Re: Agreed? Barwell DEBUNKED
Gandalf Grey
"wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12emv47...@corp.supernews.com...
> catch...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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.
GoDrex
"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:44eb86e1$0$24197$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> news:12emv47...@corp.supernews.com...
> > catch...@gmail.com wrote:
>
the siamese twins at it again....
wcb
It sure would be nice to post without Shit-for-brains
attacking me with cretinous stupidity again and again
and again. Siamese twins, no, somebody wanting to post
without being attacked by a pack of the stupidest men
on the net.
Fuck!
--
His disciples said, "When will you become revealed
to us and when shall we see you?"
Jesus said, "When you disrobe without being ashamed
and take up your garments and place them under your
feet like little children and tread on them, then will you
see the son of the living one, and you will not be afraid"
- Gospel of Thomas.
Cheerful Charlie
Josh Miles
> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> news:12emv47...@corp.supernews.com...
>> catch...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> 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.
<snip>
Gandalf, your fixation on Barwell is more than a little creepy. Please
seek help.
Gandalf Grey
> GoDrex wrote:
>
>>
>> "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:44eb86e1$0$24197$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>>>
>>> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>>> news:12emv47...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> > catch...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>
>> the siamese twins at it again....
>
> It sure would be nice to post without Shit-for-brains
> attacking me with cretinous stupidity again and again
> and again.
I'm sure you would like to post your garbage propaganda without being
challenged.
Dream on, Barwell.
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> Of course it's not false, Barwell. It's the history of modern theology.
>> Of course you can't handle that fact because it gets in the way of your
>> one-size fits all psuedo-arguments.
>
> Modern theology is overwhelming conservative
No it's not. Fundamentalism is overwhelmingly conservative. Fundamentalism
is not the whole of modern theology.
> and devoted largely to
> debunking crap like unorthodox open theology,et al, cults, and spiritual
> conterfeits. No denominations have abandoned claims god is omipotent,
> lying cocksucker.
1. That seems to be the bulk of what YOU try to do, Barwell....attempt to
debunk everything but the orthodox dogma of your omnipotent god.
2. I love the 'cocksucker' language coming out of someone who pretends to be
writing a book for publication. Your pretensions at literacy get
short-circuited everytime you wander from your prefabricated derivative
arguments.
wcb
>
> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> news:12ep9db...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Of course it's not false, Barwell. It's the history of modern theology.
>>> Of course you can't handle that fact because it gets in the way of your
>>> one-size fits all psuedo-arguments.
>>
>> Modern theology is overwhelming conservative
>
> No it's not. Fundamentalism is overwhelmingly conservative.
> Fundamentalism is not the whole of modern theology.
>
Catholicism is conservative. Orthodox christianity is conservative.
Pentacostalism is comnservative. Evangelicals are conservative.
Your initial insane claim was that no churches anymore claimed dogmatcially
god is omnipotent,thanks to modern theology.
Prove that insane claim.
You have to be insane.
You lied and said no churches dogmatically accept god
is omnipotent nowadays thanks to "modern theology".
This is a crock. You are a liar.
>>
>> This is NOT modern theology at all.
>> It is an aberrant strain of a few theologians.
>
> You misspelled "most."
When did most denominations, Catholic, Protestant, and
Orthodox drop the claim god is not omnipotent as you lies,
in name of modern theology?
you are mentally unbalanced.
This is NOT modern theology at all.
It is an aberrant strain of a few addlepated theologians.
Most modern theology is exceeding conservative,
and much of it consists of debunking the unorthodox
bullshit of process weiners, open theology kooks and liberal
demythologization et al. Not to mention cults, spititual
counterfeits and rap like neo-paganism.
This modern theology crap is called by the RCC, modernism and was
explicitly proclaimed anathema in First Vatican Council.
That has not been repealed.
Omnipotence is dogmatic in most major Protestant religions
as well, you are a lying idiot.
Not a single major denomination has renounced god's
omnipotence and you lie and keep lying.
No church has dropped that biblical dogma you insane liar.
Omnipotence proof texts
OLD TESTAMENT
TORAH
Genesis 18:14
Is anything too hard for the LORD?
I will return to you at the appointed time next
year and Sarah will have a son.
OTHER
Job 42:2
I know that you can do all things;
no plan of yours can be thwarted.
Psalm 62:11
God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this;
that power belongeth unto God.
Psalm 115:3
But our God is in heaven; He does what He
pleases.
PROPHETS
Isiah 40:28
Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that
the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of
the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is
weary? there is no searching of his
understanding.
Isaiah 55:11
So shall my word be that goes forth out of my
mouth: it shall not return to me void, but it shall
accomplish that which I please,and it shall prosper
in the thing whereto I sent it.
1 Kings 8:27
27 But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens,
even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How
much less this temple I have built!
Jeremiah 10:6
Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O
LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in
might.
...
12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath
established the world by his wisdom, and hath
stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
13 When he uttereth his voice, there is a
multitude of waters in the heavens, and he
causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of
the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and
bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures.
Jer 32:26-7
26 Then came the word of the LORD unto Jeremiah,
saying,
27 Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh:
is there any thing too hard for me?
Jeremiah 32:17
"Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, You have made the
heavens and the earth by Your great power and
outstretched arm. There is nothing too hard
for you."
Jeremiah 51:15
He hath made the earth by his power, he
hath established the world by his wisdom, and
hath stretched out the heaven by his
understanding.
NEW TESTAMENT
GOSPELS
Mark 14:36
And He said, "Abba, Father, all things are
possible for You. Take this cup away from me;
nevertheless, not what I will, but what You
will.
Matthew 19:26
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this
is impossible, but with God all things are
possible."
Luke 1:37
For with God nothing shall be impossible
Luke 18:27
And he said, "The things which are
impossible with men are possible with God.
EPISTLES
Romans 1:20
20 For the invisible things of him from the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are
without excuse:
Romans 11:36
For of Him and through Him and to Him are all
things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.
Ephesians 1:11 - In Him also we have obtained an
inheritance, being predestined according to the
purpose of Him who works all things according to
the counsel of His will.
Hebrews 1:3 - [God's Son upholds] all things by
the word of His power.
Revelations 19:6
And I heard as it were the voice of a great
multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and
as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying,
Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
SHADDAI
God Almighty. Shaddai's exact etymology has
long been disputed, but the Jewish translators
of the Septuigent translated it into Greek,
"pantokrator" which means literally Lord of All,
which was used by the Greeks to indicate the
concept of omnipotence. It is a word used once
in Revelations 19:6. later Latin translations
used omnipotens for pantokrater, and omnipotens
for shaddai. Shaddai is usually translated as
god almighty in English translations is used 42
times in the bible. El Shaddai is used 6 times.
ALMIGHTY - SHADDAI - EL SHADDAI
GENESIS 17:1 him, I am the ALMIGHTY God; walk
before me,
GENESIS 28:3 And God ALMIGHTY bless thee, and make
thee fruitful,
GENESIS 35:11 him, I am God ALMIGHTY: be fruitful
and multiply;
GENESIS 43:14 And God ALMIGHTY give you mercy
before the man,
GENESIS 48:3 said unto Joseph, God ALMIGHTY
appeared unto me at
GENESIS 49:25 thee; and by the ALMIGHTY, who shall
bless thee
EXODUS 6:3 the name of God ALMIGHTY, but by my
name
NUMBERS 24:4 the vision of the ALMIGHTY, falling
into a trance,
NUMBERS 24:16 the vision of the ALMIGHTY, falling
into a trance,
RUTH 1:20 me Mara: for the ALMIGHTY hath dealt
very bitterly
RUTH 1:21 testified against me, and the ALMIGHTY
hath afflicted me?
JOB 5:17 therefore despise not thou the chastening
of the ALMIGHTY:
JOB 6:4 the arrows of the ALMIGHTY are within me,
the
JOB 6:14 friend; but he forsaketh the fear of the
ALMIGHTY.
JOB 8:3 God pervert judgment? or doth the ALMIGHTY
pervert justice?
JOB 8:5 God betimes, and make thy supplication to
the ALMIGHTY;
JOB 11:7 God? canst thou find out the ALMIGHTY
unto perfection?
JOB 13:3 would speak to the ALMIGHTY, and I desire
to
JOB 15:25 hand against God, and strengtheneth
himself against the ALMIGHTY.
JOB 21:15 What is the ALMIGHTY, that we should
serve him?
JOB 21:20 he shall drink of the wrath of the
ALMIGHTY.
JOB 22:3 any pleasure to the ALMIGHTY, that thou
art righteous?
JOB 22:17 us: and what can the ALMIGHTY do for
them?
JOB 22:23 thou return to the ALMIGHTY, thou shalt
be built
JOB 22:25 Yea, the ALMIGHTY shall be thy defence,
and thou
JOB 22:26 thy delight in the ALMIGHTY, and shalt
lift up
JOB 23:16 maketh my heart soft, and the ALMIGHTY
troubleth me:
JOB 24:1 not hidden from the ALMIGHTY, do they
that know
JOB 27:2 my judgment; and the ALMIGHTY, who hath
vexed my
JOB 27:10 delight himself in the ALMIGHTY? will he
always call
JOB 27:11 which is with the ALMIGHTY will I not
conceal.
JOB 27:13 of oppressors, which they shall receive
of the ALMIGHTY.
JOB 29:5 When the ALMIGHTY was yet with me, when
my
JOB 31:2 and what inheritance of the ALMIGHTY from
on high?
JOB 31:35 desire is, that the ALMIGHTY would
answer me, and
JOB 32:8 and the inspiration of the ALMIGHTY
giveth them understanding.
JOB 33:4 the breath of the ALMIGHTY hath given me
life.
JOB 34:10 wickedness; and from the ALMIGHTY, that
he should commit
JOB 34:12 not do wickedly, neither will the
ALMIGHTY pervert judgment.
JOB 35:13 not hear vanity, neither will the
ALMIGHTY regard it.
JOB 37:23 Touching the ALMIGHTY, we cannot find
him out: he
JOB 40:2 that contendeth with the ALMIGHTY
instruct him? he that
PSALM 68:14 When the ALMIGHTY scattered kings in
it, it was
PSALM 91:1 High shall abide under the shadow of
the ALMIGHTY.
ISAIAH 13:6 it shall come as a destruction from
the ALMIGHTY.
EZEKIEL 1:24 the voice of the ALMIGHTY, the voice
of speech,
EZEKIEL 10:5 the voice of the ALMIGHTY God when he
speaketh.
JOEL 1:15 as a destruction from the ALMIGHTY shall
it come.
2 CORINTHIANS 6:18 be my sons and daughters, saith
the Lord ALMIGHTY.
REVELATION 1:8 which was, and which is to come,
the ALMIGHTY.
REVELATION 4:8 holy, holy, LORD God ALMIGHTY,
which was, and is,
REVELATION 11:17 thanks, O LORD God ALMIGHTY,
which art, and wast,
REVELATION 15:3 thy works, Lord God ALMIGHTY; just
and true are
REVELATION 16:7 Even so, Lord God ALMIGHTY, true
and righteous are
REVELATION 16:14 the battle of that great day of
God ALMIGHTY.
REVELATION 19:15 winepress of the fierceness and
wrath of ALMIGHTY God.
REVELATION 21:22 for the Lord God ALMIGHTY and the
Lamb are
(End)
***************************
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>> news:12ep9db...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course it's not false, Barwell. It's the history of modern theology.
>>>> Of course you can't handle that fact because it gets in the way of your
>>>> one-size fits all psuedo-arguments.
>>>
>>> Modern theology is overwhelming conservative
>>
>> No it's not. Fundamentalism is overwhelmingly conservative.
>> Fundamentalism is not the whole of modern theology.
>>
> Catholicism is conservative.
Catholicism is not fundamentalism, Barwell.
Richo
> <snip>>
> Gandalf, your fixation on Barwell is more than a little creepy.
What about Barwell's fixation on Gandalf?
(or "God" - for that matter.)
Cheers, Mark.
Gandalf Grey
"Richo" <m.rich...@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1156482719....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
For my part, Barwell can definitely stick with God. I honestly think that
God's more his type, at least the Old Testament version: self-righteous,
inconsistent, and usually pissed off.
>
> Cheers, Mark.
>
wcb
I post, I am attacked by Gandy..
Gandy spam, Gandy spam, Gandy spam....
I fight back.
That is not obsession, its a counter attack
on a fool trying to net bully me off AA.
I post and he will post his Gandy spam 5 times
over three days to the same post.
Same old debunked crap again and again.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
wcb
er.)
>
> For my part, Barwell can definitely stick with God. I honestly think that
> God's more his type, at least the Old Testament version: self-righteous,
> inconsistent, and usually pissed off.
I will stick with debunking god which
yo*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
There are a number of major religions today, Judaism,
Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam, that together represent
the large majority of religious believers on earth today.
These basic religions represent the religious beliefs
of about 4.3 billion people.
These religions derive their beliefs about god from
what is claimed to be revelation. These relevations are to
be found in religious books, the Bible, Torah, Vedas and
similar books, and the Quran.
The gods of these religions are similar enough we may
regard them for practical purposes as a class of gods, the
class of of omni-everything creator gods.
These gods are claimed dogmatically to have a number of
charateristics. These as a class are creators of all, all
good (omnibenevolent), and all knowing (omniscient). They
are also omnipotent, and also merciful, loving and other
secondary characteristics. Here in this essay when God is
used, by that is meant this class of god and specific gods
of that class of omni-everything gods.
A. God is claimed to to have created the Universe and all
in that Universe.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all that is in
the Universe and he knows the future state of the Universe
and the state of all its contents as he contemplates creating
the Universe.
C. St. Augustine claimed that god is omnipotent, all powerful, and
thus is sovereign over time and that god must therefore be
transcedent over time and outside being affected by time. To
god, past, present and future are all one thing to god who thus
knows all that existed, exists and will exist, as time
cannot affect god. Boethius a century later also stated this.
D. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in
this universe because he is omniscient, all knowing.
E. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, in
the distant future, God will know whether John Smith is
to be good or evil.
F. If God knows that the Universe created in its present state will
have a John Smith, then god must then contemplate the future state
of Smith and decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith or if
god will create the Universe in another manner that will have
a good Smith who is saved in preference to a Smith who is evil
and damned.
G. Thus, Smith will be good or evil only because of a specific
personal and willful choice made solely by god who must make
a choice faced with the knowledge of the future. God must
implement his choice of what the future Smith will be, good
or evil. If God sees that Smith will commit rape on June 27,
1999, god must decide if he will allow that act to exist in
the future or not.
H. Since this all happens as god contemplates creation of the
Universe, Smith has no say in whether he is to be good or evil
as he does not exist yet and cannot influence god's choice.
I. If Smith is evil, then his evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god. In fact all moral evil done by creations of god
are done only because of personal and willful creations of
god, allowing specific acts of evil acts to be done, by direct
and personal decision of god.
J. Smith's acts to the smallest degree, all of them, from the greatest
to the smallest are personally contemplated and created by god
to the smallest physical degree. All acts to the last quark God's
specific and personal doing. And all men and women's acts
similarly are forseen and either allowed or not allowed by
god, personally and purposefully to the smallest degree.
K. Thus man can have no free will even in principle.
L. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient, creator god,
it is solely and only because god allows evil acts by
his personal choice.
M. If god creates all at once, because God is out of time and
transcedent to time, again, god creates all, each physical
part of us to the last degree through space and time, the last
atom which makes up all of us, and all our acts through all
space and time. God, purposefully designing all he creates,
creates all our acts and thoughts to the smallest possible
degree. We have no say as to what God decides to create
and what God actually does create, and creates all at once.
Since he creates all at once and is all knowing, he knows all
he plans to create before he creates it.
N. In a universe where god is omnipotent and thus transcedent in
regards to time, man can have no free will.
O. If all moral evil exists solely because of personal choices of god,
god then is not as defined, omnibenevolent. Nor merciful,
just, or similar good qualities.
P. Man and any other sentient being in such a Universe cannot
have any free will, not even in principle. A Universe with
a god that creates all, and knows all precludes free will for
all beings god creates in the strongest possible manner.
Q. A god that is all knowing, omniscient, and/or omnipotent makes
free will impossible.
R. This is precisely because knowing all and faced with
what will be, god at all times must make a personal choice
to actually create what he is contemplating creating with
full knowledge and acceptance of what his creation will
entail, or he must change his creation to conform to his
wishes for the type of world he wants. Thus free will is
impossible, only god's will can be expressed in a
Universe where god is creator of all and omniscient
or omnipotent. God sand only god really acts.
S. God is defined as all good, omnibenevolent. But if
God creates all and is omniscient or omnipotent, all
evil is God's doing personally and purposefully.
T. This is a contradiction, an all good, omnibenevolent
god cannot be the author of all moral evil.
U. A god that is creator of all, omniscient, and/or omnipotent
and omnibenevolent thus cannot exist.
V. Thus the entire class of omni-everything, creator gods is
impossible, as a class and these sorts of gods, individually.
***********************************************************
u don't even try.
All you do is harass me.
Sniper
> Richo wrote:
>
>>Josh Miles wrote:
>>
>>>Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>>
>>>>"wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>>
>>><snip>>
>>>Gandalf, your fixation on Barwell is more than a little creepy.
>>
>>What about Barwell's fixation on Gandalf?
>>(or "God" - for that matter.)
>>
>>Cheers, Mark.
>
> I post, I am attacked by Gandy..
>
> Gandy spam, Gandy spam, Gandy spam....
>
> I fight back.
>
> That is not obsession, its a counter attack
> on a fool trying to net bully me off AA.
Right. You've posted the same tiresome shit
over a hundred times now month after month,
and you don't think it's obsessive, Sparky?
> I post and he will post his Gandy spam 5 times
> over three days to the same post.
> Same old debunked crap again and again.
You seriously need to look into medication.
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
> er.)
>>
>> For my part, Barwell can definitely stick with God. I honestly think
>> that
>> God's more his type, at least the Old Testament version: self-righteous,
>> inconsistent, and usually pissed off.
>
> I will stick with debunking god
When are you going to start?
Gandalf Grey
> Richo wrote:
>
>>
>> Josh Miles wrote:
>>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>> > "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> <snip>>
>>> Gandalf, your fixation on Barwell is more than a little creepy.
>>
>> What about Barwell's fixation on Gandalf?
>> (or "God" - for that matter.)
>>
>> Cheers, Mark.
>
> I post, I am attacked by Gandy..
You don't post...you spam.
> I post and he will post his Gandy spam 5 times
> over three days to the same post.
That's a lie. Actually I try very hard to respond only once to each of your
spammed posts.