usenet. Hanson posts in Usenet
to confront what he perceives to be "conservative obscenity" being written
on the Internet by those "ratbastard" conservative "sheep." Hanson's
admitted motivation in participating in the newsgroups is to silence
opposing, conservative, voices. In his own words, Hanson believes that "the
victory of conservativeism [sic] will not spell the end of liberalism so
much as it will sound the death knell for democracy itself." [Message-ID:
3j55br$...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com]
As has been noted many times in many places, "all's fair in love and war."
Since Hanson's motivation comes not from love [there is a series of posts of
his in alt.support.depression that show that Hanson has fought depression
and self-loathing for decades] his actions must viewed in context of making
war upon the right.
To that end, Hanson has adopted the same tactic used in the 20th Century by
the totalitarian dictatorships of both Fascism and Communism. This tactic
is called the "Big Lie." It is an old, but sometime effective tactic.
"Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and
degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them
as fascist, or Nazi or anti-Semitic .... The association will, after enough
repetition, become "fact" in the public mind."
--Communist Party, Moscow Central Committee 1943
So, by opening every response to an opponent with words like: "Bigoted
Stalinist" or "Paid Right Wing Stalinist," Hanson is trying to establish in
the public mind that his opponent is an evil person, who should not be
allowed to speak in this or any other forum.
To use an "unfair" practice from the point of legitimate debate is one
thing. To impose a communication tyranny on the Usenet readership across
many newsgroups is something else. It is "abuse of the first order."
**CAN I KILLFILE HIM?
Yes.
"Killfiling" is a way to automatically ignore him using your newsreader
software. You can certainly ignore him buy skipping over his messages.
However, using a killfile suppresses the existence of his messages so that
you do not see the messages or their headers in the list of messages. The
practical effect is to negate Hanson's effort jam the newsgroups by removing
his "clutter" from your list of messages.
Usenet readers universally provide a feature to "kill file" or "block"
certain posters. The "killfile," twit-filter, etc., is a mechanism to throw
away messages from people or on subjects that you do not care to read.
You may use your killfile to suppress posts of people you don't like, or
from people who are trying to jam the newsgroup and suppress focused
discussion of certain topics.
Or you may do nothing and leave things as they are.
**WHO CAN I COMPLAIN TO ABOUT GREY?
Should you wish to complain, you may contact the following:
Your Usenet administrator at your ISP. A number of Usenet administrators
are starting to complain to the news server company that Grey/Hanson uses
(newshosting.com) about this issue. The real issue is violation of the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. While the Act provides a "safe
harbor" for companies who do not know that copyrighted material is being
stored or served from their computers, the Act requires that once notified
of a copyright violation, the company must act to remove the offending
material and deal with the offender to prevent future occurrences. As more
and more administrators receive complaints about Grey/Hanson forcing illegal
documents on THEIR servers, they can no longer rely upon "safe harbor" via
ignorance. Complaining to your ISP may ultimately convince his news server
hosting company (newshosting.com) to discipline their customer, Richard
Hanson, AKA Gandalf Grey.
Complain directly to his news server hosting company by writing to
a...@newshosting.com. Be advised that newshosting.com provides the
standard "lip service" towards compliance with the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act of 1998, but has not seen fit to act against Hanson.
Complain to his ISP, which is Earthlink at a...@earthlink.net. Just
because Earthlink's new server is not being used by Hanson/Grey to post
these illegal articles, their network is being used to transmit them.
Notify the copyright owner of the articles about Hanson/Grey's illegal use
of their copyrighted material.
**WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?
The author possesses copyrights for published articles. He wishes to insure
that the copyright system that the Founding Fathers established in the
Constitution does not collapse in the Internet Age. If a person who makes
his living through the "pen" is denied the ability to receive compensation
for his efforts, then free expression of ideas, the communication of ideas
and news, and the untold hours of entertainment that people spend in reading
books, will end, because nobody will bother to write anymore. Society -
indeed civilization itself - will be seriously harmed if copyright pirates
like "Gandalf Grey" are allowed to continue diluting the intellectual work
product of authors and news outlets into the public domain.
The fact that people like Hanson have spawned many imitators does not
diminish in any way his personal responsibility for violating the rights of
authors and news outlets.
This author believes that he should be called to account, both for his
copyright violations, and his continuing, personal, abuse of Usenet.
---
This article was the result of hours of research using Usenet archives of
Google and other public sources. The author thanks Google, Inc., of
Mountain View, CA for making the Usenet archives available to anyone at no
cost.
The author appreciates any comments, updates, or responses, and presumes
permission to include any new discovered salient facts that you provide in
any further update, unless you specifically prohibit it. Thanks for your
cooperation.
Thank you for reading this article.
-----
The author who uses the pseudonym "George of the Jungle" hereby places this
article in the public domain. The author assumes no responsibility for
further dissemination in this or any other medium.
--
"I have often regretted my speech, never my silence."
Publius Syrus. (42 B.C.), Maxim 1070.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---
wcb
IS THERE A GOD? NO. STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER
- PART 1.
W.C. Barwell August 8-1-06
1. In this essay, proof "God" does not exist
is aimed at an entire class of gods, not
particular gods. This is the class of gods that
are omni-everything and creator of all gods.
Hereafter OEC, that is, omni-everything, creator
gods or OEC class of gods).
If an class of gods can be disproved, all particular
gods that belong to that class are collectively
disproven too. This is an efficient, and sensible
approach to disproving god, by which the
god of major religious and theological traditions.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Brahamanistic
Hinduism and other claimed gods of this class
are meant. But it would also disprove any
other particular gods, known or unknown who
have the characteristics placing them in this
class of gods.
This of course does not disprove all possible
gods, nor is Part 1 alone meant to do that, it
is meant only to deal with the OEC gods that are
the main problem for this world, the gods of
4 1/2 billion believers. The OEC gods that are the
source of fundamentalism, bigotry, fanaticism,
anti-intellectualism and various kinds of
backwardness.
There are a number of other classes of gods but
comparatively speaking far fewer people believe
in these other classes of gods, these believers
are not very numerous or very important.
Animist gods, such as found in Voodoo, nature
gods and the like. It is possible to sort other
kinds of gods into a number of classes of gods
and likewise disprove each class. That shall be
considered in later parts.
Here I am primarily looking at the class of
Omni-everything creator gods. This should not be
taken to mean other classes of gods cannot also
be likewise disproven.
Or that such secondary classes are totally
unimportant. But basically the Omni-everything
class of gods is so far above any other god that
once it is debunked, its hard to step down to
distinctly second rate gods. Its like stepping
down from a Cadillac to a bicycle. If we can
thus disprove that class, we have done most
of strong Atheism's work.
No other class of gods, a lessor kind of god,
can plug the hole left by the debunked OEC gods,
the omni-everything creator gods of classical
major religions and theological systems, either.
These systems have all based themselves on a set
of claims about god that lessor classes of god
cannot fulfill. No lesser class of gods can save
the religions based on this class of gods if the
OEC class pf gods proves vulnerable.
2. A BASIC DEFINITION THE CLASS OF
OMNI-EVERYTHING AND CREATOR-OF-ALL GODS.
A. We will start with 8 assertions drawn from
the major religions Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism,
and Islam. Other religions may fit here too.
3. NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD
A. There is no evidence whatsoever god. One may
search the best textbooks of the best divinity
schools and seminaries and philosophy departments
of the best universities in vain for evidence.
2500 years of philosophy and theology have produced
no good hard, undeniable evidence at all.
4. ALL WE HAVE TO WORK WITH IS ASSERTIONS
A. All we have to work from then, is claims, or
assertions made about god. I have chosen the
following 8 assertions as they are all part of
all great and large religions and theological
traditions of the world. Most of 4 1/2 billion
believers will agree with most of these, and these
are all dogmatic to most main stream religions.
B. If we can show these create contradictions, we
can show that the class omni-everything creator
gods, the Grand God, cannot exist. All we have to
work with are assertions and logic, but this is
all we need. I need not use anything more to
achieve my goal.
C. All these claims are derived from claimed
revelations, taken from the Bible, Quran, Vedas
and other revealed books.
5. THE 8 MAJOR ASSERTIONS I WILL WORK WITH
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and
consciousness.
B. God is intelligent
C. God has free will.
D. God is the creator of all.
E. God is omnipotent.
F. God is omnibenevolent.
G. God is omniscient.
H. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism. I have chosen the
specifically because they are in fact assertions
made about god traditionally by these religions
and are all that is needed to show this class of
OEC class of gods cannot exist.
A.- C.show god is a personal god, not a mere
force of nature or another name for for nature.
This is a personal god, with will, intelligence,
purpose.
B. Omniscience are actually logically derivable from
the claimed attribute of omnipotence and so aren't
not truly independent attributes, and may be considered
a special aspect of omnipotence.
6. WE CAN THUS ABSTRACT A GENERAL CLASS OF
OMNI-EVERYTHING GOD FROM THESE 8 GENERAL
ASSERTIONS.
A. We can abstract a class of gods,
omni-everything, creator gods from these 8
characteristics. We could probably drop G. and
collapse B. into A.
We can initially ignore secondary claims though such
claims as god's mercy, justice and love. These are
also affected and could be used to strengthen the
argument. Many of these are destroyed by considering
assertions A. - G and the resulting contradictions
these cause. But the idea is to use minimal number of
basic claims found in all major religious and
theological traditions. If these do the job of
disproving this class of gods, that is all we
need. Anything else is a luxury.
B. There are other attributes of god, that god is
eternal, infinite, that god is simple and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary. Some
claims can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above or are destroyed by
discussion of the 8 attributes discussed above.
C. It does not mean we cannot later consider
such secondary claims as many are also rather
useful at showing this class of gods is
impossible. Some are rather amusing in this
regard. But they are secondary and not critical
for the main argument here. But some are peculiar
to one religion, for example Christian theologians
alone have the doctrine of god's simplicity.
7. CLASSES OF GODS
A. It is important to note here in 2., that this
is a definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods. This is key to this
disproof which is designed to be general in nature.
B. If we disprove the entire class of gods by
examining the logical implications of a few
claims, all secondary claims are also destroyed.
We need not examine claims of god's simplicity or
whether god is immanent or transcendent or other
similar claims. We need not break down
omnibenevolence into secondary associated claims
such as such as mercy, justice, or implied claims,
though we might mention their destruction
in passing when appropriate, and damage done to
such concepts of damnation, or punishment or sin.
C. If we disprove a class of gods, those particular
gods belonging to that class are also disproven.
God of the bible, Allah, Hindu Ishvara.
If the class of omni-everything creator gods is
disproven these gods are disproven if we succeed.
All known gods and possible new or obscure gods
are all dealt with, we need not worry about a god
we have never heard of it it is of this class.
D. Tertiary claims are also likewise disproven.
Mohammad is not a prophet of god and Jesus was not
son of god. Moses did not meet god on the
mountain, God did not promise all of Canaan to
Abraham. God did not part the Red Sea. God does
not speak to prophets. Creationism based on Genesis
claims People's of the Book are to be subdued, or
that Allah sent revelations to Mohammad via angel
Gabriel are all irrelevant now.
E. Thus taking a general approach of disproving
classes of gods is efficient and far more effective
than trying to disprove particular gods one by one.
8. THE PROBLEMS OF AN OMNI-EVERYTHING, CREATOR GOD
The most basic problems are the problems of evil, and
free will. These start the collapse of the OEC class
of gods.
9. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
It is found in Christian writer Lactantius's
"Treatise on the Anger of God".
A basic formulation is:
A. God is defined as powerful
B. God is defined as as good.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not powerful as claimed.
E. Or God is not good as claimed.
F. Or god is neither powerful or
good.
G. Or god is not existent.
It should be noted the original version as found
in Lactantius's "Treatise of the Anger of God" does
not use the words omnipotent or omnibenevolent,
these are much later restatements of the original
problem of evil which works just as well without
these terms. Later versions come basically from
David Hume's "Dialogues on Natural Religion"
posthumously published in 1779.
10. THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
A. The free will defense of the problem of evil
goes back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It
is still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by many other
theologians, old and modern.
B. God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to
do evil. Ability to do evil, having a free will,
is more important for god than lacking free will.
11. THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DISPROVEN. FIRST WAY
God has free will.
God is has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god-like
free will and a god-like good nature.
D. Inability then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
good.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
H. Thus since all evil exists because of god's choices
where evil may be eliminated it if god choses to act
means god is evil, a contradiction in claims about god.
a god taht is claimed to be all good cannot exist.
So god can have free will and a good nature and
still be said to have free will despite never
doing evil. Man can thus also have this and
inability to do evil is not a sign of lack of free
will. We both would have potential to do evil, but
simply don't. Here, the free will defense fails,
the problem of evil remains.
13 OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
FREE WILL DISPROVEN, SECOND WAY.
God is defined as creator of all in these
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent. A contradiction of assertions
about the nature of god.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
14. OMNI-EVERYTHING GODS HAVE THUS SELF
DESTRUCTED.
A.The OEC class of gods is thus self destructive,
it is incoherent and contradictory as a theory
and such a god is impossible.
B. Further more such a situation makes god a
problematic idea. If there is no free will and if
thus god makes all decisions to the smallest
physical extent possible, at all times, then not
only is this god not good, but evil, a contradiction,
and it destroys all of this purported god's secondary
attributes. In such a universe, mercy, justice, god's
alleged love of mankind are all incomprehensible
nonsense. It makes no sense to create a man to do
evil acts and condemn him to eternal torment forever for
something god decided, not that man.
C. Any system of theology that claims god created
all and that god is omniscient, knowing the
future, faces this problem and dissolves into
total incoherent nonsense, a reductio ad absurdum
that makes a mockery of all religions based on a
god that is allegedly creator of all and
omniscient, knowing the future. As we will see,
omnipotence, time and creation will combine
(in future parts) to create a far more powerful
disproof of this class of gods.
15. THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
6. This destroys all other claimed secondary and
good attributes of god, mercy, justice, love.
16. GOD AND TIME.
A. Both Augustine and Boethius described god as
being transcendent to time, outside and beyond it.
Thus there is no past, present, or future to god,
all is now. Since all is now, god must have
create all things at once at once. Including
again, our every act, thought and inclination.
God is said to be out of time because otherwise he
must affected by time, which would mean he is not
as defined, all powerful or omnipotent. But this
means he is omniscient and again, we have no free
will.
B. As seen, explicit claims of omniscience, and
creatorship of god doom free will and more. Any
claim god is outside of time forces us to the
claim god is effectively omniscient.
C. But if we drop claims god is out of time and
now is affected by time, god cannot be as claimed,
omnipotent. And since omniscience, foreknowledge
of the future is important to the concept of
prophecy, that secondary assertion fails too.
Prophecy is a key concept of traditional religions
and theologies of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
17. MANY SECONDARY AND LESSOR ATTRIBUTES ARE
DOOMED BY THE CONCEPT OF OMNIPOTENCE AND
CREATORSHIP OF GOD
A. If evil exists, god is evil. We have no free
will which means secondary attributes of God such
as mercy, love, justice are pretty meaningless
in face of a god that creates many of us morally
evil. Heaven, hell, damnation, sin, punishment,
salvation, nothing much makes any sense with such an
omniscient god. Augustine's free will defense of
God in face of Epicurus's problem of evil is
utterly undone by his claim god is sovereign over
time because he is all powerful, or omnipotent.
B. Besides these attributes being destroyed, this
destroys all religions that dogmatically claim
god is omniscient, creator of all and has these
secondary tributes.
C. This all calls all claims of revelation
in regard to revealed books into question.
18. TIME CONTRADICTS GOD'S CREATION OF ALL.
A. If we say god is omnipotent, all powerful, he
is outside of time then free will is impossible
and all else is simply an Universe utterly alien,
incoherent and mad and most certainly not anything
the great theological traditions tell us it is.
B. To avoid this, if we say god is not outside
of time, this then implies time is outside and
beyond god and he cannot have created it. Thus
contradicting claims of being the creator of all.
Especially ex nihilo as many religions claim.
C. Thus the another contradiction pops up
dooming a major claim, god created all. Theology
cannot keep the claim god is outside of time or
keep the claim god is subject to time, as then
they lose omnipotence and creatorship of the
entire universe as dogmatic claims.
19. Here, the OEC class of gods has collapsed.
As has theology and revealed religion itself as a
methodology. As pointed out, this destroys the
claims and viability of an entire class of
possible gods, all secondary and tertiary
claims for such a god of this class also
fail, as do dogmas or secondary or tertiary
claims based on real existance of this class
of gods in any way.
20. If this entire class of omni-everything
creator gods cannot exist as defined, specific
gods cannot, nor can claims such as this or that
Grand God sent this or that revelation to man or
some prophet or did this or that. This there are
no grounds to use these religions to deny rights
to say, homosexuals, or to claim Genesis myths are
true since they are god's word and thus evolution
must not be taught in schools.
21. This OEC class of gods is thus disproven and is
utter irrelevant to anything real and existant.
And this is not the last of the problems of the
class of Omni-everything gods that are creators
of all.
And there are more problems that will be
considered in other parts to come. Such as the
nature of logic, and the rules and laws of the
Universe.
(End of Part 1)
*************************************************
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
"wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12ds8ab...@corp.supernews.com...
> Gandy net bully shits off again.
>>> IS THERE A GOD? NO.
Gandalf Grey
>>> IS THERE A GOD? NO.
>>> Strong Atheism's answer.
>>> Part 1.
>>>
>>> 1. First of all, this proof "God" does not exist
>>> is aimed at an entire class of gods, not particular
>>> gods.
>>
>> This remark alone is an explict admission that you've been lying up to
>> this point.
>
> No, its just an admission I underestimated the intelligence
> of SOME of my audience.
That's a lie. You explicitly stated originally that you had a simple proof
that no god can exist.
So now you're lying about it after failing to demonstrate such a proof.
>
>
>>
>>>This is the class of gods that are
>>> omni-everything and creator of all. If I can
>>> disprove an entire class of gods, all particular gods
>>> that belong to that class are collectively disproven
>>> too. This is an efficient, and sensible approach to
>>> disproving god, by which I mean the god of major
>>> religious and theological traditions.
>>
So what?
Ad hom 4
Ad hom 5
Once again....
Why?
You fail again.
Ad hom 7 noted.
>>> gods. True, but this is not meant to, it is meant
>>> only to deal with the gods that are the main problem
>>> for this world,
>>
>> Another unsupported assertion. Nowhere does your original argument prove
>> this universal claim. Religion in general has caused tremendous
>> suffering
>> in the world, but your argument nowhere addresses this particular
>> problem.
>>
>
> Supported. You are being irrational here.
Bald assertion without support noted.
>
>
>>> the gods of 4 1/2 billion believers.
>>> The god that is the source of fundamentalism,
>>> bigotry, fanaticism, anti-intellectualism and
>>> backwardness. There are a few other classes of gods
>>> but numerically by believers, these are not that
>>> widespread or important.
>>
>> According to whom? You may be competent to recognize what is
>> 'widespread'
>> but who are you to decide what is "important?"
>>
>
> According to all with brains.
Dismissive reply noted. Where's your actual evidence? Where's your actual
defence?
> for example, without religious idiots in the US would we be having
> problems with creationists assaulting science teaching in schools, and in
> may cases, all but gutting science education in backard states and cities?
I repeat...who are YOU to decide what is important?
>
> You are a fool. and wrong.
Ad hom 8.
>
>>> But it is possible to sort
>>> them into a few classes of gods and likewise disprove
>>> each class.
>>
>> Which you have not done and cannot do. Hence, another lie on your part.
>>
>
> Which I do, stop lying, it makes the peanut gallery laugh at your
> pretensions.
Ad hom 9. If you've done it, you should be able to point to it
specifically. You can't because you haven't and can't.
>
>>> Here I am primarily looking at the class
>>> of omni-everything creator gods. This does not mean
>>> other classes of gods cannot also be likewise disproven.
>>
>> And it doesn't mean they can be.
>>
>
> You lame and wrong opinion.
> as if you know zip about it.
Ad hom 10
>
>>> Or are totally unimportant. But basically the
>>> omni-everything class of gods is so far above any
>>> other god that once it is debunked, its hard to
>>> step down to distinctly second rate gods.
>>
>> Why is this so and why should it be so? 100s of years ago, the vast bulk
>> of
>> humanity believed that space was filled with an ether. Did this make the
>> fact that it was not filled with ether "unimportant?"
>>
>
> Non sequitur.
It's a perfect analogy. You're attempting to float the notion that the only
gods that need 'debunking' are the gods of the most powerful and numerous
religious traditions.
1. You havne't succeeded in debunking them
2. You haven't demonstrated why those particular gods are the only important
ones.
3. You haven't offered any rational basis upon which a god becomes "second
rate."
>
>
>
>
>
>>> Its like
>>> stepping down from a Cadillac to a bicycle.
>>
>> Why? You're making a value judgement about something that you're
>> attempting
>> to prove or disprove. Hence, you're committing the naturalistic fallacy.
>>
>>>
>
> Fallacy.
Bald assertion without support noted. If it's a fallacy you should be able
to prove that it's a fallacy.
>
>
>>> 2. A BASIC DEFINITION THE CLASS OF GOD,
>>> OMNI-EVERYTHING AND CREATOR OF ALL
>>> Also known here as the Grand God of Grand Theology.
>>>
>>> There is no evidence whatsover for god. All we
>>> have to work from is claims, or assertions made
>>> about god. I have chosen the following 8 as they are
>>> all part of all great and large religions and
>>> theological traditions of the world.
>>
>> But mostly because you've decided that they are the weakest factors. In
>> other words, you still haven't attacked the assertion of God's existence,
>> only assertions concerning God's attributes.
>>
>
> I need only weak factors to work with and basically all basic claims of
> this
> class of god are indeed, weak,
> Sorry, thems just the facts. All we have are weak assertions.
You've made one honest statement above. William Barwell NEEDS weak factors
to work with. This is the case because you can't handle stronger factors.
>
> I mean, what facts are there that save omnipotence, omnibenevolnece
> and omniscience, free will and this class of gods.
> Nothing. Nothing at all.
Real existence is hardly "nothing." And, as noted, you've flopped trying to
debunk everything save omnipotence, and THAT is only because you've never
actually attempted to deal with it.
>
>
>>> Most of 4 1/2
>>> billion believers will agree with most of these,
>>> and these are all dogmatic to most main religions.
>>
>> Fallacy of composition. Not even all Christians agree with these points.
>>
>
> Most...
So what. That's precisely what makes it the fallacy of composition.
You keep smacking into that fallacy, and you keep embracing it as though it
were a great truth. All it is is a great mistake.
>
> We will fid a few wimpy newage type salad bar christians and so on.
> But conservatives, evangelicals, fundies and moslems mostly agree god is
> omni-everything. Sorry.
Fallacy of *argumentum ad numerum*. I don't give much of a damn what most
people think. I give a damn about whether a logical proof is a logical
proof.
When are you going to come up with one.
>
>
>>> If we can show these create contradictions, we can show that
>>> the class omni-everything creator gods, the Grand God,
>>> cannot exist.
>>
>> No, you cannot. All you can prove is that any particular attribute is
>> illogical within that particular argument.
>>
>
>
> We can. You simply are wrong. As usual.
But you can't demonstrate why. Again, Barwell runs away from defending his
own argument.
>
>>> All we have to work with are assertions
>>> and logic.
>>
>> Get on with it, Barlow.
>>
>
> Read faster.
>
>>>
>>> The general overarching definition of god as per
>>> the major religions of the world is:
>>>
>>> A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
>>> B. God has free will.
>>> C. God is the creator of all.
>>> D. God is omnipotent.
>>> E. God is omnibenevolent.
>>> F. God is omniscient.
>>> G. God is that which nothing more powerful
>>> can be imagined.
>>>
>>> These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
>>> for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
>>> Islam, and Hinduism.
>>
>> 1. you're utterly wrong about the beliefs that form Hinduism and
>> obviously
>> have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
>
> I do, you do not.
Hinduism does not incorporate all the characteristics you list, you fool.
Hinduism is not even monotheistic.
>
>
>> 2. Judaism is NOT Christianity, and you're attributing to the one what is
>> strictly true only of the other.
>
>
> I didn't say it was, did I?.
>>> These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
>>> for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
>>> Islam, and Hinduism.
> You lied again.,
>>> These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
>>> for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
>>> Islam, and Hinduism.
> Strawman, reading comprehension problem, basic inability to read and
> understand simple english sentence written at a 6th grade level for your
> reading pleasure.
Ad hom 11
>
>> 3. The same can be said for Islam.
>>
>>>
>>> Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
>>> logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
>>> omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
>
> This is old dogma.
>
>
>
>>> 3. We can abstract a class of gods, omni-everything,
>>> creator gods from these 8 characteristics.
>>
>> Except that you haven't proved the 8 characteristics at this point.
>
> You are obviously a goofball.
> 1. God is personal, god has conciousness and will
> 2. God is intelligent
> 3. God has free will
> 4. God created all
> 5. God is omnipotent
> 6. God is omniscient
> 7. God is omnibenevolent
> 8. God is that which is so great, nothing greater
> can be imagined.
>
> All are dogmatic among these basic religious traditions.
1. No they aren't.
2. No one of them, nor any group of them has anything to do with the
existence of God.
Let's go back to our analogous argument.
>> 1. Bill Smith exists.
>> 2. It is said by his admirers that Bill Smith always tells the truth.
>> 3. But Bill Smith cannot always tell the truth.
>> 4. Hence Bills Smith does not exist?????
This is your basic problem. Even a malicious creep like Martin McPhillips
could see it. You're attempting to prove something about the EXISTENCE of
god by making a mess of attacking arguments ABOUT God.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> 5. CLASSES OF GODS
>>>
>>> It is important to note here in 2. that this is a
>>> definition not for a particular god, but an
>>> entire class of gods. This is key to this disproof
>>> which is general in nature.
>>
>> Except that your list is both incomplete and internally illogical as I've
>> shown.
>>
>>>
>>> 6. If we disprove the entire class of gods by examining
>>> the logical implications of a few claims, all secondary
>>> claims are also destroyed.
>>
>> 1. That's not necessarily true.
>> 2. You haven't disproved the entire class.
>
> we are about t get there, stop squawking and keep reding.
Give me something of value to read.
>
>>
>>> We need not examine claims of god's simplicity or whether
>>> god is immanent or transcendent or other similar claims.
>>
>> Which you can't begin to do.
>
> I could, its for another time.
>
> Classes of transcedent or immanent gods go away when
> they are claimed to be of class of omni-everything anyway.
> Other problems go away automatically, following them in flames
> the hole of bad ideas.
You haven't shown this to be the case as demonstrated above. Since you
haven't succeeded in dealing with the 8 points you mention, you obviously
can't dismiss derivative claims.
>
> Siggghhhhhhhh. This isn't going anywhere, is it?
> Waste of my time to see you failing to think.
Ad hom 12. When are you actually going to present a logical argument,
Barwell?
>>
>>> We need not break down omnibenevolence into secondary
>>> associated claims such as such as mercy, justice, or
>>> implied claims, though we might mention their destruction
>>> in passing when appropriate, and damage done to such
>>> concepts of damnation, or punishment or sin.
>>
>>
>>> 10. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
>>>
>>> The problem of evil was first written down by
>>> Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
>>> It is found in Christian writer Lactantius's
>>> Treatise on the Anger of God.
>>>
>>> A basic formulation is:
>>> A. God is defined as powerful
>>> B. God is defined as as good.
>>> C. Evil exists.
>>> D. God therefore, is not powerful as claimed.
>>> E. Or God is not good as claimed.
>>> F. Or god is neither powerful or
>>> good.
>>
>>> 13 OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
>>> FREE WILL DISPROVEN PART 2.
Obviously you bow to my criticisms in the remainder of your screed, as you
offer no defense.
>>>
>>> God is defined as creator of all in these
>>> religions.
>>> And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
>>
>> Not in all of the religions you've named. Thus your argument fails right
>> here.
>>
>>>
>>> A. God created the Universe and all in it.
>>>B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
>>> in the Universe and he knows the future of the
>>> Universe and its contents.
>>
>> In some traditions.
>>
>>> C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
>>> in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
>>> man named John Smith in it.
>>
>> This is not omniscience vs. creatorhood. There is no necessary reason
>> that a creator logically must also know the full details of all possible
>> futures.
>>
>>> D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
>>> damned, God will know that.
>>> E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
>>> state will have a John Smith, god may then
>>> contemplate the future state of Smith and
>>> decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
>>> F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
>>> specific personal and will choice made solely
>>> by god.
>>> G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
>>> because of a choice made by god. In fact all
>>> moral evil done by creations of god will be
>>> evil and do evil only because of personal and
>>> willful creations of god allowing evil acts
>>> to be done, by direct decision of god.
>>> H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
>>> creator god, it is solely and only because
>>> god allows evil.
>>
>> Non sequitur. An omniscient god that is not omnipotent might not have a
>> choice as to whether to allow evil or not.
>>
>>> I. If evil exists solely because of personal
>>> choices of god, god then is not as defined,
>>> omnibenevolent.
>>
>> Non sequitur. You haven't proved that evil necessarily exists due to
>> god's
>> choice. If god is not omnipotent, evil may exist regardless.
>>
>>> J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
>>> Universe cannot have any free will, not even
>>> in principle. A Universe with a god that
>>> creates all and knows all precludes free will
>>> for all beings god creates in the strongest
>>> possible manner.
>>
>> Non sequitur. Mere knowledge does not imply control. God might know
>> everything that is knowable and still not know the future, or god might
>> know everything including all possible futures [though I doubt it].
>> Nevertheless, the fact that god knows everything does not logically imply
>> that God denies free will to actors in the world. In a purely
>> deterministic universe, which is a scientific materialistic assumption,
>> there is also no
>> such thing as true 'free will'. What does god's foreknowledge of such a
>> universe have to do with the actual precluding of free will? Simply
>> knowing that the universe is predetermined is to know that there can be
>> no
>> such thing as true free will, but knowing and causing are two different
>> things. Your argument implies that if a scientist believes that the
>> universe is deterministic and the scientist is right, then the scientist
>> is responsible
>> for destroying free will. That's an absurdity.
>>
>>>
>>> The Grand God of Grand
>>> Theology is thus self destroying,
>>
>> Not from what you've shown.
>>
>>> THE SITUATION SO FAR.
>>>
>>> 1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
>>> Grand God has been defined here with as few
>>> terms as possible.
>>
>> Actually, you've been as wordy as you can be in order to cover the
>> numerous logical flaws in your argument.
>>
>>> 2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
>>
>> As I've shown, it does not.
>>
>>> 3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
>>> flawed.
>>
>> As I've shown, free will or its absence need have nothing to do with god
>> one way or another.
>>
>>> 4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
>>> doom claims of god's omnibenevolence
>>
>> No they don't, as I've shown. In fact, as I've shown, they have nothing
>> to do with one another.
>>
>>> man's free will free will cannot exist for
>>> man.
>>
>> If this is true, it need have nothing to do with god.
>>
>>> All evil is the direct and knowing
>>> creation of god contradicting claims of
>>> omnibenevolence.
>>
>> You haven't even begun to show that. You haven't even addressed it.
>> Hence, I can only presume that you've pulled that claim out of thin air.
>>
>>> 5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
>>> free will cannot be a good quality, much less
>>> necessary.
>>
>> Again, you havne't demonstrated that.
>>
>>>
>>> 14. GOD AND TIME.
>>>
>>> Both Augustine and Boethius described god as being
>>> transcendent to time, outside and beyond it.
>>> Thus there is no past, present, or future to god,
>>> all is now. Since all is now, god must have
>>> create all things at once at once.
>>
>> Again, you're conflating terms. Here you conflate timelessness and
>> creation when you haven't proved that both must be necessary attributes
>> of
>> a god.
>>
>>> Any explicit claims of omniscience, and creatorship of god
>>> doom free will and more. Any claim god is outside of time
>>> forces us to the claim god is effectively omniscient.
>>
>> 1. you haven't doomed free will.
>> 2. Being outside of time is not a necessary corollary much less a cause
>> of
>> omniscience.
>>
>>>
>>> 15. If evil exists, god is evil.
>>
>> Another assertion out of left field. Please show your proof of this
>> assertion. You've not even addressed this question to this point.
>>
>>> We have no free will which
>>> means secondary attributes of God such as mercy, love, justice
>>> are pretty meaningless in face of a god that creates many
>>> of us morally evil.
>>
>> If such a god existed, that might be true. But you offer no evidence to
>> suggest that god must have had a choice in the fine details of creation.
>> I.e., you haven't offered proof that god must be omnipotent. Hence, your
>> derived assumptions that he must not be merciful, loving or just, are
>> what
>> is truly meaningless here.
>>
>>> Heaven, hell, damnation, sin, punishment,
>>> salvation, nothing much makes with such an omniscient god.
>>
>> How so? How does Omniscience imply any of the above?
>>
>>> Augustine's free will defense of God in face of Epicurus's
>>> problem of evil is utterly undone by his claim god is sovereign
>>> over time because he is all powerful.
>>
>> You haven't shown this to be the case.
>>
>>>
>>> 16. TIME AND GOD'S CREATION OF ALL.
>>> If we say god is omnipotent, all powerful, he is outside
>>> of time and free will is impossible and all else is simply an
>>> Universe utterly alien, incoherent and mad and most certainly
>>> not anything the great theological traditions tell it it is.
>>
>> That does not follow. The fact that Augustine said that god is all
>> powerful and outside of time, does not mean that god is either all
>> powerful or outside of time, OR that either of these attributes are
>> necessary attributes
>> of god. Omnipotence does not imply being outside of time. Being outside
>> of time does not imply omnipotence.
>>
>>> And if to avoid this we say god is not outside of time, this
>>> implies time is outside and beyond god and he cannot have
>>> created it. Thus contradicting claims of being the creator of
>>> all. Especially ex nihilo as many religions claim.
>>
>> Not all religions make a ex nihilo claim.
>>
>>>
>>> 17. Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
>>> collapsed.
>>
>> Apparently not, since you haven't made an argument that would lead to
>> such
>> a collapse.
>>
>>> As has Grand Theology.
>>
>> 1. Only the Grand Theology that you deliberately made up out of a
>> patchwork, skewed selection of elements would be impacted by even that
>> small part of your lengthy argument that was actually valid.
>>
>> 2. Since no such theology exists save in your skewed list, it cannot be
>> said that you've said much of anything about the major tenets of Western
>> Theology.
>>
>> 3. Your argument seems to be an argument about what you think is most
>> popular in most of theology.
>>
>> 4. Since what you think is most popular is not even representative of all
>> the world's MAJOR theologies [you haven't even touched the dogma of
>> hinduism] your argument is at best a strawman.
>>
>> 5. As has been shown, you're points are mostly non-sequiturs even against
>> the trumped up list you've created.
>>
>> In short, your argument is a strawman, and you haven't even succeeded in
>> debunking your own strawman.
>>
>>> As pointed out,
>>> this destroys the claims and viability of an
>>> entire class of possible gods, all secondary and
>>> tertiary claims for such a god of this class also
>>> fail, as do dogmas or secondary or tertiary
wcb
IS THERE A GOD? NO. STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER
- PART 1.
W.C. Barwell August 8-1-06
1. In this essay, proof "God" does not exist
is aimed at an entire class of gods, not
particular gods. This is the class of gods that
are omni-everything and creator of all gods.
Hereafter OEC, that is, omni-everything, creator
gods or OEC class of gods).
If an class of gods can be disproved, all particular
gods that belong to that class are collectively
disproven too. This is an efficient, and sensible
approach to disproving god, by which the
god of major religious and theological traditions.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Brahamanistic
Hinduism and other claimed gods of this class
are meant. But it would also disprove any
other particular gods, known or unknown who
have the characteristics placing them in this
class of gods.
This of course does not disprove all possible
gods, nor is Part 1 alone meant to do that, it
is meant only to deal with the OEC gods that are
the main problem for this world, the gods of
4 1/2 billion believers. The OEC gods that are the
source of fundamentalism, bigotry, fanaticism,
anti-intellectualism and various kinds of
backwardness.
There are a number of other classes of gods but
comparatively speaking far fewer people believe
in these other classes of gods, these believers
are not very numerous or very important.
Animist gods, such as found in Voodoo, nature
gods and the like. It is possible to sort other
kinds of gods into a number of classes of gods
and likewise disprove each class. That shall be
considered in later parts.
Here I am primarily looking at the class of
Omni-everything creator gods. This should not be
taken to mean other classes of gods cannot also
be likewise disproven.
Or that such secondary classes are totally
unimportant. But basically the Omni-everything
class of gods is so far above any other god that
once it is debunked, its hard to step down to
distinctly second rate gods. Its like stepping
down from a Cadillac to a bicycle. If we can
thus disprove that class, we have done most
of strong Atheism's work.
No other class of gods, a lessor kind of god,
can plug the hole left by the debunked OEC gods,
the omni-everything creator gods of classical
major religions and theological systems, either.
These systems have all based themselves on a set
of claims about god that lessor classes of god
cannot fulfill. No lesser class of gods can save
the religions based on this class of gods if the
OEC class pf gods proves vulnerable.
2. A BASIC DEFINITION THE CLASS OF
OMNI-EVERYTHING AND CREATOR-OF-ALL GODS.
A. We will start with 8 assertions drawn from
the major religions Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism,
and Islam. Other religions may fit here too.
3. NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD
A. There is no evidence whatsoever god. One may
search the best textbooks of the best divinity
schools and seminaries and philosophy departments
of the best universities in vain for evidence.
2500 years of philosophy and theology have produced
no good hard, undeniable evidence at all.
4. ALL WE HAVE TO WORK WITH IS ASSERTIONS
A. All we have to work from then, is claims, or
assertions made about god. I have chosen the
following 8 assertions as they are all part of
all great and large religions and theological
traditions of the world. Most of 4 1/2 billion
believers will agree with most of these, and these
are all dogmatic to most main stream religions.
B. If we can show these create contradictions, we
can show that the class omni-everything creator
gods, the Grand God, cannot exist. All we have to
work with are assertions and logic, but this is
all we need. I need not use anything more to
achieve my goal.
C. All these claims are derived from claimed
revelations, taken from the Bible, Quran, Vedas
and other revealed books.
5. THE 8 MAJOR ASSERTIONS I WILL WORK WITH
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and
consciousness.
B. God is intelligent
C. God has free will.
D. God is the creator of all.
E. God is omnipotent.
F. God is omnibenevolent.
G. God is omniscient.
H. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism. I have chosen the
specifically because they are in fact assertions
made about god traditionally by these religions
and are all that is needed to show this class of
OEC class of gods cannot exist.
A.- C.show god is a personal god, not a mere
force of nature or another name for for nature.
This is a personal god, with will, intelligence,
purpose.
B. Omniscience are actually logically derivable from
the claimed attribute of omnipotence and so aren't
not truly independent attributes, and may be considered
a special aspect of omnipotence.
6. WE CAN THUS ABSTRACT A GENERAL CLASS OF
OMNI-EVERYTHING GOD FROM THESE 8 GENERAL
ASSERTIONS.
A. We can abstract a class of gods,
omni-everything, creator gods from these 8
7. CLASSES OF GODS
A. It is important to note here in 2., that this
is a definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods. This is key to this
disproof which is designed to be general in nature.
B. If we disprove the entire class of gods by
examining the logical implications of a few
claims, all secondary claims are also destroyed.
We need not examine claims of god's simplicity or
whether god is immanent or transcendent or other
similar claims. We need not break down
omnibenevolence into secondary associated claims
such as such as mercy, justice, or implied claims,
though we might mention their destruction
in passing when appropriate, and damage done to
such concepts of damnation, or punishment or sin.
C. If we disprove a class of gods, those particular
gods belonging to that class are also disproven.
God of the bible, Allah, Hindu Ishvara.
If the class of omni-everything creator gods is
disproven these gods are disproven if we succeed.
All known gods and possible new or obscure gods
are all dealt with, we need not worry about a god
we have never heard of it it is of this class.
D. Tertiary claims are also likewise disproven.
Mohammad is not a prophet of god and Jesus was not
son of god. Moses did not meet god on the
mountain, God did not promise all of Canaan to
Abraham. God did not part the Red Sea. God does
not speak to prophets. Creationism based on Genesis
claims People's of the Book are to be subdued, or
that Allah sent revelations to Mohammad via angel
Gabriel are all irrelevant now.
E. Thus taking a general approach of disproving
classes of gods is efficient and far more effective
than trying to disprove particular gods one by one.
8. THE PROBLEMS OF AN OMNI-EVERYTHING, CREATOR GOD
The most basic problems are the problems of evil, and
free will. These start the collapse of the OEC class
of gods.
9. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
It is found in Christian writer Lactantius's
"Treatise on the Anger of God".
A basic formulation is:
A. God is defined as powerful
B. God is defined as as good.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not powerful as claimed.
E. Or God is not good as claimed.
F. Or god is neither powerful or
good.
13 OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
FREE WILL DISPROVEN, SECOND WAY.
God is defined as creator of all in these
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent. A contradiction of assertions
about the nature of god.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
15. THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
6. This destroys all other claimed secondary and
good attributes of god, mercy, justice, love.
16. GOD AND TIME.
A. Both Augustine and Boethius described god as
being transcendent to time, outside and beyond it.
Thus there is no past, present, or future to god,
all is now. Since all is now, god must have
create all things at once at once. Including
again, our every act, thought and inclination.
God is said to be out of time because otherwise he
must affected by time, which would mean he is not
as defined, all powerful or omnipotent. But this
means he is omniscient and again, we have no free
will.
B. As seen, explicit claims of omniscience, and
creatorship of god doom free will and more. Any
claim god is outside of time forces us to the
claim god is effectively omniscient.
C. But if we drop claims god is out of time and
now is affected by time, god cannot be as claimed,
omnipotent. And since omniscience, foreknowledge
of the future is important to the concept of
prophecy, that secondary assertion fails too.
Prophecy is a key concept of traditional religions
and theologies of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
17. MANY SECONDARY AND LESSOR ATTRIBUTES ARE
DOOMED BY THE CONCEPT OF OMNIPOTENCE AND
CREATORSHIP OF GOD
A. If evil exists, god is evil. We have no free
will which means secondary attributes of God such
as mercy, love, justice are pretty meaningless
in face of a god that creates many of us morally
evil. Heaven, hell, damnation, sin, punishment,
salvation, nothing much makes any sense with such an
omniscient god. Augustine's free will defense of
God in face of Epicurus's problem of evil is
utterly undone by his claim god is sovereign over
time because he is all powerful, or omnipotent.
B. Besides these attributes being destroyed, this
destroys all religions that dogmatically claim
god is omniscient, creator of all and has these
secondary tributes.
C. This all calls all claims of revelation
in regard to revealed books into question.
18. TIME CONTRADICTS GOD'S CREATION OF ALL.
A. If we say god is omnipotent, all powerful, he
is outside of time then free will is impossible
and all else is simply an Universe utterly alien,
incoherent and mad and most certainly not anything
the great theological traditions tell us it is.
B. To avoid this, if we say god is not outside
of time, this then implies time is outside and
beyond god and he cannot have created it. Thus
contradicting claims of being the creator of all.
Especially ex nihilo as many religions claim.
C. Thus the another contradiction pops up
dooming a major claim, god created all. Theology
cannot keep the claim god is outside of time or
keep the claim god is subject to time, as then
they lose omnipotence and creatorship of the
entire universe as dogmatic claims.
19. Here, the OEC class of gods has collapsed.
As has theology and revealed religion itself as a
methodology. As pointed out, this destroys the
claims and viability of an entire class of
possible gods, all secondary and tertiary
claims for such a god of this class also
fail, as do dogmas or secondary or tertiary
claims based on real existance of this class
of gods in any way.
20. If this entire class of omni-everything
creator gods cannot exist as defined, specific
gods cannot, nor can claims such as this or that
Grand God sent this or that revelation to man or
some prophet or did this or that. This there are
no grounds to use these religions to deny rights
to say, homosexuals, or to claim Genesis myths are
true since they are god's word and thus evolution
must not be taught in schools.
21. This OEC class of gods is thus disproven and is
utter irrelevant to anything real and existant.
And this is not the last of the problems of the
class of Omni-everything gods that are creators
of all.
And there are more problems that will be
considered in other parts to come. Such as the
nature of logic, and the rules and laws of the
Universe.
wcb
>
> That's a lie.  You explicitly stated originally that you had a simple
> proof that no god can exist.
Gandy net bully.
Liar, fraud, moron.
Why would Gandy gooseboty repeat debunked lies?
To prove he is a liar and a net kook.
The Richard Hanson faq
http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd
The Gandalf Grey Usenet Abuse FAQ, Version 1.1:
---
IS THERE A GOD? NO. STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER
- PART 1.
W.C. Barwell August 8-1-06
1. In this essay, proof "God" does not exist
is aimed at an entire class of gods, not
particular gods. This is the class of gods that
are omni-everything and creator of all gods.
Hereafter OEC, that is, omni-everything, creator
gods or OEC class of gods).
If an class of gods can be disproved, all particular
gods that belong to that class are collectively
disproven too. This is an efficient, and sensible
approach to disproving god, by which the
god of major religious and theological traditions.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Brahamanistic
Hinduism and other claimed gods of this class
are meant. But it would also disprove any
other particular gods, known or unknown who
have the characteristics placing them in this
class of gods.
This of course does not disprove all possible
gods, nor is Part 1 alone meant to do that, it
is meant only to deal with the OEC gods that are
the main problem for this world, the gods of
4 1/2 billion believers. The OEC gods that are the
source of fundamentalism, bigotry, fanaticism,
anti-intellectualism and various kinds of
backwardness.
There are a number of other classes of gods but
comparatively speaking far fewer people believe
in these other classes of gods, these believers
are not very numerous or very important.
Animist gods, such as found in Voodoo, nature
gods and the like. It is possible to sort other
kinds of gods into a number of classes of gods
and likewise disprove each class. That shall be
considered in later parts.
Here I am primarily looking at the class of
Omni-everything creator gods. This should not be
taken to mean other classes of gods cannot also
be likewise disproven.
Or that such secondary classes are totally
unimportant. But basically the Omni-everything
class of gods is so far above any other god that
once it is debunked, its hard to step down to
distinctly second rate gods. Its like stepping
down from a Cadillac to a bicycle. If we can
thus disprove that class, we have done most
of strong Atheism's work.
No other class of gods, a lessor kind of god,
can plug the hole left by the debunked OEC gods,
the omni-everything creator gods of classical
major religions and theological systems, either.
These systems have all based themselves on a set
of claims about god that lessor classes of god
cannot fulfill. No lesser class of gods can save
the religions based on this class of gods if the
OEC class pf gods proves vulnerable.
2. A BASIC DEFINITION THE CLASS OF
OMNI-EVERYTHING AND CREATOR-OF-ALL GODS.
A. We will start with 8 assertions drawn from
the major religions Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism,
and Islam. Other religions may fit here too.
3. NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD
A. There is no evidence whatsoever god. One may
search the best textbooks of the best divinity
schools and seminaries and philosophy departments
of the best universities in vain for evidence.
2500 years of philosophy and theology have produced
no good hard, undeniable evidence at all.
4. ALL WE HAVE TO WORK WITH IS ASSERTIONS
A. All we have to work from then, is claims, or
assertions made about god. I have chosen the
following 8 assertions as they are all part of
all great and large religions and theological
traditions of the world. Most of 4 1/2 billion
believers will agree with most of these, and these
are all dogmatic to most main stream religions.
B. If we can show these create contradictions, we
can show that the class omni-everything creator
gods, the Grand God, cannot exist. All we have to
work with are assertions and logic, but this is
all we need. I need not use anything more to
achieve my goal.
C. All these claims are derived from claimed
revelations, taken from the Bible, Quran, Vedas
and other revealed books.
5. THE 8 MAJOR ASSERTIONS I WILL WORK WITH
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and
consciousness.
B. God is intelligent
C. God has free will.
D. God is the creator of all.
E. God is omnipotent.
F. God is omnibenevolent.
G. God is omniscient.
H. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism. I have chosen the
specifically because they are in fact assertions
made about god traditionally by these religions
and are all that is needed to show this class of
OEC class of gods cannot exist.
A.- C.show god is a personal god, not a mere
force of nature or another name for for nature.
This is a personal god, with will, intelligence,
purpose.
B. Omniscience are actually logically derivable from
the claimed attribute of omnipotence and so aren't
not truly independent attributes, and may be considered
a special aspect of omnipotence.
6. WE CAN THUS ABSTRACT A GENERAL CLASS OF
OMNI-EVERYTHING GOD FROM THESE 8 GENERAL
ASSERTIONS.
A. We can abstract a class of gods,
omni-everything, creator gods from these 8
7. CLASSES OF GODS
A. It is important to note here in 2., that this
is a definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods. This is key to this
disproof which is designed to be general in nature.
B. If we disprove the entire class of gods by
examining the logical implications of a few
claims, all secondary claims are also destroyed.
We need not examine claims of god's simplicity or
whether god is immanent or transcendent or other
similar claims. We need not break down
omnibenevolence into secondary associated claims
such as such as mercy, justice, or implied claims,
though we might mention their destruction
in passing when appropriate, and damage done to
such concepts of damnation, or punishment or sin.
C. If we disprove a class of gods, those particular
gods belonging to that class are also disproven.
God of the bible, Allah, Hindu Ishvara.
If the class of omni-everything creator gods is
disproven these gods are disproven if we succeed.
All known gods and possible new or obscure gods
are all dealt with, we need not worry about a god
we have never heard of it it is of this class.
D. Tertiary claims are also likewise disproven.
Mohammad is not a prophet of god and Jesus was not
son of god. Moses did not meet god on the
mountain, God did not promise all of Canaan to
Abraham. God did not part the Red Sea. God does
not speak to prophets. Creationism based on Genesis
claims People's of the Book are to be subdued, or
that Allah sent revelations to Mohammad via angel
Gabriel are all irrelevant now.
E. Thus taking a general approach of disproving
classes of gods is efficient and far more effective
than trying to disprove particular gods one by one.
8. THE PROBLEMS OF AN OMNI-EVERYTHING, CREATOR GOD
The most basic problems are the problems of evil, and
free will. These start the collapse of the OEC class
of gods.
9. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
It is found in Christian writer Lactantius's
"Treatise on the Anger of God".
A basic formulation is:
A. God is defined as powerful
B. God is defined as as good.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not powerful as claimed.
E. Or God is not good as claimed.
F. Or god is neither powerful or
good.
13 OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
FREE WILL DISPROVEN, SECOND WAY.
God is defined as creator of all in these
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent. A contradiction of assertions
about the nature of god.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
15. THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
6. This destroys all other claimed secondary and
good attributes of god, mercy, justice, love.
16. GOD AND TIME.
A. Both Augustine and Boethius described god as
being transcendent to time, outside and beyond it.
Thus there is no past, present, or future to god,
all is now. Since all is now, god must have
create all things at once at once. Including
again, our every act, thought and inclination.
God is said to be out of time because otherwise he
must affected by time, which would mean he is not
as defined, all powerful or omnipotent. But this
means he is omniscient and again, we have no free
will.
B. As seen, explicit claims of omniscience, and
creatorship of god doom free will and more. Any
claim god is outside of time forces us to the
claim god is effectively omniscient.
C. But if we drop claims god is out of time and
now is affected by time, god cannot be as claimed,
omnipotent. And since omniscience, foreknowledge
of the future is important to the concept of
prophecy, that secondary assertion fails too.
Prophecy is a key concept of traditional religions
and theologies of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
17. MANY SECONDARY AND LESSOR ATTRIBUTES ARE
DOOMED BY THE CONCEPT OF OMNIPOTENCE AND
CREATORSHIP OF GOD
A. If evil exists, god is evil. We have no free
will which means secondary attributes of God such
as mercy, love, justice are pretty meaningless
in face of a god that creates many of us morally
evil. Heaven, hell, damnation, sin, punishment,
salvation, nothing much makes any sense with such an
omniscient god. Augustine's free will defense of
God in face of Epicurus's problem of evil is
utterly undone by his claim god is sovereign over
time because he is all powerful, or omnipotent.
B. Besides these attributes being destroyed, this
destroys all religions that dogmatically claim
god is omniscient, creator of all and has these
secondary tributes.
C. This all calls all claims of revelation
in regard to revealed books into question.
18. TIME CONTRADICTS GOD'S CREATION OF ALL.
A. If we say god is omnipotent, all powerful, he
is outside of time then free will is impossible
and all else is simply an Universe utterly alien,
incoherent and mad and most certainly not anything
the great theological traditions tell us it is.
B. To avoid this, if we say god is not outside
of time, this then implies time is outside and
beyond god and he cannot have created it. Thus
contradicting claims of being the creator of all.
Especially ex nihilo as many religions claim.
C. Thus the another contradiction pops up
dooming a major claim, god created all. Theology
cannot keep the claim god is outside of time or
keep the claim god is subject to time, as then
they lose omnipotence and creatorship of the
entire universe as dogmatic claims.
19. Here, the OEC class of gods has collapsed.
As has theology and revealed religion itself as a
methodology. As pointed out, this destroys the
claims and viability of an entire class of
possible gods, all secondary and tertiary
claims for such a god of this class also
fail, as do dogmas or secondary or tertiary
claims based on real existance of this class
of gods in any way.
20. If this entire class of omni-everything
creator gods cannot exist as defined, specific
gods cannot, nor can claims such as this or that
Grand God sent this or that revelation to man or
some prophet or did this or that. This there are
no grounds to use these religions to deny rights
to say, homosexuals, or to claim Genesis myths are
true since they are god's word and thus evolution
must not be taught in schools.
21. This OEC class of gods is thus disproven and is
utter irrelevant to anything real and existant.
And this is not the last of the problems of the
class of Omni-everything gods that are creators
of all.
And there are more problems that will be
considered in other parts to come. Such as the
nature of logic, and the rules and laws of the
Universe.
Gandalf Grey
>
>>> IS THERE A GOD? NO.
>>> Strong Atheism's answer.
>>> Part 1.
>>>
>>> 1. First of all, this proof "God" does not exist
>>> is aimed at an entire class of gods, not particular
>>> gods.
>>
>> This remark alone is an explict admission that you've been lying up to
>> this point.
>
> No, its just an admission I underestimated the intelligence
> of SOME of my audience.
That's a lie. You explicitly stated originally that you had a simple proof
that no god can exist.
So now you're lying about it after failing to demonstrate such a proof.
>
>
>>
>>>This is the class of gods that are
>>> omni-everything and creator of all. If I can
>>> disprove an entire class of gods, all particular gods
>>> that belong to that class are collectively disproven
>>> too. This is an efficient, and sensible approach to
>>> disproving god, by which I mean the god of major
>>> religious and theological traditions.
>>
So what?
Ad hom 4
Ad hom 5
Once again....
Why?
You fail again.
Ad hom 7 noted.
>>> gods. True, but this is not meant to, it is meant
>>> only to deal with the gods that are the main problem
>>> for this world,
>>
>> Another unsupported assertion. Nowhere does your original argument prove
>> this universal claim. Religion in general has caused tremendous
>> suffering
>> in the world, but your argument nowhere addresses this particular
>> problem.
>>
>
> Supported. You are being irrational here.
Bald assertion without support noted.
>
>
>>> the gods of 4 1/2 billion believers.
>>> The god that is the source of fundamentalism,
>>> bigotry, fanaticism, anti-intellectualism and
>>> backwardness. There are a few other classes of gods
>>> but numerically by believers, these are not that
>>> widespread or important.
>>
>> According to whom? You may be competent to recognize what is
>> 'widespread'
>> but who are you to decide what is "important?"
>>
>
> According to all with brains.
Dismissive reply noted. Where's your actual evidence? Where's your actual
defence?
> for example, without religious idiots in the US would we be having
> problems with creationists assaulting science teaching in schools, and in
> may cases, all but gutting science education in backard states and cities?
I repeat...who are YOU to decide what is important?
>
> You are a fool. and wrong.
Ad hom 8.
>
>>> But it is possible to sort
>>> them into a few classes of gods and likewise disprove
>>> each class.
>>
>> Which you have not done and cannot do. Hence, another lie on your part.
>>
>
> Which I do, stop lying, it makes the peanut gallery laugh at your
> pretensions.
Ad hom 9. If you've done it, you should be able to point to it
specifically. You can't because you haven't and can't.
>
>>> Here I am primarily looking at the class
>>> of omni-everything creator gods. This does not mean
>>> other classes of gods cannot also be likewise disproven.
>>
>> And it doesn't mean they can be.
>>
>
> You lame and wrong opinion.
> as if you know zip about it.
Ad hom 10
>
>>> Or are totally unimportant. But basically the
>>> omni-everything class of gods is so far above any
>>> other god that once it is debunked, its hard to
>>> step down to distinctly second rate gods.
>>
>> Why is this so and why should it be so? 100s of years ago, the vast bulk
>> of
>> humanity believed that space was filled with an ether. Did this make the
>> fact that it was not filled with ether "unimportant?"
>>
>
> Non sequitur.
It's a perfect analogy. You're attempting to float the notion that the only
gods that need 'debunking' are the gods of the most powerful and numerous
religious traditions.
1. You havne't succeeded in debunking them
2. You haven't demonstrated why those particular gods are the only important
ones.
3. You haven't offered any rational basis upon which a god becomes "second
rate."
>
>
>
>
>
>>> Its like
>>> stepping down from a Cadillac to a bicycle.
>>
>> Why? You're making a value judgement about something that you're
>> attempting
>> to prove or disprove. Hence, you're committing the naturalistic fallacy.
>>
>>>
>
> Fallacy.
Bald assertion without support noted. If it's a fallacy you should be able
to prove that it's a fallacy.
>
>
>>> 2. A BASIC DEFINITION THE CLASS OF GOD,
>>> OMNI-EVERYTHING AND CREATOR OF ALL
>>> Also known here as the Grand God of Grand Theology.
>>>
>>> There is no evidence whatsover for god. All we
>>> have to work from is claims, or assertions made
>>> about god. I have chosen the following 8 as they are
>>> all part of all great and large religions and
>>> theological traditions of the world.
>>
>> But mostly because you've decided that they are the weakest factors. In
>> other words, you still haven't attacked the assertion of God's existence,
>> only assertions concerning God's attributes.
>>
>
> I need only weak factors to work with and basically all basic claims of
> this
> class of god are indeed, weak,
> Sorry, thems just the facts. All we have are weak assertions.
You've made one honest statement above. William Barwell NEEDS weak factors
to work with. This is the case because you can't handle stronger factors.
>
> I mean, what facts are there that save omnipotence, omnibenevolnece
> and omniscience, free will and this class of gods.
> Nothing. Nothing at all.
Real existence is hardly "nothing." And, as noted, you've flopped trying to
debunk everything save omnipotence, and THAT is only because you've never
actually attempted to deal with it.
>
>
>>> Most of 4 1/2
>>> billion believers will agree with most of these,
>>> and these are all dogmatic to most main religions.
>>
>> Fallacy of composition. Not even all Christians agree with these points.
>>
>
> Most...
So what. That's precisely what makes it the fallacy of composition.
You keep smacking into that fallacy, and you keep embracing it as though it
were a great truth. All it is is a great mistake.
>
> We will fid a few wimpy newage type salad bar christians and so on.
> But conservatives, evangelicals, fundies and moslems mostly agree god is
> omni-everything. Sorry.
Fallacy of *argumentum ad numerum*. I don't give much of a damn what most
people think. I give a damn about whether a logical proof is a logical
proof.
When are you going to come up with one.
>
>
>>> If we can show these create contradictions, we can show that
>>> the class omni-everything creator gods, the Grand God,
>>> cannot exist.
>>
>> No, you cannot. All you can prove is that any particular attribute is
>> illogical within that particular argument.
>>
>
>
> We can. You simply are wrong. As usual.
But you can't demonstrate why. Again, Barwell runs away from defending his
own argument.
>
>>> All we have to work with are assertions
>>> and logic.
>>
>> Get on with it, Barlow.
>>
>
> Read faster.
>
>>>
>>> The general overarching definition of god as per
>>> the major religions of the world is:
>>>
>>> A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
>>> B. God has free will.
>>> C. God is the creator of all.
>>> D. God is omnipotent.
>>> E. God is omnibenevolent.
>>> F. God is omniscient.
>>> G. God is that which nothing more powerful
>>> can be imagined.
>>>
>>> These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
>>> for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
>>> Islam, and Hinduism.
>>
>> 1. you're utterly wrong about the beliefs that form Hinduism and
>> obviously
>> have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
>
> I do, you do not.
Hinduism does not incorporate all the characteristics you list, you fool.
Hinduism is not even monotheistic.
>
>
>> 2. Judaism is NOT Christianity, and you're attributing to the one what is
>> strictly true only of the other.
>
>
> I didn't say it was, did I?.
>>> These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
>>> for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
>>> Islam, and Hinduism.
> You lied again.,
>>> These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
>>> for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
>>> Islam, and Hinduism.
> Strawman, reading comprehension problem, basic inability to read and
> understand simple english sentence written at a 6th grade level for your
> reading pleasure.
Ad hom 11
>
>> 3. The same can be said for Islam.
>>
>>>
>>> Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
>>> logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
>>> omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
>
> This is old dogma.
>
>
>
>>> 3. We can abstract a class of gods, omni-everything,
>>> creator gods from these 8 characteristics.
>>
>> Except that you haven't proved the 8 characteristics at this point.
>
> You are obviously a goofball.
> 1. God is personal, god has conciousness and will
> 2. God is intelligent
> 3. God has free will
> 4. God created all
> 5. God is omnipotent
> 6. God is omniscient
> 7. God is omnibenevolent
> 8. God is that which is so great, nothing greater
> can be imagined.
>
> All are dogmatic among these basic religious traditions.
1. No they aren't.
2. No one of them, nor any group of them has anything to do with the
existence of God.
Let's go back to our analogous argument.
>> 1. Bill Smith exists.
>> 2. It is said by his admirers that Bill Smith always tells the truth.
>> 3. But Bill Smith cannot always tell the truth.
>> 4. Hence Bills Smith does not exist?????
This is your basic problem. Even a malicious creep like Martin McPhillips
could see it. You're attempting to prove something about the EXISTENCE of
god by making a mess of attacking arguments ABOUT God.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> 5. CLASSES OF GODS
>>>
>>> It is important to note here in 2. that this is a
>>> definition not for a particular god, but an
>>> entire class of gods. This is key to this disproof
>>> which is general in nature.
>>
>> Except that your list is both incomplete and internally illogical as I've
>> shown.
>>
>>>
>>> 6. If we disprove the entire class of gods by examining
>>> the logical implications of a few claims, all secondary
>>> claims are also destroyed.
>>
>> 1. That's not necessarily true.
>> 2. You haven't disproved the entire class.
>
> we are about t get there, stop squawking and keep reding.
Give me something of value to read.
>
>>
>>> We need not examine claims of god's simplicity or whether
>>> god is immanent or transcendent or other similar claims.
>>
>> Which you can't begin to do.
>
> I could, its for another time.
>
> Classes of transcedent or immanent gods go away when
> they are claimed to be of class of omni-everything anyway.
> Other problems go away automatically, following them in flames
> the hole of bad ideas.
You haven't shown this to be the case as demonstrated above. Since you
haven't succeeded in dealing with the 8 points you mention, you obviously
can't dismiss derivative claims.
>
> Siggghhhhhhhh. This isn't going anywhere, is it?
> Waste of my time to see you failing to think.
Ad hom 12. When are you actually going to present a logical argument,
Barwell?
>>
>>> We need not break down omnibenevolence into secondary
>>> associated claims such as such as mercy, justice, or
>>> implied claims, though we might mention their destruction
>>> in passing when appropriate, and damage done to such
>>> concepts of damnation, or punishment or sin.
>>
>>
>>> 10. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
>>>
>>> The problem of evil was first written down by
>>> Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
>>> It is found in Christian writer Lactantius's
>>> Treatise on the Anger of God.
>>>
>>> A basic formulation is:
>>> A. God is defined as powerful
>>> B. God is defined as as good.
>>> C. Evil exists.
>>> D. God therefore, is not powerful as claimed.
>>> E. Or God is not good as claimed.
>>> F. Or god is neither powerful or
>>> good.
>>
>>> 13 OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
>>> FREE WILL DISPROVEN PART 2.
Obviously you bow to my criticisms in the remainder of your screed, as you
offer no defense.
>>>
>>> God is defined as creator of all in these
>>> religions.
>>> And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
>>
>> Not in all of the religions you've named. Thus your argument fails right
>> here.
>>
>>>
>>> A. God created the Universe and all in it.
>>>B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
>>> in the Universe and he knows the future of the
>>> Universe and its contents.
>>
>> In some traditions.
>>
>>> C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
>>> in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
>>> man named John Smith in it.
>>
>> This is not omniscience vs. creatorhood. There is no necessary reason
>> that a creator logically must also know the full details of all possible
>> futures.
>>
>>> D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
>>> damned, God will know that.
>>> E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
>>> state will have a John Smith, god may then
>>> contemplate the future state of Smith and
>>> decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
>>> F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
>>> specific personal and will choice made solely
>>> by god.
>>> G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
>>> because of a choice made by god. In fact all
>>> moral evil done by creations of god will be
>>> evil and do evil only because of personal and
>>> willful creations of god allowing evil acts
>>> to be done, by direct decision of god.
>>> H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
>>> creator god, it is solely and only because
>>> god allows evil.
>>
>> Non sequitur. An omniscient god that is not omnipotent might not have a
>> choice as to whether to allow evil or not.
>>
>>> I. If evil exists solely because of personal
>>> choices of god, god then is not as defined,
>>> omnibenevolent.
>>
>> Non sequitur. You haven't proved that evil necessarily exists due to
>> god's
>> choice. If god is not omnipotent, evil may exist regardless.
>>
>>> J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
>>> Universe cannot have any free will, not even
>>> in principle. A Universe with a god that
>>> creates all and knows all precludes free will
>>> for all beings god creates in the strongest
>>> possible manner.
>>
>> Non sequitur. Mere knowledge does not imply control. God might know
>> everything that is knowable and still not know the future, or god might
>> know everything including all possible futures [though I doubt it].
>> Nevertheless, the fact that god knows everything does not logically imply
>> that God denies free will to actors in the world. In a purely
>> deterministic universe, which is a scientific materialistic assumption,
>> there is also no
>> such thing as true 'free will'. What does god's foreknowledge of such a
>> universe have to do with the actual precluding of free will? Simply
>> knowing that the universe is predetermined is to know that there can be
>> no
>> such thing as true free will, but knowing and causing are two different
>> things. Your argument implies that if a scientist believes that the
>> universe is deterministic and the scientist is right, then the scientist
>> is responsible
>> for destroying free will. That's an absurdity.
>>
>>>
>>> The Grand God of Grand
>>> Theology is thus self destroying,
>>
>> Not from what you've shown.
>>
>>> THE SITUATION SO FAR.
>>>
>>> 1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
>>> Grand God has been defined here with as few
>>> terms as possible.
>>
>> Actually, you've been as wordy as you can be in order to cover the
>> numerous logical flaws in your argument.
>>
>>> 2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
>>
>> As I've shown, it does not.
>>
>>> 3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
>>> flawed.
>>
>> As I've shown, free will or its absence need have nothing to do with god
>> one way or another.
>>
>>> 4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
>>> doom claims of god's omnibenevolence
>>
>> No they don't, as I've shown. In fact, as I've shown, they have nothing
>> to do with one another.
>>
>>> man's free will free will cannot exist for
>>> man.
>>
>> If this is true, it need have nothing to do with god.
>>
>>> All evil is the direct and knowing
>>> creation of god contradicting claims of
>>> omnibenevolence.
>>
>> You haven't even begun to show that. You haven't even addressed it.
>> Hence, I can only presume that you've pulled that claim out of thin air.
>>
>>> 5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
>>> free will cannot be a good quality, much less
>>> necessary.
>>
>> Again, you havne't demonstrated that.
>>
>>>
>>> 14. GOD AND TIME.
>>>
>>> Both Augustine and Boethius described god as being
>>> transcendent to time, outside and beyond it.
>>> Thus there is no past, present, or future to god,
>>> all is now. Since all is now, god must have
>>> create all things at once at once.
>>
>> Again, you're conflating terms. Here you conflate timelessness and
>> creation when you haven't proved that both must be necessary attributes
>> of
>> a god.
>>
>>> Any explicit claims of omniscience, and creatorship of god
>>> doom free will and more. Any claim god is outside of time
>>> forces us to the claim god is effectively omniscient.
>>
>> 1. you haven't doomed free will.
>> 2. Being outside of time is not a necessary corollary much less a cause
>> of
>> omniscience.
>>
>>>
>>> 15. If evil exists, god is evil.
>>
>> Another assertion out of left field. Please show your proof of this
>> assertion. You've not even addressed this question to this point.
>>
>>> We have no free will which
>>> means secondary attributes of God such as mercy, love, justice
>>> are pretty meaningless in face of a god that creates many
>>> of us morally evil.
>>
>> If such a god existed, that might be true. But you offer no evidence to
>> suggest that god must have had a choice in the fine details of creation.
>> I.e., you haven't offered proof that god must be omnipotent. Hence, your
>> derived assumptions that he must not be merciful, loving or just, are
>> what
>> is truly meaningless here.
>>
>>> Heaven, hell, damnation, sin, punishment,
>>> salvation, nothing much makes with such an omniscient god.
>>
>> How so? How does Omniscience imply any of the above?
>>
>>> Augustine's free will defense of God in face of Epicurus's
>>> problem of evil is utterly undone by his claim god is sovereign
>>> over time because he is all powerful.
>>
>> You haven't shown this to be the case.
>>
>>>
>>> 16. TIME AND GOD'S CREATION OF ALL.
>>> If we say god is omnipotent, all powerful, he is outside
>>> of time and free will is impossible and all else is simply an
>>> Universe utterly alien, incoherent and mad and most certainly
>>> not anything the great theological traditions tell it it is.
>>
>> That does not follow. The fact that Augustine said that god is all
>> powerful and outside of time, does not mean that god is either all
>> powerful or outside of time, OR that either of these attributes are
>> necessary attributes
>> of god. Omnipotence does not imply being outside of time. Being outside
>> of time does not imply omnipotence.
>>
>>> And if to avoid this we say god is not outside of time, this
>>> implies time is outside and beyond god and he cannot have
>>> created it. Thus contradicting claims of being the creator of
>>> all. Especially ex nihilo as many religions claim.
>>
>> Not all religions make a ex nihilo claim.
>>
>>>
>>> 17. Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
>>> collapsed.
>>
>> Apparently not, since you haven't made an argument that would lead to
>> such
>> a collapse.
>>
>>> As has Grand Theology.
>>
>> 1. Only the Grand Theology that you deliberately made up out of a
>> patchwork, skewed selection of elements would be impacted by even that
>> small part of your lengthy argument that was actually valid.
>>
>> 2. Since no such theology exists save in your skewed list, it cannot be
>> said that you've said much of anything about the major tenets of Western
>> Theology.
>>
>> 3. Your argument seems to be an argument about what you think is most
>> popular in most of theology.
>>
>> 4. Since what you think is most popular is not even representative of all
>> the world's MAJOR theologies [you haven't even touched the dogma of
>> hinduism] your argument is at best a strawman.
>>
>> 5. As has been shown, you're points are mostly non-sequiturs even against
>> the trumped up list you've created.
>>
>> In short, your argument is a strawman, and you haven't even succeeded in
>> debunking your own strawman.
>>
>>> As pointed out,
>>> this destroys the claims and viability of an
>>> entire class of possible gods, all secondary and
>>> tertiary claims for such a god of this class also
>>> fail, as do dogmas or secondary or tertiary
Gandalf Grey
>>> IS THERE A GOD? NO.
>>> Strong Atheism's answer.
>>> Part 1.
>>>
>>> 1. First of all, this proof "God" does not exist
>>> is aimed at an entire class of gods, not particular
>>> gods.
>>
>> This remark alone is an explict admission that you've been lying up to
>> this point.
>
> No, its just an admission I underestimated the intelligence
> of SOME of my audience.
That's a lie. You explicitly stated originally that you had a simple proof
that no god can exist.
So now you're lying about it after failing to demonstrate such a proof.
>
>
>>
>>>This is the class of gods that are
>>> omni-everything and creator of all. If I can
>>> disprove an entire class of gods, all particular gods
>>> that belong to that class are collectively disproven
>>> too. This is an efficient, and sensible approach to
>>> disproving god, by which I mean the god of major
>>> religious and theological traditions.
>>
So what?
Ad hom 4
Ad hom 5
Once again....
Why?
You fail again.
Ad hom 7 noted.
>>> gods. True, but this is not meant to, it is meant
>>> only to deal with the gods that are the main problem
>>> for this world,
>>
>> Another unsupported assertion. Nowhere does your original argument prove
>> this universal claim. Religion in general has caused tremendous
>> suffering
>> in the world, but your argument nowhere addresses this particular
>> problem.
>>
>
> Supported. You are being irrational here.
Bald assertion without support noted.
>
>
>>> the gods of 4 1/2 billion believers.
>>> The god that is the source of fundamentalism,
>>> bigotry, fanaticism, anti-intellectualism and
>>> backwardness. There are a few other classes of gods
>>> but numerically by believers, these are not that
>>> widespread or important.
>>
>> According to whom? You may be competent to recognize what is
>> 'widespread'
>> but who are you to decide what is "important?"
>>
>
> According to all with brains.
Dismissive reply noted. Where's your actual evidence? Where's your actual
defence?
> for example, without religious idiots in the US would we be having
> problems with creationists assaulting science teaching in schools, and in
> may cases, all but gutting science education in backard states and cities?
I repeat...who are YOU to decide what is important?
>
> You are a fool. and wrong.
Ad hom 8.
>
>>> But it is possible to sort
>>> them into a few classes of gods and likewise disprove
>>> each class.
>>
>> Which you have not done and cannot do. Hence, another lie on your part.
>>
>
> Which I do, stop lying, it makes the peanut gallery laugh at your
> pretensions.
Ad hom 9. If you've done it, you should be able to point to it
specifically. You can't because you haven't and can't.
>
>>> Here I am primarily looking at the class
>>> of omni-everything creator gods. This does not mean
>>> other classes of gods cannot also be likewise disproven.
>>
>> And it doesn't mean they can be.
>>
>
> You lame and wrong opinion.
> as if you know zip about it.
Ad hom 10
>
>>> Or are totally unimportant. But basically the
>>> omni-everything class of gods is so far above any
>>> other god that once it is debunked, its hard to
>>> step down to distinctly second rate gods.
>>
>> Why is this so and why should it be so? 100s of years ago, the vast bulk
>> of
>> humanity believed that space was filled with an ether. Did this make the
>> fact that it was not filled with ether "unimportant?"
>>
>
> Non sequitur.
It's a perfect analogy. You're attempting to float the notion that the only
gods that need 'debunking' are the gods of the most powerful and numerous
religious traditions.
1. You havne't succeeded in debunking them
2. You haven't demonstrated why those particular gods are the only important
ones.
3. You haven't offered any rational basis upon which a god becomes "second
rate."
>
>
>
>
>
>>> Its like
>>> stepping down from a Cadillac to a bicycle.
>>
>> Why? You're making a value judgement about something that you're
>> attempting
>> to prove or disprove. Hence, you're committing the naturalistic fallacy.
>>
>>>
>
> Fallacy.
Bald assertion without support noted. If it's a fallacy you should be able
to prove that it's a fallacy.
>
>
>>> 2. A BASIC DEFINITION THE CLASS OF GOD,
>>> OMNI-EVERYTHING AND CREATOR OF ALL
>>> Also known here as the Grand God of Grand Theology.
>>>
>>> There is no evidence whatsover for god. All we
>>> have to work from is claims, or assertions made
>>> about god. I have chosen the following 8 as they are
>>> all part of all great and large religions and
>>> theological traditions of the world.
>>
>> But mostly because you've decided that they are the weakest factors. In
>> other words, you still haven't attacked the assertion of God's existence,
>> only assertions concerning God's attributes.
>>
>
> I need only weak factors to work with and basically all basic claims of
> this
> class of god are indeed, weak,
> Sorry, thems just the facts. All we have are weak assertions.
You've made one honest statement above. William Barwell NEEDS weak factors
to work with. This is the case because you can't handle stronger factors.
>
> I mean, what facts are there that save omnipotence, omnibenevolnece
> and omniscience, free will and this class of gods.
> Nothing. Nothing at all.
Real existence is hardly "nothing." And, as noted, you've flopped trying to
debunk everything save omnipotence, and THAT is only because you've never
actually attempted to deal with it.
>
>
>>> Most of 4 1/2
>>> billion believers will agree with most of these,
>>> and these are all dogmatic to most main religions.
>>
>> Fallacy of composition. Not even all Christians agree with these points.
>>
>
> Most...
So what. That's precisely what makes it the fallacy of composition.
You keep smacking into that fallacy, and you keep embracing it as though it
were a great truth. All it is is a great mistake.
>
> We will fid a few wimpy newage type salad bar christians and so on.
> But conservatives, evangelicals, fundies and moslems mostly agree god is
> omni-everything. Sorry.
Fallacy of *argumentum ad numerum*. I don't give much of a damn what most
people think. I give a damn about whether a logical proof is a logical
proof.
When are you going to come up with one.
>
>
>>> If we can show these create contradictions, we can show that
>>> the class omni-everything creator gods, the Grand God,
>>> cannot exist.
>>
>> No, you cannot. All you can prove is that any particular attribute is
>> illogical within that particular argument.
>>
>
>
> We can. You simply are wrong. As usual.
But you can't demonstrate why. Again, Barwell runs away from defending his
own argument.
>
>>> All we have to work with are assertions
>>> and logic.
>>
>> Get on with it, Barlow.
>>
>
> Read faster.
>
>>>
>>> The general overarching definition of god as per
>>> the major religions of the world is:
>>>
>>> A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
>>> B. God has free will.
>>> C. God is the creator of all.
>>> D. God is omnipotent.
>>> E. God is omnibenevolent.
>>> F. God is omniscient.
>>> G. God is that which nothing more powerful
>>> can be imagined.
>>>
>>> These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
>>> for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
>>> Islam, and Hinduism.
>>
>> 1. you're utterly wrong about the beliefs that form Hinduism and
>> obviously
>> have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
>
> I do, you do not.
Hinduism does not incorporate all the characteristics you list, you fool.
Hinduism is not even monotheistic.
>
>
>> 2. Judaism is NOT Christianity, and you're attributing to the one what is
>> strictly true only of the other.
>
>
> I didn't say it was, did I?.
>>> These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
>>> for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
>>> Islam, and Hinduism.
> You lied again.,
>>> These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
>>> for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
>>> Islam, and Hinduism.
> Strawman, reading comprehension problem, basic inability to read and
> understand simple english sentence written at a 6th grade level for your
> reading pleasure.
Ad hom 11
>
>> 3. The same can be said for Islam.
>>
>>>
>>> Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
>>> logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
>>> omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
>
> This is old dogma.
>
>
>
>>> 3. We can abstract a class of gods, omni-everything,
>>> creator gods from these 8 characteristics.
>>
>> Except that you haven't proved the 8 characteristics at this point.
>
> You are obviously a goofball.
> 1. God is personal, god has conciousness and will
> 2. God is intelligent
> 3. God has free will
> 4. God created all
> 5. God is omnipotent
> 6. God is omniscient
> 7. God is omnibenevolent
> 8. God is that which is so great, nothing greater
> can be imagined.
>
> All are dogmatic among these basic religious traditions.
1. No they aren't.
2. No one of them, nor any group of them has anything to do with the
existence of God.
Let's go back to our analogous argument.
>> 1. Bill Smith exists.
>> 2. It is said by his admirers that Bill Smith always tells the truth.
>> 3. But Bill Smith cannot always tell the truth.
>> 4. Hence Bills Smith does not exist?????
This is your basic problem. Even a malicious creep like Martin McPhillips
could see it. You're attempting to prove something about the EXISTENCE of
god by making a mess of attacking arguments ABOUT God.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> 5. CLASSES OF GODS
>>>
>>> It is important to note here in 2. that this is a
>>> definition not for a particular god, but an
>>> entire class of gods. This is key to this disproof
>>> which is general in nature.
>>
>> Except that your list is both incomplete and internally illogical as I've
>> shown.
>>
>>>
>>> 6. If we disprove the entire class of gods by examining
>>> the logical implications of a few claims, all secondary
>>> claims are also destroyed.
>>
>> 1. That's not necessarily true.
>> 2. You haven't disproved the entire class.
>
> we are about t get there, stop squawking and keep reding.
Give me something of value to read.
>
>>
>>> We need not examine claims of god's simplicity or whether
>>> god is immanent or transcendent or other similar claims.
>>
>> Which you can't begin to do.
>
> I could, its for another time.
>
> Classes of transcedent or immanent gods go away when
> they are claimed to be of class of omni-everything anyway.
> Other problems go away automatically, following them in flames
> the hole of bad ideas.
You haven't shown this to be the case as demonstrated above. Since you
haven't succeeded in dealing with the 8 points you mention, you obviously
can't dismiss derivative claims.
>
> Siggghhhhhhhh. This isn't going anywhere, is it?
> Waste of my time to see you failing to think.
Ad hom 12. When are you actually going to present a logical argument,
Barwell?
>>
>>> We need not break down omnibenevolence into secondary
>>> associated claims such as such as mercy, justice, or
>>> implied claims, though we might mention their destruction
>>> in passing when appropriate, and damage done to such
>>> concepts of damnation, or punishment or sin.
>>
>>
>>> 10. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
>>>
>>> The problem of evil was first written down by
>>> Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
>>> It is found in Christian writer Lactantius's
>>> Treatise on the Anger of God.
>>>
>>> A basic formulation is:
>>> A. God is defined as powerful
>>> B. God is defined as as good.
>>> C. Evil exists.
>>> D. God therefore, is not powerful as claimed.
>>> E. Or God is not good as claimed.
>>> F. Or god is neither powerful or
>>> good.
>>
>>> 13 OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
>>> FREE WILL DISPROVEN PART 2.
Obviously you bow to my criticisms in the remainder of your screed, as you
offer no defense.
>>>
>>> God is defined as creator of all in these
>>> religions.
>>> And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
>>
>> Not in all of the religions you've named. Thus your argument fails right
>> here.
>>
>>>
>>> A. God created the Universe and all in it.
>>>B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
>>> in the Universe and he knows the future of the
>>> Universe and its contents.
>>
>> In some traditions.
>>
>>> C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
>>> in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
>>> man named John Smith in it.
>>
>> This is not omniscience vs. creatorhood. There is no necessary reason
>> that a creator logically must also know the full details of all possible
>> futures.
>>
>>> D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
>>> damned, God will know that.
>>> E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
>>> state will have a John Smith, god may then
>>> contemplate the future state of Smith and
>>> decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
>>> F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
>>> specific personal and will choice made solely
>>> by god.
>>> G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
>>> because of a choice made by god. In fact all
>>> moral evil done by creations of god will be
>>> evil and do evil only because of personal and
>>> willful creations of god allowing evil acts
>>> to be done, by direct decision of god.
>>> H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
>>> creator god, it is solely and only because
>>> god allows evil.
>>
>> Non sequitur. An omniscient god that is not omnipotent might not have a
>> choice as to whether to allow evil or not.
>>
>>> I. If evil exists solely because of personal
>>> choices of god, god then is not as defined,
>>> omnibenevolent.
>>
>> Non sequitur. You haven't proved that evil necessarily exists due to
>> god's
>> choice. If god is not omnipotent, evil may exist regardless.
>>
>>> J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
>>> Universe cannot have any free will, not even
>>> in principle. A Universe with a god that
>>> creates all and knows all precludes free will
>>> for all beings god creates in the strongest
>>> possible manner.
>>
>> Non sequitur. Mere knowledge does not imply control. God might know
>> everything that is knowable and still not know the future, or god might
>> know everything including all possible futures [though I doubt it].
>> Nevertheless, the fact that god knows everything does not logically imply
>> that God denies free will to actors in the world. In a purely
>> deterministic universe, which is a scientific materialistic assumption,
>> there is also no
>> such thing as true 'free will'. What does god's foreknowledge of such a
>> universe have to do with the actual precluding of free will? Simply
>> knowing that the universe is predetermined is to know that there can be
>> no
>> such thing as true free will, but knowing and causing are two different
>> things. Your argument implies that if a scientist believes that the
>> universe is deterministic and the scientist is right, then the scientist
>> is responsible
>> for destroying free will. That's an absurdity.
>>
>>>
>>> The Grand God of Grand
>>> Theology is thus self destroying,
>>
>> Not from what you've shown.
>>
>>> THE SITUATION SO FAR.
>>>
>>> 1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
>>> Grand God has been defined here with as few
>>> terms as possible.
>>
>> Actually, you've been as wordy as you can be in order to cover the
>> numerous logical flaws in your argument.
>>
>>> 2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
>>
>> As I've shown, it does not.
>>
>>> 3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
>>> flawed.
>>
>> As I've shown, free will or its absence need have nothing to do with god
>> one way or another.
>>
>>> 4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
>>> doom claims of god's omnibenevolence
>>
>> No they don't, as I've shown. In fact, as I've shown, they have nothing
>> to do with one another.
>>
>>> man's free will free will cannot exist for
>>> man.
>>
>> If this is true, it need have nothing to do with god.
>>
>>> All evil is the direct and knowing
>>> creation of god contradicting claims of
>>> omnibenevolence.
>>
>> You haven't even begun to show that. You haven't even addressed it.
>> Hence, I can only presume that you've pulled that claim out of thin air.
>>
>>> 5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
>>> free will cannot be a good quality, much less
>>> necessary.
>>
>> Again, you havne't demonstrated that.
>>
>>>
>>> 14. GOD AND TIME.
>>>
>>> Both Augustine and Boethius described god as being
>>> transcendent to time, outside and beyond it.
>>> Thus there is no past, present, or future to god,
>>> all is now. Since all is now, god must have
>>> create all things at once at once.
>>
>> Again, you're conflating terms. Here you conflate timelessness and
>> creation when you haven't proved that both must be necessary attributes
>> of
>> a god.
>>
>>> Any explicit claims of omniscience, and creatorship of god
>>> doom free will and more. Any claim god is outside of time
>>> forces us to the claim god is effectively omniscient.
>>
>> 1. you haven't doomed free will.
>> 2. Being outside of time is not a necessary corollary much less a cause
>> of
>> omniscience.
>>
>>>
>>> 15. If evil exists, god is evil.
>>
>> Another assertion out of left field. Please show your proof of this
>> assertion. You've not even addressed this question to this point.
>>
>>> We have no free will which
>>> means secondary attributes of God such as mercy, love, justice
>>> are pretty meaningless in face of a god that creates many
>>> of us morally evil.
>>
>> If such a god existed, that might be true. But you offer no evidence to
>> suggest that god must have had a choice in the fine details of creation.
>> I.e., you haven't offered proof that god must be omnipotent. Hence, your
>> derived assumptions that he must not be merciful, loving or just, are
>> what
>> is truly meaningless here.
>>
>>> Heaven, hell, damnation, sin, punishment,
>>> salvation, nothing much makes with such an omniscient god.
>>
>> How so? How does Omniscience imply any of the above?
>>
>>> Augustine's free will defense of God in face of Epicurus's
>>> problem of evil is utterly undone by his claim god is sovereign
>>> over time because he is all powerful.
>>
>> You haven't shown this to be the case.
>>
>>>
>>> 16. TIME AND GOD'S CREATION OF ALL.
>>> If we say god is omnipotent, all powerful, he is outside
>>> of time and free will is impossible and all else is simply an
>>> Universe utterly alien, incoherent and mad and most certainly
>>> not anything the great theological traditions tell it it is.
>>
>> That does not follow. The fact that Augustine said that god is all
>> powerful and outside of time, does not mean that god is either all
>> powerful or outside of time, OR that either of these attributes are
>> necessary attributes
>> of god. Omnipotence does not imply being outside of time. Being outside
>> of time does not imply omnipotence.
>>
>>> And if to avoid this we say god is not outside of time, this
>>> implies time is outside and beyond god and he cannot have
>>> created it. Thus contradicting claims of being the creator of
>>> all. Especially ex nihilo as many religions claim.
>>
>> Not all religions make a ex nihilo claim.
>>
>>>
>>> 17. Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
>>> collapsed.
>>
>> Apparently not, since you haven't made an argument that would lead to
>> such
>> a collapse.
>>
>>> As has Grand Theology.
>>
>> 1. Only the Grand Theology that you deliberately made up out of a
>> patchwork, skewed selection of elements would be impacted by even that
>> small part of your lengthy argument that was actually valid.
>>
>> 2. Since no such theology exists save in your skewed list, it cannot be
>> said that you've said much of anything about the major tenets of Western
>> Theology.
>>
>> 3. Your argument seems to be an argument about what you think is most
>> popular in most of theology.
>>
>> 4. Since what you think is most popular is not even representative of all
>> the world's MAJOR theologies [you haven't even touched the dogma of
>> hinduism] your argument is at best a strawman.
>>
>> 5. As has been shown, you're points are mostly non-sequiturs even against
>> the trumped up list you've created.
>>
>> In short, your argument is a strawman, and you haven't even succeeded in
>> debunking your own strawman.
>>
>>> As pointed out,
>>> this destroys the claims and viability of an
>>> entire class of possible gods, all secondary and
>>> tertiary claims for such a god of this class also
>>> fail, as do dogmas or secondary or tertiary
Gandalf Grey
wcb
1.THE SELF DESTRUCTION OF THE CONCEPT OF
OMNIPOTENCE
A. Omnipotence is derived from Latin words
omni - all, potent - power, potency.
B. It thus means all potent, all powerful.
Having all possible powers and abilities.
It means god has all possible powers. Many
theologians hasten to add that god is not
omnipotent in regards to illogical or impossible
things, he cannot make for example, a married
bachelor.
C. It also means lessor powers and entities have
no possible way of affecting god, or in limiting
good in any possible manner.
D. Except for such logical exceptions nothing
can limited god, he is unlimited in ability and
power.
2. GOD AND TIME
A. Time exists
B. But if god is to be omnipotent, time cannot
limit god in any way.
C. Time is what gives us a past, present and
future. We cannot see the future, nor reach
into the future at will.
D. If god is so limited, god is not omnipotent,
time, past and present limit god. Time is more
powerful than unlimited god.
E. Thus past present and future, time, do not
and cannot limit god, for god there is no
past, present or future, all is now.
F. God then can see all of creation at once,
directly, and can experience or interact
with any and all things at once.
G. If time exists, god must have created it, and
he created our inability to see more than a
small part of time, now and not see future nor
past directly.
3. GOD, CREATION, AND TIME.
A. God created all, this is a basic claim
of many religions, Judaism, Christianity,
Hinduism, Islam. The Bible and Quran and
other sacred books are explicit about god's
creation of all.
B. If all is now, and for God there is no past,
and no future in essence, all is for practical
purposes now, and all that was, is and shall
be are now, existant.
C. Thus god created all now, at one time,
complete in all particulars to the last quark
and last fraction of a second in all
particulars and connections to all the rest of
the things in the Universe.
D. A god contemplated his creation, he then had to
think about what he was to create in all
particulars. If he created a man named John
Smith born in 1950, he had contemplate all of
Smith's existence as he created it. Each
atom, each act, each inclination of Smith had
to be created at once.
E. And god had to contemplate creation of each
atom, each act, every second, every inclination
of Smiths life and existence. He had to say
"Yes, I will create that" or "No, I will not
create that".
F. He had to contemplate the last detail of
Smith's life, decide what he would specifically
create Smith as doing and create it all.
If Smith is evil and damned it is totally
God's doing. If good and saved, it is all
totally God's doing.
G. Since all is at once, and all is created at
once, and god creates all, he must likewise
create at once, all sentient beings of his
universe, mortals, angels, demons, djinn.
H. Thus because all must be at once because god
is not limited by time in any way and thus not
past and present, and since he creates all,
there can be no free will at all in this
Universe.
I. All exists only because all was created by god
as it was created in all its particulars to the
smallest degree possible, with god's personal
knowledge and purpose and will.
4. OMNIGENESIS
This idea that god creates all now, totally,
in all physical particulars for all time to
the smallest details should have name as it is
a powerful concept that is destructive to so
many claims. Omnigenesis, creation of all
would be an apt term. If god is sovereign over
all time, and there is no past, no future, just
now, created in its totality by god, then
omnigenesis is the state of reality and no
free will can exist. Omnigenesis is a state
of the universe that all else preceeds from.
5. GOD AND OMNIBENEVOLENCE.
1. God is said to be good, all good, supremely
good. Often denoted by the word
omnibenevolent.
2. There is evil.
3. Evil comes in two type, natural evil,
drought, floods, hurricanes and moral evil,
evil deriving from acts of mankind, murder,
rape, lying as examples.
4. But if god made all man's acts to the last
detail including evil ones, then evil exists
only because god exists.
5. God also creates all natural evils that befall
man.
6. Since all evils are directly caused by god and
only god, as nobody has free will except god,
all evil is caused directly and only by god.
7. Therefore god is evil.
5. GOD AND OTHER CLAIMS ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
THAT FAIL HERE.
1. God is claimed to be loving, merciful,
and just.
2. But making a man evil and then condemning him
to hell for being something he has no choice in
being is unjust, unmerciful and not loving.
7. GOD'S FREE WILL
A. If god creates all in one now, no real past
and present, all at once, he also creates in
this all at once creation, all interactions he
has with all aspects of creation. Every
action, every omniscient inspection of all of
creation as it is before him, any possible
interaction at all imaginable.
B. This must mean God is frozen in time as he
makes all his interactions with the Universe
creates also at once. All is including all
god does. He also lacks free will. All is an
eternal now, frozen, unchangeable, unchanging,
static, we are all like insects frozen in
amber forever.
8. GOD AND TIME IN RETROSPECT AT THIS POINT.
A. Suppose we say we cannot have this, we must
rethink this.
B. We must drop then, all explicit claims of
omniscience and thus incidentally, omnipotence.
C. We must drop all claims of perfection, and
omnipotence explicitly also. They lead to god
being sovereign over time.
D. We must explicitly drop all references to
sovereignty or power over time, the future and
the past. Again, omnipotence leads directly to
that claim.
E. If time is now more powerful than god, if
time affects and limits god, god cannot have
created time.
F. Time is thus outside god and not create
by him so we must drop explicit claims god
created the entire Universe.
G. Since he cannot have created the entire
Universe he cannot be in any way a necessary
being, he is under time, limited by time,
and must use time so he is contingent on time
and a contingent being.
H. Thus time shows us god is not as claimed,
perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent, and creator of all.
Few theories in history implode as
spectacularly as omnipotence when we start
examining time in light of claims of
omnipotence.
9. CONCLUSION
1. Perfection -> omnipotence -> omniscience ->
power over time -> creation of all now -> man's
lack of free will -> God's creation of all evil
-> destruction of all good qualities such as
love, mercy and justice -> and finally lack of
free will for god himself.
2. This does not work.
3. And the whole chain does not work. Start any
place from say perfection, or omnipotence,
which leads to sovereignty over time and it
leads to collapse of about all assertions made
by theology and religion about god.
10. Basically, omnipotence contains the seeds of
its own destruction, dragging down everything else
with it. We end up with an incoherent world where
there can be no love, mercy, justice. Sin and
evil and punishment make no sense when we are
puppets, when all we do to the smallest atom was
gods, specific, knowing, purposeful creation.
Free will means nothing, original sin, means
nothing, heaven, hell and Satan lose all reason to
exist. This world is incoherent and madder than
Alice's Wonderland, or H. P. Lovecraft's fantasy
worlds of mad gods and a Universe gone wrong. A
metaphysical dystopia even Satan could not
design.
God as perfect, omniscient, omnipotent or
sovereign over time cannot be. Nor does it end
there. A God that is omniscient, or has power over
time cannot be. One can try to soften claims for
God by dropping omnipotence, perfection, and many
other claims, but explicit sovereignty over time
and explicit omniscience both doom weaker types
of gods weakened specifically to get around
omnipotence or perfection puzzles.
Soverignty over time dooms all other classes of
possible gods and also shows any other classes of
gods cannot have created all including time also,
not just the class of omni-everything creator
gods.
And as omnipotence soon drags us into this
problem with time, free will and evil,
omnipotence is impossible for all other possible
classes of gods other than just omni-everything,
creator gods.
(End)
wcb
Quote:
net.legends committee
Hanson
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Dear Mr. Hanson
Sincerely,
Gandalf Grey
> CAN GOD EXIST? STRONG ATHEISM SAYS NO.
Which god?
>
> 1.THE SELF DESTRUCTION OF THE CONCEPT OF
> OMNIPOTENCE
>
> A. Omnipotence is derived from Latin words
> omni - all, potent - power, potency.
>
> B. It thus means all potent, all powerful.
> Having all possible powers and abilities.
> It means god has all possible powers. Many
> theologians hasten to add that god is not
> omnipotent in regards to illogical or impossible
> things, he cannot make for example, a married
> bachelor.
Many religions do not believe god is omnipotent in the Hellenistic sense.
In fact vanishingly few believers even know what the Hellenistic concept of
omnipotence is. Although the extreme concept of omnipotence leads to
logical contradictions, few believers actually hold to a view of god as
omnipotent in the extreme sense. Hence your arguments are aimed at a beleif
that actually isn't held by most believers.
>
> C. It also means lessor powers and entities have
> no possible way of affecting god, or in limiting
> good in any possible manner.
>
> D. Except for such logical exceptions nothing
> can limited god, he is unlimited in ability and
> power.
Which god?
>
> 2. GOD AND TIME
>
> A. Time exists
> B. But if god is to be omnipotent, time cannot
> limit god in any way.
Not every religion states this or believes this.
>
> 3. GOD, CREATION, AND TIME.
>
> A. God created all, this is a basic claim
> of many religions,
But not all. And even those who do disagree on the particulars.
>
> 4. OMNIGENESIS
> This idea that god creates all now, totally,
> in all physical particulars for all time to
> the smallest details should have name as it is
> a powerful concept that is destructive to so
> many claims.
Omnigenesis is YOUR claim. It is not claimed as you define in nearly any
religion.
>
> 5. GOD AND OMNIBENEVOLENCE.
>
> 1. God is said to be good, all good, supremely
> good. Often denoted by the word
> omnibenevolent.
God is also said to be different in thought from man. God's conception of
good may therefore not be our conception of good. This is a basic premise
in many religions.
> 2. There is evil.
> 3. Evil comes in two type, natural evil,
> drought, floods, hurricanes and moral evil,
> evil deriving from acts of mankind, murder,
> rape, lying as examples.
> 4. But if god made all man's acts to the last
> detail including evil ones, then evil exists
> only because god exists.
> 5. God also creates all natural evils that befall
> man.
> 6. Since all evils are directly caused by god and
> only god, as nobody has free will except god,
> all evil is caused directly and only by god.
> 7. Therefore god is evil.
Non sequitur. There exist good arguments that do make this point, but yours
is not one of them because yours contains numerous logical flaws not
contained in either the Logical Argument from Evil or the Evidential
Argument from Evil.
The rest of your argument collapses at this point since your assertions do
not imply your conclusions.
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>
>
> **IS HE A "NET LEGEND?"
> CAN GOD EXIST? STRONG ATHEISM SAYS NO.
Sniper
> IS THERE A GOD? NO. STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER
Barwells autobot program:
# Version 1.00
# Natural language and troll processor "wbarwell"
# Utilities:
#
# Natural language processor NatLangAdd
# Troll arrays:
# Random insult generators.
# Random "why am I the only one who gets it?" bewilderment generator.
# Random nonsensical ad nauseam cut and paste repetitions
array Bib: random omni-god impossibility repetition:
"If I post it a hundred more times maybe they'll change
their mind?"
random accusation: # "You're stupid if you don't agree
that I've proven a god can not exist"
array Ins: random accusation; # "Why don't you people get it?"
random rant; # "Am I the only smart one here?"
post: post on Usenet;
for each (post): "Get Septic for back-up, he's the only
person stupid enough to stick up for me...
and besides, I cut and paste just like him"
{
case of (post):
new_thread:
{
NatLangAdd(greetings,misquote);
print(misrepresentation[random]);
}
reply to Gandolf Grey:
{
NatLangAdd(greet,support);
print(nonsense[random]);
print(false accusation)
}
reply to Sniper:
{
NetLangAdd(Ins[random]);
print(unsubstantiated accusation[random]);
print(unsubstantiated claim[random]);
print(nonsense[random]);
}
reply to sensible post:
{
Incorrectly paraphrase posters comments
NoResponse(ignore);
exit(1);
}
}
print("wbarwell");
printsig(nonsense[random]);
}
#END PROGRAM
wcb
>
> Barwells autobot program:
>
CLASSES OF GODS
Once we see that the class of omni-everything, creator
gods cannot possibly exist, that means no particular gods
of that class whatever they may be can be exist. This
also destroys secondary claims about such gods, we need
not consider them much, if this class of gods cannot exist
we need not bother with secondary concepts like god's
simplicity, or infinity, or necessary being. Nor
tertiary claims about Jesus, Mohammed or Moses, creationism,
or similar ideas.
There are no other classes of gods that can step into the
breach and take place of the now debunked omni-everything
creator god.
There are a few classes of possible gods. But none
can withstand scrutiny.
Some classes because they are overlapping with the class
of omni-everything gods.
Immanent gods
Maya gods.
Transcedent gods
Panentheistic gods.
As long as a god is said to be creator of all and
omni-everthing, and all good that god is impossible.
Whether transcendent or immanent does not matter.
Nature gods. Nature gods are an ancient concept.
This god is responsible for crop fertility, or that god
is responsible for rain this goddess over wheat, et al.
Science has banished nature gods. Once one really knows
how rain occurs, no goddesses are needed or explain
that. Or can explain it. There is simply no room left
for nature gods and goddesses. They are thus easily debunked.
These were only hopeful stand-ins for missing scientific
knowledge of ancient cultures.
Many god classes are divided between nature gods and
omni-everything gods.
For example classes of myth cycle gods. Zeus, Hera, Mercury,
or El, Baal, Osiris et al. In late antiquity, Zeus was by a few
pagans, reinterpreted as an omni-everything creator god, about
the equivalent of Jehovah. This concept fails because it is
a member of the omni-everything creator class god.
Otherwise the gods were merely nature gods.
Which because they have been displaced by science and have
nothing to explain, are meaningless and useless concepts.
Pantheism is a concept that essentially is atheistic.
God is merely a name for nature.
Deism can be divided into two kinds of god. Pantheism,
and omni-everything gods said to be little involved with mankind.
In both cases this concept fails.
Animistic gods are essentially nature gods and as such, again
fail.
Basically there are but a few basic classes of gods and
none work. Because so many overlap with debunked classes of gods,
nature gods and omni-everything gods most of these classes are
easily disposed with.
One can erect classes of gods specifically not to be debunkable.
Consider the class of maya gods who are not good or even caring
about us at all. All is illusion, dreams in the minds of gods.
We are but dreams in the mind of god, who has little regard for
us, who is ammoral, who has no knowable goals or aims.
This is hard to debunk, but useless as it does nothing.
its like solipsist arguments, or arguments the word was created
two days ago with all our false memories in place. These sort
of ideas are simply disregarded as useless, rightfully.
Some forms of negative theology gods rightfully fit here.
We are told we can know nothing of god, then these theists
proceed to tell us about gods they say we can know nothing of.
If you can know nothing, you know nothing. A god you can know
nothing about is something that cannot be useful, even if it
did exist.
Lessor spirits, leprechauns, fairies lares, penitates,
et all are again, lessor nature gods. They cannot explain anything
worth knowing and surely make no acceptable substitute for gods.
Process theology gods are gods based on somewhat complex
metaphysical ideas, many a priori, not evidential. This concept
of god has a problem with fitting with modern physics as its
creators admit. It doesn't work.
Similarly, open process theologians try to throw out
concepts such as knowing the future that plague basic
omni-everything gods. But problems of theodicy plague
these sort of attempts, it still does not work.
There are not many classes of gods, all fail to withstand scrutiny.
The few that cannot be debunked are useless curiosities, that
don't do anything useful.
The biggest class of gods is the omni-everything, creator class
of gods. Once it is debunked, the remaining possible classes of gods
are not good replacments for this class of gods. One can
systematically work through possible classes of gods and show that
none of them withstand logical scrutiny. Thus we can essentially
debunk all potentially useful gods, logically speaking, based
on general assertions made for such gods. Entire classes
of gods can be debunked at a go.
God it turns out is a concept amazingly easy to debunk by
this simple approach. And the biggest, most powerful, most
important class of gods, the omni-everything, creator god,
is easiest of all to debunk the most thorough.
Strong Atheism can indeed take up the false challenge of theism
to show gods cannot exist and can do the task, Its really the
theists burden of evidence to show their claimed gods exist, which
is never done, there is no evidence. The fact all classes of gods
are debunkable tells us why there is no evidence and why there will
never be any.
In the end, Strong Atheism is king of all, gods are proven to be
merely bad ideas without possible existance. And all religious secondary or
tertiary claims based on the idea of god are also likewise dead and gone.
Gandalf Grey
> Sniper wrote:
>
>>
>> Barwells autobot program:
>>
> CLASSES OF GODS
Your Classes of Gods argument has been debunked.