Science and God: A Final Refutation of Barwell
Gandalf Grey
named W. Barwell has been pasting together sloppy, fallacious arguments that
purport to universally disprove the existence of God.
Because these arguments have had the effect of a parody of real science and
logic, I have demonstrated their weakness and many fallacies whenever I have
seen them.
Now, I think it's as well to lay out a few simple facts that more nearly
represent the truth of the current war of the Church on rationality and
science.
1. Science is under no obligation to disprove the existence of a phenomenon
for which there is no empirical evidence and no logical argument.
It's important to recognize the overarching importance of this statement.
No empirical proof of the necessary existence of a god has ever been
discovered. The ID/Creationist movement has never succeeded in doing more
than calling attention to the fact that scientific knowledge is incomplete.
They have attempted to use rhetoric that implies that the fact that science
does not know everything must mean that there is a god. This rhetorical
device is known as the Argument from Ignorance, *argumentum ad ignorantium.*
It is a logical fallacy that will become immediately apparent to anyone with
a little reflection. If I cannot find my car keys it does not automatically
prove that my car keys have been transported to the planet Mars by
intergalactic pixies or whatever other vain theory one cares to suggest.
The most we can say about the bare fact that I cannot find my carkeys from a
logical standpoint is that I cannot find my car keys. A bare fact does not
imply an entire theory by logical necessity.
Embedded within this rhetorical dodge by the religious right is another
fallacy: the presumption that, for example, evolution vs. Creationism
excludes all other explanations and embraces all possible explanation. To
put it bluntly, either science knows everything or god exists. But two
opposing views do not by necessity exclude each other, nor do they by
necessity include all possible views. Gaps in the fossil record are
historically 'momentary.' Gaps in scientific knowledge are not by necessity
permanent. This all leads to the 'god of the gaps' concept, in which god
exists in whatever small area of knowledge in which our knowledge is
incomplete. As the gaps narrow, god becomes smaller and smaller.
Many specific examples could be cited, but the final truth is that the
Church's war on rationality consists of a rhetorical device inflated into a
political program. The fundamentalist view is nothing more than a logical
fallacy.
2. Positive assertions carry with them the burden of proof.
As has been mentioned, no assertion that god is real has ever been proved by
way of empirical evidence or logical argument.
That being said it is also true that no assertion that god CANNOT exist has
ever been proved by way of empirical evidence or logical argument. This
being the case, all that has been said of point 1. applies to point 2. If
someone makes an assertion that god cannot exist, it now DOES become their
responsibility to prove that this is the case.
But science is not in the business of proving the non-existence of
entitites. Science is in the business of explaining nature in terms of
nature. This means dealing with empirical data and natural phenomenon.
God, being defined as extra- or super- natural is not a subject of
scientific experiment or explanation.
Atheists have every reasonable right to believe that there is no god, since
there exists no argument or proof that such an entity exists. But
attempting to prove that such a being cannot exist is very different from a
rational belief. Any such proof must be universally applicable and
logically adequate in order to succeed.
To date, no such argument has ever emerged. Mr. Barwell's ridiculous
collection of fallacious pseudo-arguments are a case in point.
In summary, science is in a comfortable position to take on each and every
specific argument concerning the existence of god. Not one of them proves
what they assert. And Intelligent Design is no more successful as an
argument than the ancient cosmological argument, the teleological argument,
the ontological arguments and each and every argument that followed them
throughout the history of theology.
The attempt to universally disprove the possible existence of god is
non-scientific, unnecessary, and ultimately futile. Such attempts not only
move science into the realm of religion, but more importantly, cast science
in a highly unscientific mold.
PerfectlyAble
Gandalf Grey wrote:
> For weeks now a person who I firmly believe is a right wing stalking horse
> named W. Barwell has been pasting together sloppy, fallacious arguments that
> purport to universally disprove the existence of God.
Any phenomenia is open to investigation. Like any
investigation any phenonmenia is proved or disproved
by the standards set for likekind phenomenia.
Pixies, ghosts and ghouls, fairies, giants and unicorns.
>
> Because these arguments have had the effect of a parody of real science and
> logic, I have demonstrated their weakness and many fallacies whenever I have
> seen them.
>
> Now, I think it's as well to lay out a few simple facts that more nearly
> represent the truth of the current war of the Church on rationality and
> science.
The Church is not at war, it gaveup the fight and some religious
fundamentalist protestants are trying to revive the old war that
was so lost so long ago. They achieve this aim by throwing history out.
> 1. Science is under no obligation to disprove the existence of a phenomenon
> for which there is no empirical evidence and no logical argument.
Science has an obligation to research any physical ot social
phenomia. Mass religion is such. Science duty is to find
repeatable order so that it can be mimic if USEFUL. Science
to date has found religion to be overtly bad or overty good either.
Poor people are overwhelmingly more religious, is their
religion keeping them poor or their poverty keeping them religious?
> It's important to recognize the overarching importance of this statement.
>
> No empirical proof of the necessary existence of a god has ever been
> discovered.
Which by the standards of science and logic make God non-existant!
There is no evidance for pixies, or invisible pink unicorns!
> The ID/Creationist movement has never succeeded in doing more
> than calling attention to the fact that scientific knowledge is incomplete.
Scientific knowledge virture is that it accepts it starts from
ignorance.
Theological knowledge starts from the belief in God and so from
necessity of its own basis cannot debate God's existance. A
they tell us, its an act of faith. Consent manufactured and
even acknowledged as such.
> They have attempted to use rhetoric that implies that the fact that science
> does not know everything must mean that there is a god. This rhetorical
> device is known as the Argument from Ignorance, *argumentum ad ignorantium.*
> It is a logical fallacy that will become immediately apparent to anyone with
> a little reflection. If I cannot find my car keys it does not automatically
> prove that my car keys have been transported to the planet Mars by
> intergalactic pixies or whatever other vain theory one cares to suggest.
> The most we can say about the bare fact that I cannot find my carkeys from a
> logical standpoint is that I cannot find my car keys. A bare fact does not
> imply an entire theory by logical necessity.
Yes, just because I find my car keys in the last place I look
doesn't give God divine powers over the universe. Just because
some Godshit declares everything looks designed doesn't make
the God the creator of the universe (any God).
> Embedded within this rhetorical dodge by the religious right is another
> fallacy: the presumption that, for example, evolution vs. Creationism
> excludes all other explanations and embraces all possible explanation. To
> put it bluntly, either science knows everything or god exists. But two
> opposing views do not by necessity exclude each other, nor do they by
> necessity include all possible views. Gaps in the fossil record are
> historically 'momentary.' Gaps in scientific knowledge are not by necessity
> permanent. This all leads to the 'god of the gaps' concept, in which god
> exists in whatever small area of knowledge in which our knowledge is
> incomplete. As the gaps narrow, god becomes smaller and smaller.
Rubbish. Obviously people of whatever religion put their lives
daily in the views and preachings of the scientific priesthood.
Most barely agree with their own preists if not directly related
to them or financially connected. Fact is the religious right
raise God up to a burder of proof it cannot supply and then
claim its science equal. Evolution vs the invisible pink unicorn.
There is no god of the gaps, science has disproven God its
just religious people have to believe in God anyway. The
classic catch-22. To get a discharge you have to be mad,
but if your mad your quite normal and so must soldier on.
To refute God, even discuss it you have to stop believing
and so couldn't credible argue the case for God since it
requires faith. Such nonsense cannot save lives like science can
and does.
> Many specific examples could be cited, but the final truth is that the
> Church's war on rationality consists of a rhetorical device inflated into a
> political program. The fundamentalist view is nothing more than a logical
> fallacy.
The Church, from what I understand, does not dispute science.
It merely refers that faith has to be accepted without question.
That fits in well with science since science understands the
whole nature of delusion and self-harm, as long as religion
remains cloistered in its own world doing no harm to others
we can accept it, like Gadaffi.
> 2. Positive assertions carry with them the burden of proof.
>
> As has been mentioned, no assertion that god is real has ever been proved by
> way of empirical evidence or logical argument.
Again nonsense, since the Church demand faith is the only
way to God. Your strawman gives the Church to much credit.
The war is from protestant evangelicals who think Americas
power wasn't provided by the people of America, their
effort, their work, by, for and of the people. But by God.
The classic Christian theft of value, recast in the guise
of Godly gift.
> That being said it is also true that no assertion that god CANNOT exist has
> ever been proved by way of empirical evidence or logical argument. This
> being the case, all that has been said of point 1. applies to point 2. If
> someone makes an assertion that god cannot exist, it now DOES become their
> responsibility to prove that this is the case.
Rubbish. The Church clearly state God without faith is not valid.
Your strawman is helping religion by giving them far too much
credibility. First at warring with rationality, impossible! And
secondly by raising them to a standard they have long since
acknoledged they cannot meet. A logical basis for faith.
>
> But science is not in the business of proving the non-existence of
> entitites. Science is in the business of explaining nature in terms of
> nature. This means dealing with empirical data and natural phenomenon.
> God, being defined as extra- or super- natural is not a subject of
> scientific experiment or explanation.
But in being defined by humanity, for humanity, it can be probed.
By God being defined as extra or super-natural, so science can
invesitgate where other such claims have been made and explain
God in terms of the nature of other such phenomia. The pixies etc.
Folk myths.
> Atheists have every reasonable right to believe that there is no god, since
> there exists no argument or proof that such an entity exists. But
> attempting to prove that such a being cannot exist is very different from a
> rational belief. Any such proof must be universally applicable and
> logically adequate in order to succeed.
Rubbish. Sorry, but thats an argument from ignorance. a double
negative. It is not the burden of the atheist to believe in God,
to disprove it. Its not the burden of anyone to accept anything
without any shred of evidance. Even the evidance that such a
possibility of language construction could create a notion
unnegatiable by langauge. First you have to prove language
has magical properties, right. First you have to show how the
non-phenonmenia part of faith can possible be made, and
that all the explainable parts of a believers behaviour aren't
explained by delusion. In fact all faith is is delusion. Theres
no difference between a delusional belief and a faith in God.
Gandalf Grey
"PerfectlyAble" <jr...@kol.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1148329707....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>> For weeks now a person who I firmly believe is a right wing stalking
>> horse
>> named W. Barwell has been pasting together sloppy, fallacious arguments
>> that
>> purport to universally disprove the existence of God.
>
> Any phenomenia is open to investigation.
Not scientific investigation, especially if it cannot be proved to BE a
phenomenon.
>
>>
>> Because these arguments have had the effect of a parody of real science
>> and
>> logic, I have demonstrated their weakness and many fallacies whenever I
>> have
>> seen them.
>>
>> Now, I think it's as well to lay out a few simple facts that more nearly
>> represent the truth of the current war of the Church on rationality and
>> science.
>
> The Church is not at war, it gaveup the fight and some religious
> fundamentalist protestants are trying to revive the old war that
> was so lost so long ago. They achieve this aim by throwing history out.
>
>> 1. Science is under no obligation to disprove the existence of a
>> phenomenon
>> for which there is no empirical evidence and no logical argument.
>
> Science has an obligation to research any physical ot social
> phenomia.
Nonsense. Science has no obligation to research any phenomena that cannot
be proved to exist.
>
>> It's important to recognize the overarching importance of this statement.
>>
>> No empirical proof of the necessary existence of a god has ever been
>> discovered.
>
> Which by the standards of science and logic make God non-existant!
Methodologically, that much is true. God is therefore not in the realm of
methodological realism.
Nonsense. Science has not disproven god nor has religion proven god. You
can't point to a single argument that would bear out your belief.
>> Many specific examples could be cited, but the final truth is that the
>> Church's war on rationality consists of a rhetorical device inflated into
>> a
>> political program. The fundamentalist view is nothing more than a
>> logical
>> fallacy.
>
> The Church, from what I understand, does not dispute science.
I should have used the term fundamentalists. Fundamentalists do dispute
science in many areas.
>> 2. Positive assertions carry with them the burden of proof.
>>
>> As has been mentioned, no assertion that god is real has ever been proved
>> by
>> way of empirical evidence or logical argument.
>
> Again nonsense, since the Church demand faith is the only
> way to God. Your strawman gives the Church to much credit.
Don't be ridiculous. Positive assertions do carry the burden of proof and
that is a basic tenet of both science and logic. I give the religious right
no credit at all in making such a statement since they have never been able
to defend their claims.
>> That being said it is also true that no assertion that god CANNOT exist
>> has
>> ever been proved by way of empirical evidence or logical argument. This
>> being the case, all that has been said of point 1. applies to point 2. If
>> someone makes an assertion that god cannot exist, it now DOES become
>> their
>> responsibility to prove that this is the case.
>
> Rubbish. The Church clearly state God without faith is not valid.
So what? You're now introducing a term [faith] that isn't being used by the
fundamentalists OR science and accusing me of creating a strawman.
Either one has the duty to support a postivie assertion or not. If not,
religious assertions become just as valid as scientific assertions, and you
accuse me of giving the religious right too much credibility????
>> But science is not in the business of proving the non-existence of
>> entitites. Science is in the business of explaining nature in terms of
>> nature. This means dealing with empirical data and natural phenomenon.
>> God, being defined as extra- or super- natural is not a subject of
>> scientific experiment or explanation.
>
> But in being defined by humanity, for humanity, it can be probed.
Not by science. Which is the point.
>> Atheists have every reasonable right to believe that there is no god,
>> since
>> there exists no argument or proof that such an entity exists. But
>> attempting to prove that such a being cannot exist is very different from
>> a
>> rational belief. Any such proof must be universally applicable and
>> logically adequate in order to succeed.
>
> Rubbish. Sorry, but thats an argument from ignorance. a double
> negative. It is not the burden of the atheist to believe in God,
I just said it wasn't. Can you read? Plus, you apparently don't know what
an argument from ignorance is if you're applying it to the above.
The presumption that all postive assertions require the support of proof or
an argument is hardly the appeal to ignorance.
> to disprove it. Its not the burden of anyone to accept anything
> without any shred of evidance.
Which I've already stated, if you'd taken the time to read.
Llanzlan Klazmon
news:44720cfe$0$24697$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com:
> For weeks now a person who I firmly believe is a right wing stalking
> horse named W. Barwell has been pasting together sloppy, fallacious
> arguments that purport to universally disprove the existence of God.
>
> Because these arguments have had the effect of a parody of real science
> and logic, I have demonstrated their weakness and many fallacies
> whenever I have seen them.
>
> Now, I think it's as well to lay out a few simple facts that more nearly
> represent the truth of the current war of the Church on rationality and
> science.
>
> 1. Science is under no obligation to disprove the existence of a
> phenomenon for which there is no empirical evidence and no logical
> argument.
Your rebuttal is a case of ignoratio elenchi. Barwell is not disproving the
physical existance of gods. He is pointing out the the properties believers
assign to their gods are self contradictory i.e that what they are
believing in is nonsense. Existence is established only by empirical
evidence.
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
Gandalf Grey
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Kla...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns97CC6B6D2B29FKl...@203.97.37.6...
1. Ignoratio elenchi is the logical fallacy of presenting an argument that
may be valid but which proves or supports a different proposition than the
one it is purporting to prove. Your understanding of the term is obviously
incomplete. I have made no such argument.
2. Barwell began his nonsensical so-called proof of the non-existence of god
with the bare statement that he had a "simple proof" that disproves the
existence of any possible god. Therefore you are in factual error. Perhaps
you would do better to actually read everything that Barwell has written
before you presume you know what he's actually said.
Llanzlan Klazmon
Correct. As I pointed out your argument does not address the actual points
raised by Barwell.
> Your understanding of the term
> is obviously incomplete. I have made no such argument.
> 2. Barwell began his nonsensical so-called proof of the non-existence of
> god with the bare statement that he had a "simple proof" that disproves
> the existence of any possible god. Therefore you are in factual error.
Well he must have changed his tune. When I last read his stuff he
specifically referred to what he called 'grand theology' style gods.
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
Kurt Nicklas
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
> Existence is established only by empirical
> evidence.
And you don't believe in anything unless it has emprical evidence?
snex
only a fool would do otherwise.
Gandalf Grey
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Kla...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
In not including my complete reply, you're being quite dishonest. It would
be up to you to demonstrate that the argument is an example of ignoratio
elenchi. This you can't do because it is not an example of that fallacy.
>
>> Your understanding of the term
>> is obviously incomplete. I have made no such argument.
>> 2. Barwell began his nonsensical so-called proof of the non-existence of
>> god with the bare statement that he had a "simple proof" that disproves
>> the existence of any possible god. Therefore you are in factual error.
>
> Well he must have changed his tune. When I last read his stuff he
> specifically referred to what he called 'grand theology' style gods.
You've obviously read little of what you're choosing to opine on.
From various posts:
****************************************************
Gandalf >>>>> The question is accessible to reason, the answer is another
thing
>>>>> entirely. Again, this demonstrates your lack of understanding
>>>>> concerning
>>>>> philosophy
>>>>> [which I've demonstrated before]. All sorts of questions can be
>>>>> addressed
>>>>> by logic, but there are certain questions that, in principle, cannot
>>>>> be
>>>>> answered via logic. The question of the existence of God is one of
>>>>> these.
>>>>> There is no logical way to prove or disprove the existence of God.
>>>>
>>>>
Barwell >>>> Disproving god is rather simple.
Barwell wrote:
But these assertiions create impossible contradictions showing why
there wil never be proof for god, because god is disprovable and impossible.
Barwell wrote:
Theology states god is necessary and ground of all being.
But since god is easily debunked logically, it cannot even exist,
much less be necessary.
Barwell wrote:
All we can do is prove god does not exist, which indeed is provable.
Barwell wrote:
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant
Barwell wrote:
If by taking 8 claims, found in all major religions and all major
theological traditions, I can disprove god, I have then disporved god in an
economical and efficiant manner.
Barwell wrote:
I simply note the efficient and simplest way to prove god
does not exist and do it that way. Why would I want to do
anything else?
********************************************
All the above claims are universal, not particular.
leo
son, or your wife, or your friend tells you something about his
vacacion in Paris, or any other thing, you tend to believe it and you
have not any empirical evidence.
This is a different case. In the case of religion, a god, some
commendements, rules, etc, one can believe or not in the god. If one
is a human able to think logically, one can check the stuff they are
saying about god and then one can refuse to believe. One do not see
any prove of the existence of god, not any empirical evidence of any
god.
But if we are a common man with not a habit of thinking
philosophically then we are not going to reject the existence of god,
but in practice we would be rather indiferent, unless the pastors of
"the church" or the members of our family, had tamed us into accepting
the doctrine of some concrete god. That means, that by accepting a
religion, a doctrine, etc. we are showing we are like tamed animals.
We can remind that the lieders of religion call themselves "pastors"
that comes from Latin "pastores" that is shepherds. Even pastors call
their people the sheep. So it is crystal clear that religious people
are like tamed animals.
When I was a young lad, someone was arguing with me about religion, and
I stopped him dry saying, "I cannot argue with you, 'cause you are a
sheep. But I can argue with the shepherd. Sheep are only a mean of
living for the shepherd."
Leopoldo
Gandalf Grey
"leo" <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148344442.2...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> no. Sometimes we believe things without any empirical evidence. Your
> son, or your wife, or your friend tells you something about his
> vacacion in Paris, or any other thing, you tend to believe it and you
> have not any empirical evidence.
>
> This is a different case. In the case of religion, a god, some
> commendements, rules, etc, one can believe or not in the god. If one
> is a human able to think logically, one can check the stuff they are
> saying about god and then one can refuse to believe. One do not see
> any prove of the existence of god, not any empirical evidence of any
> god.
That's fine and quite true. But that's not what this is about. Atheists
have no good reason or in fact any reason to believe in god. But when
someone steps up and says I have a positive argument that disproves the
possibility of a god, it's up to that person to make their case and present
their own proof. Simply saying there is no proof for God is not the same as
saying that god cannot exist.
PerfectlyAble
Gandalf Grey wrote:
> "PerfectlyAble" <jr...@kol.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1148329707....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Gandalf Grey wrote:
> >> For weeks now a person who I firmly believe is a right wing stalking
> >> horse
> >> named W. Barwell has been pasting together sloppy, fallacious arguments
> >> that
> >> purport to universally disprove the existence of God.
> >
> > Any phenomenia is open to investigation.
>
> Not scientific investigation, especially if it cannot be proved to BE a
> phenomenon.
Christians went on crusade. Ok, are you saying this isn't
an example of the phenomenon called religion?
A child claims that he just wanted to pick his nose,
he didn't know why. Are you suggesting we should
accept that we can't know why he wants too? Even make
his undetectable motivation a boogeyman worshipped
by children the world over?? Should we then ignore that
'we' created the boogeyman, and that YOU are recreating
God by expressing that it has no way to be investigated.
i.e. the only way such phenomenon come about!
> >
> >>
> >> Because these arguments have had the effect of a parody of real science
> >> and
> >> logic, I have demonstrated their weakness and many fallacies whenever I
> >> have
> >> seen them.
> >>
> >> Now, I think it's as well to lay out a few simple facts that more nearly
> >> represent the truth of the current war of the Church on rationality and
> >> science.
> >
> > The Church is not at war, it gaveup the fight and some religious
> > fundamentalist protestants are trying to revive the old war that
> > was so lost so long ago. They achieve this aim by throwing history out.
> >
> >> 1. Science is under no obligation to disprove the existence of a
> >> phenomenon
> >> for which there is no empirical evidence and no logical argument.
> >
> > Science has an obligation to research any physical ot social
> > phenomia.
>
> Nonsense. Science has no obligation to research any phenomena that cannot
> be proved to exist.
Science will research everything, even mass religion, even
watching the brains via NMR of believers as they communicate
with their God and estimate the correlation to a paranoid delusional.
Fact is God is very testable and very much nonsense.
>
> >
> >> It's important to recognize the overarching importance of this statement.
> >>
> >> No empirical proof of the necessary existence of a god has ever been
> >> discovered.
> >
> > Which by the standards of science and logic make God non-existant!
>
> Methodologically, that much is true. God is therefore not in the realm of
> methodological realism.
There is not other realm, since to be a realm you have to be
able to test whether your there or not. There is no God, there
is no debate about God, Godists admit this when they accept
that faith is the only way to create a link to God. We call it
delusion, they call it faith. Delusions can be investigated.
A cannot be not A. You can't claim that a non-existant
exists and then claim because you can't then its possible.
You can't even claim that because others make this claim
that there must be truth to the matter. There is no zero
sum gain. Without positive proof by the godists there is
no debate.
Science does investigate religion, and has found NO evidance for Gods,
except as myths.
In fact science has walked on walker, flown to the moon, brought
people back from the dead, reattached limbs. Science has OUT
done any religious claim of merit. If thats not evidance then you
don't want evidance, you want to cling on to the notion that a
pixy could exist outside of the delusional minds of the pixy movement.
Everytime I put up evidance, facts, that science can and does
investigate you religious comeout with the claim that no there
still is a gap that God could fit into. Well NO there isn't,
except the delusional minds of some human's brain.
>
> >> Many specific examples could be cited, but the final truth is that the
> >> Church's war on rationality consists of a rhetorical device inflated into
> >> a
> >> political program. The fundamentalist view is nothing more than a
> >> logical
> >> fallacy.
> >
> > The Church, from what I understand, does not dispute science.
>
> I should have used the term fundamentalists. Fundamentalists do dispute
> science in many areas.
Everyone dispute science if there's a economic, social, etc advantage
in it.
It ain't nothing new. The Church has recognised that fighting
rational thought would only lead inevitably to irrational statements.
This is a political forum and the fundamentalists have real political
power from being anti-science.
>
> >> 2. Positive assertions carry with them the burden of proof.
> >>
> >> As has been mentioned, no assertion that god is real has ever been proved
> >> by
> >> way of empirical evidence or logical argument.
> >
> > Again nonsense, since the Church demand faith is the only
> > way to God. Your strawman gives the Church to much credit.
>
> Don't be ridiculous. Positive assertions do carry the burden of proof and
> that is a basic tenet of both science and logic. I give the religious right
> no credit at all in making such a statement since they have never been able
> to defend their claims.
You give them credit by peddling the idea that a God could
exist. Let's me put it this way. Not only is the picture of God
wrong, the frame holding it is also. Religion is a parasite
that uses the false framing to create the possibility of the picture.
Even the Church avoids this, they accept that FAITH is the
only road to God. That God can only be found in the minds
of believers who hold God exists. You however seem to
extend the possibility that God exists out here in the gaps.
> >> That being said it is also true that no assertion that god CANNOT exist
> >> has
> >> ever been proved by way of empirical evidence or logical argument. This
> >> being the case, all that has been said of point 1. applies to point 2. If
> >> someone makes an assertion that god cannot exist, it now DOES become
> >> their
> >> responsibility to prove that this is the case.
> >
> > Rubbish. The Church clearly state God without faith is not valid.
>
> So what? You're now introducing a term [faith] that isn't being used by the
> fundamentalists OR science and accusing me of creating a strawman.
I saying that you and fundamentalists both argue that God
can exist outside of the minds of believers. I as an athiest
concurs with the Church when it stresses that belief in God
exist sole because the believe accepts God as an article of faith.
Not putting anything in your mouth.
> Either one has the duty to support a postivie assertion or not. If not,
> religious assertions become just as valid as scientific assertions, and you
> accuse me of giving the religious right too much credibility????
I disagree. You are the one placing them together. Just as you
argue that religion has to prove the positive claim. So evangelicals
and you have to prove that they can be held equally. Its
like claiming because the San Francisco bridge exists that
another bridge exist that nobody can cross, that nobody is
allow to cross, and could never cross, nor would be ever built,
could be compared to it! You not only have a duty to prove
the positive assertion, but you also have to prove the framework
you are going to do it with, you can't give religion the benefit of
the doubt. Secondly you have to get them to assert their axioms,
that they will behave logically, they they will except they could be
wrong. Because it's a waste of time trying talking to someone
who is not honestly entering in to debate by putting their ideas
up to be disproved. Thats why the Church claims faith is the
only way to God, because you can't argue with someone who
admits they can't debate with you.
> >> But science is not in the business of proving the non-existence of
> >> entitites. Science is in the business of explaining nature in terms of
> >> nature. This means dealing with empirical data and natural phenomenon.
> >> God, being defined as extra- or super- natural is not a subject of
> >> scientific experiment or explanation.
> >
> > But in being defined by humanity, for humanity, it can be probed.
>
> Not by science. Which is the point.
The brain is mappable. Inputs and outputs recordable.
Brain cells mimiced, even dissected and probed.
Why do you deny this>?
>
> >> Atheists have every reasonable right to believe that there is no god,
> >> since
> >> there exists no argument or proof that such an entity exists. But
> >> attempting to prove that such a being cannot exist is very different from
> >> a
> >> rational belief. Any such proof must be universally applicable and
> >> logically adequate in order to succeed.
> >
> > Rubbish. Sorry, but thats an argument from ignorance. a double
> > negative. It is not the burden of the atheist to believe in God,
>
> I just said it wasn't. Can you read? Plus, you apparently don't know what
> an argument from ignorance is if you're applying it to the above.
A husband tells his wife he doesn't know who he had sex with,
so he couldn't of have had sex. The wife claims thats an argument
from ignorance and that he must have had sex because he
hasn't with her for sometime. It is quite plausible for you to contend
a
statement that is also an argument from ignorance.
I contend that you are implying that religious knowledge is
equal to scientific knowledge. Now initially, before any facts
are presented they are but once you accept that science has
a wealth of proven knowledge, has achieved the claims that
religion made but could not repeat. Then you have in al integrity
to accept that religion isn't even on the starting block with
equal merit. You accept there is no God, now accept that
the proposition cannot be held as equal to science. That
religion also has that burden to reach, that claim to make FIRST.
This is precisely the problem with creationism in schools
debate. That religion and science warrent equal merit.
The shitster of creationism claim that creation also explains
everything science does, so should be afforded eqaul time.
Thats a positive claim they have to prove.
> The presumption that all postive assertions require the support of proof or
> an argument is hardly the appeal to ignorance.
Agreed. Then provide proof that religion should be held
to the same merit as science. In the same framework.
People alight airplane across the world asking if the
engineer is certified not that the plane has been blessed!
PerfectlyAble
snex wrote:
These fools you speak of, they wouldn't be the fools that
you see alighting planes because they have been
blessed by preists and not certified by a safety engineer?
James McGill
That's one of the main things that distinguishes *science* from other
types of inquiry.
PerfectlyAble
James McGill wrote:
Thats the point. What are those other types of inquiry and
where are the accredited 'value' that would lend us to given
them a equal standing with science. i.e. put up of shutup
about your positive claim.
The Fool
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
> > For weeks now a person who I firmly believe is a right wing stalking horse
> > named W. Barwell has been pasting together sloppy, fallacious arguments that
> > purport to universally disprove the existence of God.
>
> Any phenomenia is open to investigation. Like any
> investigation any phenonmenia is proved or disproved
> by the standards set for likekind phenomenia.
> Pixies, ghosts and ghouls, fairies, giants and unicorns.
Anything is open to investigation. I'm not sure what you mean by
phenomenia -- is that just a misspelling, or is it a special term for
particular subjects?
> > Because these arguments have had the effect of a parody of real science and
> > logic, I have demonstrated their weakness and many fallacies whenever I have
> > seen them.
> >
> > Now, I think it's as well to lay out a few simple facts that more nearly
> > represent the truth of the current war of the Church on rationality and
> > science.
>
> The Church is not at war, it gaveup the fight and some religious
> fundamentalist protestants are trying to revive the old war that
> was so lost so long ago. They achieve this aim by throwing history out.
The church modernized (Islam has yet to), essentially giving up control
of politics and society in favor of occupying a "spirital niche" in a
secular society. If they hadn't been able to do that, they wouldn't
have lasted. I'm not sure how the fundamentalists aim to throw history
out; I think they'll hold on to pockets of the country for awhile, but
I can't see their approach persisting long.
> > 1. Science is under no obligation to disprove the existence of a phenomenon
> > for which there is no empirical evidence and no logical argument.
>
> Science has an obligation to research any physical ot social
> phenomia. Mass religion is such.
Religion can be studied scientifically in terms of sociology (sociology
of religion) and comparative religions. You can also study a variety
of religious experiences (feelings of euphoria or connection to a god,
etc.) But science only deals with things that can be tested (or
potentially tested if technology doesn't allow access to the required
test), which limits it to material phenomena.
> Science duty is to find
> repeatable order so that it can be mimic if USEFUL. Science
Well, that's one view. Philosophers of science have different opinions
-- you have the positivists (simply try to falsify hypotheses and
provisonally accept those which cannot be falsified), realists (science
is seeking to understand the real world out there -- thus things like
subatomic particles can be posited as real even if they can't be seen),
pragmatists (if something works, then it can be accepted -- the goal is
not to discover the real world but offer useful knowledge), and
relativists (science is just one story, not necessarily superior to any
other story, including religious myth). There are others. But there
is no agreed upon notion of what science is or if it has any "duty."
> to date has found religion to be overtly bad or overty good either.
> Poor people are overwhelmingly more religious, is their
> religion keeping them poor or their poverty keeping them religious?
In social science I know of no studies which argue that religiosity
keeps people poor.
> > It's important to recognize the overarching importance of this statement.
> >
> > No empirical proof of the necessary existence of a god has ever been
> > discovered.
>
> Which by the standards of science and logic make God non-existant!
> There is no evidance for pixies, or invisible pink unicorns!
That means science is agnostic about a god -- the question of god is
outside science since there is no feasible way to test or imagine a
test.
> > The ID/Creationist movement has never succeeded in doing more
> > than calling attention to the fact that scientific knowledge is incomplete.
>
> Scientific knowledge virture is that it accepts it starts from
> ignorance.
> Theological knowledge starts from the belief in God and so from
> necessity of its own basis cannot debate God's existance. A
> they tell us, its an act of faith. Consent manufactured and
> even acknowledged as such.
Not exactly. Religion pre-dates science, obviously, and even up
through the 18th century religion, philosophy and science were
interrelated. With the enlightenment "natural philosophy" came to
question religious claims. The Deists said that if god made a perfect
world he wouldn't have to intervene, do miracles or somehow worry about
how things operate, the laws of nature would create the balances and
reactions necessary for the world to function as it should (some
thought a heaven and hell schema possible to adjust for injustices).
Then by Voltaire Deism was moving away from such optimism to the
possibility that God just didn't care about the world. Finally atheism
challenged Deism (and of course Christianity), latching on to
developments in science and philosophy. But Newton believed he was
proving what kind of world god had created, Kepler said god had waited
6000 years for someone to truly understand his work and appreciate it
(Kepler claimed he had), and Galileo was a devout believer, even if he
challenged church teachings.
> > They have attempted to use rhetoric that implies that the fact that science
> > does not know everything must mean that there is a god. This rhetorical
> > device is known as the Argument from Ignorance, *argumentum ad ignorantium.*
> > It is a logical fallacy that will become immediately apparent to anyone with
> > a little reflection. If I cannot find my car keys it does not automatically
> > prove that my car keys have been transported to the planet Mars by
> > intergalactic pixies or whatever other vain theory one cares to suggest.
> > The most we can say about the bare fact that I cannot find my carkeys from a
> > logical standpoint is that I cannot find my car keys. A bare fact does not
> > imply an entire theory by logical necessity.
>
> Yes, just because I find my car keys in the last place I look
> doesn't give God divine powers over the universe. Just because
> some Godshit declares everything looks designed doesn't make
> the God the creator of the universe (any God).
Of course not. But it also doesn't prove that there can be no god.
The question is outside science and philosophy. Now you can find
contradictions in the theology of various religions (William Barwell
does that in a broad sense, but ignores the ways in which various
religions answer the arguments he repeats, most of them very old), but
that only notes that a certain attribute cannot be how it has been
understood, it doesn't disprove the possibility of a god or gods.
> > Embedded within this rhetorical dodge by the religious right is another
> > fallacy: the presumption that, for example, evolution vs. Creationism
> > excludes all other explanations and embraces all possible explanation. To
> > put it bluntly, either science knows everything or god exists. But two
> > opposing views do not by necessity exclude each other, nor do they by
> > necessity include all possible views. Gaps in the fossil record are
> > historically 'momentary.' Gaps in scientific knowledge are not by necessity
> > permanent. This all leads to the 'god of the gaps' concept, in which god
> > exists in whatever small area of knowledge in which our knowledge is
> > incomplete. As the gaps narrow, god becomes smaller and smaller.
>
> Rubbish. Obviously people of whatever religion put their lives
> daily in the views and preachings of the scientific priesthood.
Huh?
> Most barely agree with their own preists if not directly related
> to them or financially connected. Fact is the religious right
> raise God up to a burder of proof it cannot supply and then
> claim its science equal. Evolution vs the invisible pink unicorn.
At best you're complaining about the behavior of various groups in
particular sects, but that hardly says anything about the logical
possibilities of science or religion.
> There is no god of the gaps, science has disproven God
No, science has not disproven god. Such a claim is absurd on its face.
> its
> just religious people have to believe in God anyway. The
> classic catch-22. To get a discharge you have to be mad,
> but if your mad your quite normal and so must soldier on.
> To refute God, even discuss it you have to stop believing
> and so couldn't credible argue the case for God since it
> requires faith. Such nonsense cannot save lives like science can
> and does.
I'm no follower of Christian faith or any organized faith, but all you
are giving is reasons why you think religion doesn't make sense. But
I've also known people who are scientists yet devout believers. This
includes scientists who were once disbelievers but changed their mind.
Why? I don't know. You can argue that their choice makes no sense,
but you can't prove them wrong.
> > Many specific examples could be cited, but the final truth is that the
> > Church's war on rationality consists of a rhetorical device inflated into a
> > political program. The fundamentalist view is nothing more than a logical
> > fallacy.
>
> The Church, from what I understand, does not dispute science.
> It merely refers that faith has to be accepted without question.
> That fits in well with science since science understands the
> whole nature of delusion and self-harm, as long as religion
> remains cloistered in its own world doing no harm to others
> we can accept it, like Gadaffi.
> > 2. Positive assertions carry with them the burden of proof.
> >
> > As has been mentioned, no assertion that god is real has ever been proved by
> > way of empirical evidence or logical argument.
>
> Again nonsense, since the Church demand faith is the only
> way to God. Your strawman gives the Church to much credit.
What straw man? You're not making sense. Positive assertions carry
the burden of proof, and nobody has ever proven a god real by evidence
or logical argument. You call that non-sense but you don't refute it.
> The war is from protestant evangelicals who think Americas
> power wasn't provided by the people of America, their
> effort, their work, by, for and of the people. But by God.
> The classic Christian theft of value, recast in the guise
> of Godly gift.
Irrelevant to the theoretical and philosophical issues at hand.
> > That being said it is also true that no assertion that god CANNOT exist has
> > ever been proved by way of empirical evidence or logical argument. This
> > being the case, all that has been said of point 1. applies to point 2. If
> > someone makes an assertion that god cannot exist, it now DOES become their
> > responsibility to prove that this is the case.
>
> Rubbish. The Church clearly state God without faith is not valid.
You again aren't making sense. That sentence has no meaning. God
isn't valid if he doesn't have faith?
> Your strawman is helping religion by giving them far too much
> credibility.
If you care about rationality, logic, and science, you don't worry
about who you are "helping." Anybody who shies away from the truth or
from an honest, rational assessment because they are worried about who
they are helping is intellectually dishonest.
>First at warring with rationality, impossible! And
Why?
> secondly by raising them to a standard they have long since
> acknoledged they cannot meet. A logical basis for faith.
Again, I have no clue what you mean, you certainly didn't refute his
argument.
> > But science is not in the business of proving the non-existence of
> > entitites. Science is in the business of explaining nature in terms of
> > nature. This means dealing with empirical data and natural phenomenon.
> > God, being defined as extra- or super- natural is not a subject of
> > scientific experiment or explanation.
>
> But in being defined by humanity, for humanity, it can be probed.
How?
> By God being defined as extra or super-natural, so science can
> invesitgate where other such claims have been made and explain
> God in terms of the nature of other such phenomia. The pixies etc.
> Folk myths.
How? What scientific hypohteses will you be testing, what will you use
for evidence? Be specific.
> > Atheists have every reasonable right to believe that there is no god, since
> > there exists no argument or proof that such an entity exists. But
> > attempting to prove that such a being cannot exist is very different from a
> > rational belief. Any such proof must be universally applicable and
> > logically adequate in order to succeed.
>
> Rubbish. Sorry, but thats an argument from ignorance. a double
> negative. It is not the burden of the atheist to believe in God,
> to disprove it. Its not the burden of anyone to accept anything
> without any shred of evidance.
You should see someone about your reading comprehension problem. No
one is saying that an atheist has a burden to disprove god. But they
can't demand theists prove there is a god either. The only people with
the burden of proof are those trying to persuade the other to change
their mind.
>Even the evidance that such a
> possibility of language construction could create a notion
> unnegatiable by langauge. First you have to prove language
> has magical properties, right. First you have to show how the
> non-phenonmenia part of faith can possible be made, and
> that all the explainable parts of a believers behaviour aren't
> explained by delusion. In fact all faith is is delusion. Theres
> no difference between a delusional belief and a faith in God.
You really don't understand basics. And your assertions are
unsupported. You seem to be basing your view on...faith.
Gandalf Grey
>
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>> "PerfectlyAble" <jr...@kol.co.nz> wrote in message
>> news:1148329707....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Gandalf Grey wrote:
>> >> For weeks now a person who I firmly believe is a right wing stalking
>> >> horse
>> >> named W. Barwell has been pasting together sloppy, fallacious
>> >> arguments
>> >> that
>> >> purport to universally disprove the existence of God.
>> >
>> > Any phenomenia is open to investigation.
>>
>> Not scientific investigation, especially if it cannot be proved to BE a
>> phenomenon.
>
> Christians went on crusade. Ok, are you saying this isn't
> an example of the phenomenon called religion?
No. But the fact that christians went on crusade doesn't make christianity
a subject for science. History perhaps, but not science.
Unsupported assertion.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> It's important to recognize the overarching importance of this
>> >> statement.
>> >>
>> >> No empirical proof of the necessary existence of a god has ever been
>> >> discovered.
>> >
>> > Which by the standards of science and logic make God non-existant!
>>
>> Methodologically, that much is true. God is therefore not in the realm
>> of
>> methodological realism.
>
> There is not other realm
Oh please. Another autocratic scientologist. Scientists disagree with your
faith-based scientology.
No evidence is not an argument or a proof. Sorry.
>
> In fact science has walked on walker, flown to the moon, brought
> people back from the dead, reattached limbs. Science has OUT
> done any religious claim of merit. If thats not evidance then you
> don't want evidance, you want to cling on to the notion that a
> pixy could exist outside of the delusional minds of the pixy movement.
1. I don't want to prove anything.
2. You seem to see science as your religion.
Be happy in your belief. I'll stick with evidence and logic and the
scientific method.
You're quite wrong. There is no argument and no proof that a god exists.
There is also no evidence and no argument that a god cannot exist.
I'm attempting to demonstrate what any real scientist would know.
You seem to need some absolute edge over the opposition.
I give no one 'credit' by stating the rules of logic and science.
>> >> That being said it is also true that no assertion that god CANNOT
>> >> exist
>> >> has
>> >> ever been proved by way of empirical evidence or logical argument.
>> >> This
>> >> being the case, all that has been said of point 1. applies to point 2.
>> >> If
>> >> someone makes an assertion that god cannot exist, it now DOES become
>> >> their
>> >> responsibility to prove that this is the case.
>> >
>> > Rubbish. The Church clearly state God without faith is not valid.
>>
>> So what? You're now introducing a term [faith] that isn't being used by
>> the
>> fundamentalists OR science and accusing me of creating a strawman.
>
> I saying that you and fundamentalists both argue that God
> can exist outside of the minds of believers.
ANd you cannot prove that god cannot exist outside of the mind of believers.
No one in the history of the argument has ever developed an absolute proof
of the existence or non-existence of a god.
If you can't handle that, it's really your problem.
>> Either one has the duty to support a postivie assertion or not. If not,
>> religious assertions become just as valid as scientific assertions, and
>> you
>> accuse me of giving the religious right too much credibility????
>
> I disagree. You are the one placing them together.
Not at all. The assertion that god cannot be empirically or logically
disproven does not put a burden on atheism in any way. Science has no
burden to prove or disprove something that has no evidentiary support.
> Just as you
> argue that religion has to prove the positive claim. So evangelicals
> and you have to prove that they can be held equally.
Why? Since no religion can prove its claims...period...what more is
required. Are you so insecure that, apart from recognizing that religion
has no good argument, you also need to have their heads bent down and force
them to recant? What are you? A member of the inquisition?
> Its
> like claiming because the San Francisco bridge exists that
> another bridge exist that nobody can cross, that nobody is
> allow to cross, and could never cross, nor would be ever built,
> could be compared to it!
No. It's not like that at all. An assertion is an assertion. If you feel
you need to go the extra mile and assert that there is no possible god, then
PROVE IT! If you can't [and you cannot] you're not going to twist logic
into a method in which science gets to assert anything it wants without
proof or argument but no one else can. What you're babbling is a classic
example of the argument from ignorance. Religion can't prove god so
atheists MUST be right.
Forget it. The real world doesn't work that way. If you've got an
argument, present it. But don't presume that somehow atheists are in a
position to win by default. They aren't.
>You not only have a duty to prove
> the positive assertion, but you also have to prove the framework
> you are going to do it with, you can't give religion the benefit of
> the doubt.
THen you can't give science the same benefit. And you're going to be right
back where you started from. If there's no reason for science to give
religion the benefit of the right to make an assertion and go from there,
there's no reason for religion to give science the benefit of a doubt when
it comes to any area of science that remains unexplained, nor any gap in the
fossil record, nor any theoretical concept that exists without direct
empirical support.
> Secondly you have to get them to assert their axioms,
> that they will behave logically, they they will except they could be
> wrong. Because it's a waste of time trying talking to someone
> who is not honestly entering in to debate by putting their ideas
> up to be disproved. Thats why the Church claims faith is the
> only way to God, because you can't argue with someone who
> admits they can't debate with you.
You're off on a tangent concerning politics. Please address the point.
>
>> >> But science is not in the business of proving the non-existence of
>> >> entitites. Science is in the business of explaining nature in terms
>> >> of
>> >> nature. This means dealing with empirical data and natural
>> >> phenomenon.
>> >> God, being defined as extra- or super- natural is not a subject of
>> >> scientific experiment or explanation.
>> >
>> > But in being defined by humanity, for humanity, it can be probed.
>>
>> Not by science. Which is the point.
>
> The brain is mappable. Inputs and outputs recordable.
> Brain cells mimiced, even dissected and probed.
> Why do you deny this>?
Because it's not true. We are FAR from understanding the relationship of
the brain to consciousness itself let alone beliefs.
You assume far too much.
>
>>
>> >> Atheists have every reasonable right to believe that there is no god,
>> >> since
>> >> there exists no argument or proof that such an entity exists. But
>> >> attempting to prove that such a being cannot exist is very different
>> >> from
>> >> a
>> >> rational belief. Any such proof must be universally applicable and
>> >> logically adequate in order to succeed.
>> >
>> > Rubbish. Sorry, but thats an argument from ignorance. a double
>> > negative. It is not the burden of the atheist to believe in God,
>>
>> I just said it wasn't. Can you read? Plus, you apparently don't know
>> what
>> an argument from ignorance is if you're applying it to the above.
>
> A husband tells his wife he doesn't know who he had sex with,
> so he couldn't of have had sex. The wife claims thats an argument
> from ignorance and that he must have had sex because he
> hasn't with her for sometime. It is quite plausible for you to contend
> a
> statement that is also an argument from ignorance.
>
> I contend that you are implying that religious knowledge is
> equal to scientific knowledge.
Then you're an idiot. I've mentioned that religion has no evidence for the
existence of god. THerefore, there is no good reason for anyone to believe
in its claims. I then went on to say that any assertion, ANY assertion
requires support, and that support DOES NOT COME from a lack or failure of
some other argument.
You've obviously chosen up sides and decided that a lack of religious
argument means that any assertion you make about god MUST be true. THAT is
the argument from ignorance, my friend. If you want to utterly, completely
and finally disprove the existence of god, you're going to have to come up
with your own argument with its own support, not sit around and claim that
the failure of religion MUST mean that you're right. There is no logical
reason why that should be the case.
> Now initially, before any facts
> are presented they are but once you accept that science has
> a wealth of proven knowledge, has achieved the claims that
> religion made but could not repeat. Then you have in al integrity
> to accept that religion isn't even on the starting block with
> equal merit. You accept there is no God, now accept that
> the proposition cannot be held as equal to science. That
> religion also has that burden to reach, that claim to make FIRST.
No assertion needs to pass some pre-assertional test that allows it to
compete. Any assertion stands or falls on its own. Any competent scientist
would know that. You don't prove the binomial theorum by the fact that some
mentally challenged child can't count. You prove it on its own merits. If
you can't, you're a poor scientist.
>
> This is precisely the problem with creationism in schools
> debate. That religion and science warrent equal merit.
They don't. Creationism is not a scientific theory. Evolution is.
Now wasn't that simple?
> The shitster of creationism claim that creation also explains
> everything science does, so should be afforded eqaul time.
> Thats a positive claim they have to prove.
And they can't.
>
>> The presumption that all postive assertions require the support of proof
>> or
>> an argument is hardly the appeal to ignorance.
>
> Agreed. Then provide proof that religion should be held
> to the same merit as science.
I never made that claim. You're so blinded by your zeal to beat religion
into the ground that you've wholly missed the point.
Gandalf Grey
You seem to think it's a huge deal that there is something other than
science in the world. No sane person would argue that the claims of the
creationists with respect to evolution are on the same 'standing' as
science. One would simply note that their assertions are wholly unproved
either empirically or logically.
What the hell more do you want?
>
The Fool
PerfectlyAble wrote:
> Science does investigate religion, and has found NO evidance for Gods,
> except as myths.
> In fact science has walked on walker, flown to the moon, brought
> people back from the dead, reattached limbs. Science has OUT
> done any religious claim of merit. If thats not evidance then you
> don't want evidance, you want to cling on to the notion that a
> pixy could exist outside of the delusional minds of the pixy movement.
> Everytime I put up evidance, facts, that science can and does
> investigate you religious comeout with the claim that no there
> still is a gap that God could fit into. Well NO there isn't,
> except the delusional minds of some human's brain.
Kid, you really are out of your league discussing these kinds of
issues, you don't understand the basics of science and logic at all.
If you believe what you wrote, then you aren't only against religion,
you are against scientific inquiry. You should study and learn about
the basics before making an idiot of yourself.
-snip-
> I contend that you are implying that religious knowledge is
> equal to scientific knowledge.
Your hatred of religion is obvious, you hate it so much you let reason
and rationality go in order to try to attack it. You are more like a
religious fanatic than like a true scientist, you've lost objectivity.
The fact: science cannot prove or disprove god. At least not at this
stage. That means that nobody has any reason from science to believe
in a god. If people choose to believe in a religion, you can argue
that it is wrong from many points -- accident of birth as to which
religion they are worshiping, the nature of myth, the intellectual
history of at least the West moving away from religion, etc. There are
many practical and persuasive arguments you can make against various
religions, and certainly against religions have political power.
BUT if you to try to say that god is disproven, you've gone over to the
dark side. You've become like the ones you see as an enemy. You
ignore logic for political expediency. You take a position based on
your emotion rather than following logic. You twist science and logic
to try to use it to your advantage, just like religions have done. In
short, you become a mirror image of that which you despise.
That happens a lot, but it's sad when people can't stick to where
science and logic lead, regardless of the 'politics' involved.
You and Barwell (I suspect you're not two different people -- the
spelling errors, weird rambly repetitive drone, etc., are telltale
signs) simply need to confront reality. You're so caught up in your
"jihad" you ignore reason. That's unforgivable.
The Fool
> physical existance of gods. He is pointing out the the properties believers
> assign to their gods are self contradictory i.e that what they are
> believing in is nonsense. Existence is established only by empirical
> evidence.
Trouble is, he doesn't accomplish it. He just sets up a straw man, and
ignores the way theologians have dealt with those age old issues. I am
not religious at all, but when atheists start sounding as whacky and
over-reaching as religious fundies it's sad.
The Fool
We fools will believe what is fun to believe, and what seems to work
for us in our lives. But fools, unlike dogmatists, won't try to make
you believe in or live by those things we hold. Cheers!
The Fool
Though scientists often have religious faith. Galileo, for example,
remained a devout believer, Newton thought he discovered god's laws for
the universe (he thought he'd actually in a way proved god existed).
Science deals with empirical evidence. But even scientists might have
beliefs that are personal, and not part of their scientific endeavor.
Gandalf Grey
"The Fool" <sn...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1148347939.0...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I really like the way you put that, Scott. That's the very kernel of the
problem. It's as though there is some smell of blood that gets into what
are probably otherwise rational people. Suddenly, it's not enough for them
that there is no evidence and no valid arguments for god. Suddenly they go
all Ann Coulter and need to have the fundies shoved onto their knees to
publicly recant before science cuts their heads off.
It's really qutie remarkable to see what hatred can do to otherwise normal
people.
You take a position based on
> your emotion rather than following logic. You twist science and logic
> to try to use it to your advantage, just like religions have done. In
> short, you become a mirror image of that which you despise.
>
> That happens a lot, but it's sad when people can't stick to where
> science and logic lead, regardless of the 'politics' involved.
>
> You and Barwell (I suspect you're not two different people -- the
> spelling errors, weird rambly repetitive drone, etc., are telltale
> signs) simply need to confront reality. You're so caught up in your
> "jihad" you ignore reason. That's unforgivable.
I hadn't thought of that. I'm just too damned trusting.
>
Llanzlan Klazmon
Nope. You had already made a fundamental error in your premise, the rest
was therefore dismissed. Nothing to do with dishonesty.
> It
> would be up to you to demonstrate that the argument is an example of
> ignoratio elenchi. This you can't do because it is not an example of
> that fallacy.
Already did. You were arguing about science which is based on empircial
data. Barwell's case does not address scientific questions his argument
relates to theological definitions of gods. Ignoratio elenchi exactly fits
your attempted rebutal. Your continuing to deny it is making yourself to
look like an idiot in public.
>
>>
>>> Your understanding of the term
>>> is obviously incomplete. I have made no such argument.
>>> 2. Barwell began his nonsensical so-called proof of the non-existence
>>> of god with the bare statement that he had a "simple proof" that
>>> disproves the existence of any possible god. Therefore you are in
>>> factual error.
>>
>> Well he must have changed his tune. When I last read his stuff he
>> specifically referred to what he called 'grand theology' style gods.
>
> You've obviously read little of what you're choosing to opine on.
I have had a look at Barwell's recent postings related to this. He is still
addressing the logical failure of the theological definitions of gods. You
are the one failing to comprehend what others are saying but keep on making
yourself look like an idiot.
Klazmon
<SNIP of Barwell quotes reinforcing my point>
Llanzlan Klazmon
@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
The safety statistics of airliners speak for themselves. You should be far
more concerned when you get behind the wheel of your car.
Klazmon.
>
Llanzlan Klazmon
38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> no. Sometimes we believe things without any empirical evidence. Your
> son, or your wife, or your friend tells you something about his
> vacacion in Paris, or any other thing, you tend to believe it and you
> have not any empirical evidence.
Wrong. The empirical evidence comes from your experience of their past
behavior. Even then you don't necessarily accept it without reservation.
Empirical evidence doesn't mean certainty. That is why science is always
amenable to empirical falsification.
>
> This is a different case. In the case of religion, a god, some
> commendements, rules, etc, one can believe or not in the god. If one
> is a human able to think logically, one can check the stuff they are
> saying about god and then one can refuse to believe. One do not see
> any prove of the existence of god, not any empirical evidence of any
> god.
When a logically contradictory definition of such gods is given by
theologians then it will be pointed out as such. It means that if their
gods exist they can not be as the theologians describe as what they are
describing is nonsense. Empirical evidence has nothing to do with this
argument.
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
Gandalf Grey
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Kla...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
Which you can't point out.
Nothing to do with honesty on your part, I see.
>> It
>> would be up to you to demonstrate that the argument is an example of
>> ignoratio elenchi. This you can't do because it is not an example of
>> that fallacy.
>
> Already did. You were arguing about science which is based on empircial
> data. Barwell's case does not address scientific questions his argument
> relates to theological definitions of gods. Ignoratio elenchi exactly fits
> your attempted rebutal. Your continuing to deny it is making yourself to
> look like an idiot in public.
Sorry, but you obviously don't understand the concept. I was arguing about
logical statements which may or may NOT deal with empirical data.
You're therefore quite wrong.
Your continuing to assert it is making yourself look like an idiot in
public, and I suspect, in private as well.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Your understanding of the term
>>>> is obviously incomplete. I have made no such argument.
>>>> 2. Barwell began his nonsensical so-called proof of the non-existence
>>>> of god with the bare statement that he had a "simple proof" that
>>>> disproves the existence of any possible god. Therefore you are in
>>>> factual error.
>>>
>>> Well he must have changed his tune. When I last read his stuff he
>>> specifically referred to what he called 'grand theology' style gods.
>>
>> You've obviously read little of what you're choosing to opine on.
>
> I have had a look at Barwell's recent postings related to this.
Then you're a liar.
> <SNIP of Barwell quotes reinforcing my point>
You're a liar. They do not reinforce your points. They refute your point,
hence I can see why you snipped them.
Gandalf Grey
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Kla...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
Which you can't point out.
Nothing to do with honesty on your part, I see.
>> It
>> would be up to you to demonstrate that the argument is an example of
>> ignoratio elenchi. This you can't do because it is not an example of
>> that fallacy.
>
> Already did. You were arguing about science which is based on empircial
> data. Barwell's case does not address scientific questions his argument
> relates to theological definitions of gods. Ignoratio elenchi exactly fits
> your attempted rebutal. Your continuing to deny it is making yourself to
> look like an idiot in public.
Sorry, but you obviously don't understand the concept. I was arguing about
logical statements which may or may NOT deal with empirical data.
You're therefore quite wrong.
Your continuing to assert it is making yourself look like an idiot in
public, and I suspect, in private as well.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Your understanding of the term
>>>> is obviously incomplete. I have made no such argument.
>>>> 2. Barwell began his nonsensical so-called proof of the non-existence
>>>> of god with the bare statement that he had a "simple proof" that
>>>> disproves the existence of any possible god. Therefore you are in
>>>> factual error.
>>>
>>> Well he must have changed his tune. When I last read his stuff he
>>> specifically referred to what he called 'grand theology' style gods.
>>
>> You've obviously read little of what you're choosing to opine on.
>
> I have had a look at Barwell's recent postings related to this. He is
> still
addressing the logical failure of the theological definitions of gods.
Then you're a liar and an idiot. Since Barwell started out claiming a
universal proof against the existence of god.
> <SNIP of Barwell quotes reinforcing my point>
You're a liar. They do not reinforce your points. They refute your point,
hence I can see why you snipped them.
From various posts:
Gandalf Grey
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Kla...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
> "leo" <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1148344442.263792.278490@
> 38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> no. Sometimes we believe things without any empirical evidence. Your
>> son, or your wife, or your friend tells you something about his
>> vacacion in Paris, or any other thing, you tend to believe it and you
>> have not any empirical evidence.
>
> Wrong. The empirical evidence comes from your experience of their past
> behavior. Even then you don't necessarily accept it without reservation.
> Empirical evidence doesn't mean certainty. That is why science is always
> amenable to empirical falsification.
But according to you, not required to form assertions that can be supported
on their own.
Don Kresch
<kurtn...@aport2000.ru> let us all know that:
*smells a strawman a'comin'*
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Llanzlan Klazmon
Already pointed out.
>
> Nothing to do with honesty on your part, I see.
I see you are still in denial.
>
>
>>> It
>>> would be up to you to demonstrate that the argument is an example of
>>> ignoratio elenchi. This you can't do because it is not an example of
>>> that fallacy.
>>
>> Already did. You were arguing about science which is based on empircial
>> data. Barwell's case does not address scientific questions his argument
>> relates to theological definitions of gods. Ignoratio elenchi exactly
>> fits your attempted rebutal. Your continuing to deny it is making
>> yourself to look like an idiot in public.
>
> Sorry, but you obviously don't understand the concept. I was arguing
> about logical statements which may or may NOT deal with empirical data.
Barwell's arguments relate to statements about gods by theologians. He is
simply pointing out that there claims about gods are logically
contradictory. This implies that the claimed gods of the theologians cannot
exist as they desribe.
>
> You're therefore quite wrong.
You fail to even comprehend the meaning of the word wrong.
>
> Your continuing to assert it is making yourself look like an idiot in
> public, and I suspect, in private as well.
Just keep making an idiot of yourself. It's a form of low entertainment on
a quiet day.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Your understanding of the term
>>>>> is obviously incomplete. I have made no such argument.
>>>>> 2. Barwell began his nonsensical so-called proof of the
>>>>> non-existence of god with the bare statement that he had a "simple
>>>>> proof" that disproves the existence of any possible god. Therefore
>>>>> you are in factual error.
>>>>
>>>> Well he must have changed his tune. When I last read his stuff he
>>>> specifically referred to what he called 'grand theology' style gods.
>>>
>>> You've obviously read little of what you're choosing to opine on.
>>
>> I have had a look at Barwell's recent postings related to this. He is
>> still
> addressing the logical failure of the theological definitions of gods.
>
> Then you're a liar and an idiot. Since Barwell started out claiming a
> universal proof against the existence of god.
As defined by grand theology.
>
>> <SNIP of Barwell quotes reinforcing my point>
>
> You're a liar. They do not reinforce your points. They refute your
> point, hence I can see why you snipped them.
Nope. What part of "impossible contradictions" do you fail to grasp!
> Barwell wrote:
> But these assertiions create impossible contradictions showing why
> there wil never be proof for god, because god is disprovable and
> impossible.
What you are doing is a lame attempt at the same tactic as the cretinist
idiots that extract quotes from scientific works to attempt to show that
scientists agree with them etc. Even the cretinists show some skill at
this, so that you are forced to look at the original material to see what
was really said. In your case you are so incompetent that what you quote
doesn't support your case. You are even more of a drooling moron that the
cretinists.
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
Llanzlan Klazmon
Yes but it should be pointed out that provisional acceptance doesn't come
out of thin air. For example, if theory A gives very good agreement with
nature in certain situations but it makes predictions about a situation
that is not currently accessable to measurement, then that would have a
higher level of confidence than theory B which applies only to situations
which are currently inacessable. A good example of this is General
Relativity which over the years made predictions about all sort of
gravitational phenomena for which only a small number could be confirmed
using the technology available at the time. As time has gone on and
technology has caught up and many of its' predictions have been confirmed
and even incorporated in technology such as the Navstar GPS system. This
doesn't mean that GR is held to be true in the absolute sense, which is why
the quest to falsify or confirm it goes on. The results of the Gravity
Probe B experiment will be out in about September or October this year. If
the gravito-magnetic predictions of GR are confirmed it will just be
another thing ticked off. If falsified it will lead to a flurry of activity
to come up with an improved theory. That is what causes the excitement in
science - progress by trial and error.
> realists (science
> is seeking to understand the real world out there -- thus things like
> subatomic particles can be posited as real even if they can't be seen),
> pragmatists (if something works, then it can be accepted -- the goal is
> not to discover the real world but offer useful knowledge), and
> relativists (science is just one story, not necessarily superior to any
> other story, including religious myth). There are others. But there
> is no agreed upon notion of what science is or if it has any "duty."
I would say science is a process. However 'duty' is an issue for
individuals or societies not for science. A process can not have a 'duty'.
That would not make sense.
>
>> to date has found religion to be overtly bad or overty good either.
>> Poor people are overwhelmingly more religious, is their
>> religion keeping them poor or their poverty keeping them religious?
>
> In social science I know of no studies which argue that religiosity
> keeps people poor.
How about the Hindu cast system?
You are correct but the original topic of this thread was related to W
Barwell's disproof of gods. His argument had nothing to do with science
despite Gandalf's confusion. What Barwell was doing was showing that the
theological definitions of gods and particularly those of the 'grand
theologies' are logically impossible. I.e self contradictory.
Klazmon.
<SNIP rest of interesting discussion>
Llanzlan Klazmon
@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> snex wrote:
>> Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>> > Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
>> > > Existence is established only by empirical
>> > > evidence.
>> >
>> > And you don't believe in anything unless it has emprical evidence?
>>
>> only a fool would do otherwise.
>
> We fools will believe what is fun to believe, and what seems to work
> for us in our lives.
'What seems to work' is a good definition of following the empirical
evidence. Maybe 'the fool' isn't so foolish after all ;-).
Klazmon
<SNIP>
Llanzlan Klazmon
What are babbling about now. If you are going to lie what someone else has
said, then at least make it amusing.
Klazmon.
>
>
>
Gandalf Grey
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Kla...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
In error.
>
>>
>> Nothing to do with honesty on your part, I see.
>
> I see you are still in denial.
Your bare assertion doesn't show that. But I note that you're prone to
dismissive assertions, the mark of a weak thinker.
>
>>
>>
>>>> It
>>>> would be up to you to demonstrate that the argument is an example of
>>>> ignoratio elenchi. This you can't do because it is not an example of
>>>> that fallacy.
>>>
>>> Already did. You were arguing about science which is based on empircial
>>> data. Barwell's case does not address scientific questions his argument
>>> relates to theological definitions of gods. Ignoratio elenchi exactly
>>> fits your attempted rebutal. Your continuing to deny it is making
>>> yourself to look like an idiot in public.
>>
>> Sorry, but you obviously don't understand the concept. I was arguing
>> about logical statements which may or may NOT deal with empirical data.
>
> Barwell's arguments relate to statements about gods by theologians.
I've listed several bare assertions on his part that do not relate to
statements about gods by theologians. You snipped them. You are therefore
dishonest as well as wrong.
>>
>> You're therefore quite wrong.
>
> You fail to even comprehend the meaning of the word wrong.
Another dismissive assertion without support. You are a weak thinker.
>
>>
>> Your continuing to assert it is making yourself look like an idiot in
>> public, and I suspect, in private as well.
>
> Just keep making an idiot of yourself. It's a form of low entertainment on
> a quiet day.
Check the mirror.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your understanding of the term
>>>>>> is obviously incomplete. I have made no such argument.
>>>>>> 2. Barwell began his nonsensical so-called proof of the
>>>>>> non-existence of god with the bare statement that he had a "simple
>>>>>> proof" that disproves the existence of any possible god. Therefore
>>>>>> you are in factual error.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well he must have changed his tune. When I last read his stuff he
>>>>> specifically referred to what he called 'grand theology' style gods.
>>>>
>>>> You've obviously read little of what you're choosing to opine on.
>>>
>>> I have had a look at Barwell's recent postings related to this. He is
>>> still
>> addressing the logical failure of the theological definitions of gods.
>>
>> Then you're a liar and an idiot. Since Barwell started out claiming a
>> universal proof against the existence of god.
>
> As defined by grand theology.
Wrong, as my excerpts of his statements demonstrate. Excerpts that you
snipped because they didn't back your claim.
>
>
>>
>>> <SNIP of Barwell quotes reinforcing my point>
>>
>> You're a liar. They do not reinforce your points. They refute your
>> point, hence I can see why you snipped them.
>
> Nope. What part of "impossible contradictions" do you fail to grasp!
>
>> Barwell wrote:
>> But these assertiions create impossible contradictions showing why
>> there wil never be proof for god, because god is disprovable and
>> impossible.
What part of "there will never be proof for god, because god is disprovable
and impossible" do you fail to grasp?
[snipped evidence restored]
From various posts:
****************************************************
Gandalf >>>>> The question is accessible to reason, the answer is another
thing
>>>>> entirely. Again, this demonstrates your lack of understanding
>>>>> concerning
>>>>> philosophy
>>>>> [which I've demonstrated before]. All sorts of questions can be
>>>>> addressed
>>>>> by logic, but there are certain questions that, in principle, cannot
>>>>> be
>>>>> answered via logic. The question of the existence of God is one of
>>>>> these.
>>>>> There is no logical way to prove or disprove the existence of God.
>>>>
>>>>
Barwell >>>> Disproving god is rather simple.
Barwell wrote:
But these assertiions create impossible contradictions showing why
there wil never be proof for god, because god is disprovable and impossible.
Gandalf Grey
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Kla...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
Your transparent lies.
Kurt Nicklas
snex wrote:
> Kurt Nicklas wrote:
> > Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
> > > evidence.
> >
>
> only a fool would do otherwise.
Only a fool thinks that all he believes in has scientific proof.
wbarwell
> For weeks now a person who I firmly believe is a right wing stalking horse
> named W. Barwell has been pasting together sloppy, fallacious arguments
> that purport to universally disprove the existence of God.
Right wing stalking horse? Sorry, but I have a LONG record as very
anti-right on the net. "ITS A CONSPIRACY!" How do you know I am not a
stalking horse for reptilian aliens from Zeta Reitculata?
>
> Because these arguments have had the effect of a parody of real science
> and logic, I have demonstrated their weakness and many fallacies whenever
> I have seen them.
You have demonstrated you can't understand anything, much less logic.
> Now, I think it's as well to lay out a few simple facts that more nearly
> represent the truth of the current war of the Church on rationality and
> science.
The Church of the SubGenius has never been at war with rationality
and science. We have been at war with mediocretins and pinks.
We like science as it upsets many pinks and normals. And creates lots of
nice new kinds of pills.
> 1. Science is under no obligation to disprove the existence of a
> phenomenon for which there is no empirical evidence and no logical
> argument.
What does science have to do with Easter Bunnies and Slack anyway,
Mr. Science?
> It's important to recognize the overarching importance of this statement.
You mean science doesn't CARE about leprechauns and fairies anymore?
Science has left that ll to churches and divinity schools?
> No empirical proof of the necessary existence of a god has ever been
> discovered. The ID/Creationist movement has never succeeded in doing more
> than calling attention to the fact that scientific knowledge is
> incomplete. They have attempted to use rhetoric that implies that the fact
> that science
> does not know everything must mean that there is a god. This rhetorical
> device is known as the Argument from Ignorance, *argumentum ad
> ignorantium.* It is a logical fallacy that will become immediately
> apparent to anyone with
> a little reflection.
See! It IS a conspiracy!
> If I cannot find my car keys it does not
> automatically prove that my car keys have been transported to the planet
> Mars by intergalactic pixies or whatever other vain theory one cares to
> suggest. The most we can say about the bare fact that I cannot find my
> carkeys from a
> logical standpoint is that I cannot find my car keys. A bare fact does
> not imply an entire theory by logical necessity.
I am missing my keys. Therefore Barwell is a stalking horse for an
immense far right conspiracy.
> Embedded within this rhetorical dodge by the religious right is another
> fallacy: the presumption that, for example, evolution vs. Creationism
> excludes all other explanations and embraces all possible explanation. To
> put it bluntly, either science knows everything or god exists. But two
> opposing views do not by necessity exclude each other, nor do they by
> necessity include all possible views. Gaps in the fossil record are
> historically 'momentary.' Gaps in scientific knowledge are not by
> necessity
> permanent. This all leads to the 'god of the gaps' concept, in which god
> exists in whatever small area of knowledge in which our knowledge is
> incomplete. As the gaps narrow, god becomes smaller and smaller.
But as god can become infinitely small as he desires, he can fit into all
tiny gaps.
>
> Many specific examples could be cited, but the final truth is that the
> Church's war on rationality consists of a rhetorical device inflated into
> a
> political program. The fundamentalist view is nothing more than a logical
> fallacy.
>
> 2. Positive assertions carry with them the burden of proof.
The Church is a rather broad sweeping generality, thus making this a case of
any number of errors.
> As has been mentioned, no assertion that god is real has ever been proved
> by way of empirical evidence or logical argument.
> That being said it is also true that no assertion that god CANNOT exist
> has
> ever been proved by way of empirical evidence or logical argument.
A rather large logical error here.
Not that you KNOW of. For example, it is concievable the
reptilians of the Zeta Reticula star system disproved god
conclusively some 1200 years ago.
Argument from ignorance thusly.
> This
> being the case, all that has been said of point 1. applies to point 2. If
> someone makes an assertion that god cannot exist, it now DOES become their
> responsibility to prove that this is the case.
> But science is not in the business of proving the non-existence of
> entitites. Science is in the business of explaining nature in terms of
> nature. This means dealing with empirical data and natural phenomenon.
> God, being defined as extra- or super- natural is not a subject of
> scientific experiment or explanation.
Politically, it may some day become science's business to do so.
You do realize tay sometimes politics does play a part in what
science does, do you not?
Recent work shows still Scientists are 60% atheists, far above
the average population and that of the leading scientists, atheism is far
higher? What does this mean? Why don't they deal with god?
They would find getting money for grants much harder to get
because of an angry populace.
But backed against the wall by triumphalist creationists, the
some day could change with nothing to lose.
In short you do not know what you are babbling about.
If some multimillionaire set up a numvber of chirs in science
to scientifically investigate and disprove god's non-existance,
I suspect "science" would be disproving god.
this has happened in the past with parapsychology.
> Atheists have every reasonable right to believe that there is no god,
> since
> there exists no argument or proof that such an entity exists. But
> attempting to prove that such a being cannot exist is very different from
> a
> rational belief. Any such proof must be universally applicable and
> logically adequate in order to succeed.
No. Its rational.
And one need not at all be universally applicable.
One may for example say we only need consider disproving gods
that are the problem gods. Or one might say "I have found a way to easily
debunk a given class of gods". And then do so without necessarily claiming
to have disproven all gods.
Or one could say "We can divide possible gods into various
classes and disprove all classes and thus all gods".
Since those who for whatever reason wish to deny its possible can ignore
that and not bother to honestly look at the issue, then they would not know
anything about it. We may not have to invoke anti-theologians of the
Zeta Reticulata star system to show your sweeping generalizations are false,
there may be something closer to home.
> To date, no such argument has ever emerged. Mr. Barwell's ridiculous
> collection of fallacious pseudo-arguments are a case in point.
The only ridiculous man here is you. Well, Duke, Dr. Andrew Chung, Dore,
.. well there are a lot of ridiculous people here actually. Including you.
> In summary, science is in a comfortable position to take on each and every
> specific argument concerning the existence of god. Not one of them proves
> what they assert. And Intelligent Design is no more successful as an
> argument than the ancient cosmological argument, the teleological
> argument, the ontological arguments and each and every argument that
> followed them throughout the history of theology.
>
> The attempt to universally disprove the possible existence of god is
> non-scientific, unnecessary, and ultimately futile. Such attempts not
> only move science into the realm of religion, but more importantly, cast
> science in a highly unscientific mold.
Its not futile. What is futile is to brush off successful attempts to do
just that that in fact succeed.
And when did anybody ever say that this all had anything to do with science
anyway?
Not me.
This is what is called technically, a truely stupid strawman.
Its gonna piss off the Reptilians from Zeta Reticulata though.
----------------------------------------------------------
--
"Its the hit dog what yelps."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie
wbarwell
> "Gandalf Grey" <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in
> news:44723ca2$0$24738$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com:
>
>>
>> "Llanzlan Klazmon" <Kla...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
>> news:Xns97CC6B6D2B29FKl...@203.97.37.6...
>>> "Gandalf Grey" <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:44720cfe$0$24697$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com:
>>>
>>>> For weeks now a person who I firmly believe is a right wing stalking
>>>> horse named W. Barwell has been pasting together sloppy, fallacious
>>>> arguments that purport to universally disprove the existence of God.
>>>>
>>>> Because these arguments have had the effect of a parody of real
>>>> science and logic, I have demonstrated their weakness and many
>>>> fallacies whenever I have seen them.
>>>>
>>>> Now, I think it's as well to lay out a few simple facts that more
>>>> nearly represent the truth of the current war of the Church on
>>>> rationality and science.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Science is under no obligation to disprove the existence of a
>>>> phenomenon for which there is no empirical evidence and no logical
>>>> argument.
>>>
>>> Your rebuttal is a case of ignoratio elenchi. Barwell is not disproving
>>> the
>>> physical existance of gods. He is pointing out the the properties
>>> believers
>>> assign to their gods are self contradictory i.e that what they are
>>> believing in is nonsense. Existence is established only by empirical
>>> evidence.
>>
>> 1. Ignoratio elenchi is the logical fallacy of presenting an argument
>> that may be valid but which proves or supports a different proposition
>> than the one it is purporting to prove.
>
> Correct. As I pointed out your argument does not address the actual points
> raised by Barwell.
>
>> Your understanding of the term
>> is obviously incomplete. I have made no such argument.
>> 2. Barwell began his nonsensical so-called proof of the non-existence of
>> god with the bare statement that he had a "simple proof" that disproves
>> the existence of any possible god. Therefore you are in factual error.
>
> Well he must have changed his tune. When I last read his stuff he
> specifically referred to what he called 'grand theology' style gods.
>
> Klazmon.
>
> <SNIP>
Indeed, nowhere did I claim to disprove the "possibility of any god" as
claimed.
....
"Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods."
..
Since Gandalf has problems with this, to prevent
future confusion, I have rewritten my little essay
and made sure that this was made clear up front
that I was indeed showing the the class of
omni-everything / creators gods was what
specifically was being disproven.
Some people are simply too literally minded but
not good at it.
I had over a large number of posts specifically
pointed out to him explicitly this indeed was what
I meant and he refused to reread this with that in
mind
What can ya say?
But he jumps up n' down and fulminates so perty.
The other point I repeatedly made was this, there are
indeed other classes of gods that can also be debunked.
He refuses to post THOSE in his claim I ever posted
any claims in the essay in question that I could disprove any
"possibility of god" with that demonstration that omnipotence
and omnibenvolence and omnipotence contradict each other.
Because to do so would debunk his lie.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm#Suppressed Evidence
Suppressed Evidence
Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and
significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy
usually occurs when the information counts against one's own conclusion.
Perhaps the arguer is not mentioning that experts have recently objected to
one of his premises. The fallacy is a kind of fallacy of Selective
Attention.
------------
Actually I did note that there don't seem to be all that many
possibly and distinct classes of gods and other classes seem
to be vulnerable to debunking too.
But that is not what he is claiming I posted here.
It is of course always possible to define a do-nothing god invented for sole
reason of being undebunkable, but then this sort of stunt god is no more
reasonable than solipist arguments.
Imagine a maya god, a god of illusions, nothing exists
except as a thought in the mind of this god, we have no
real existance, we are but dreams, playthings in
the mind of god who is not good, nor cares about us at all
nor really creates anything with free will or actually alive.
Not easily debunked, but again, not useful either as a god
and not explanatory about anything such as how the universe
works.
Cthulhu lies dreaming in R'yleh
wbarwell
>
> When a logically contradictory definition of such gods is given by
> theologians then it will be pointed out as such. It means that if their
> gods exist they can not be as the theologians describe as what they are
> describing is nonsense. Empirical evidence has nothing to do with this
> argument.
>
> Klazmon.
>
Spiders breathe through spiracles, pores that allow oxygen to diffuse into
their blood streams. Imagine a spider 1 inch long. Now a 2 inch spider.
A cube has a volume of 1 cubic inch and an area of 6 square inches.
1 to 6. Double it and its 24 square inches and 8 cubic inches. 1 to 3.
3" inches and its 27 cubic inches and 54 square inches. 2 to 1.
Area of a spiracles to a spider's volume similarly drops, which is why
there is a limit to a spider's size as only so much oxygen can diffuse and
too little area cannot supply oxygen to a larger volume beyond a point.
That is why we cannot have 50 foot tall spiders, and for that matter
scorpions or ants.
We don't see that and empirically its a fact we see no 50 foot
tall spiders.
Theoretical evidence shows WHY.
This is how science does things too.
Personally, I'd rather have the 50 foot tall spider
than a god, but that only tells you what movies I
liked as a kid.
wbarwell
>
> All the above claims are universal, not particular.
>
>
Plucking writings out of context and ignoring writings
that contradict your assertions is not a credible
way to debate issues.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm#Quoting out of Context
Quoting out of Context
If you quote someone, but select the quotation so that essential context is
not available and therefore the person's views are distorted, then you've
quoted "out of context." Quoting out of context in an argument creates a
straw man fallacy.
Don Kresch
<kurtn...@aport2000.ru> let us all know that:
>
Only a dishonest fuck like you tries to weaselly create a
strawman.
The Fool
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
> Barwell's arguments relate to statements about gods by theologians. He is
> simply pointing out that there claims about gods are logically
> contradictory. This implies that the claimed gods of the theologians cannot
> exist as they desribe.
To cut to the chase:
Barwell's main error is to over-reach in his claim of proof of an
entire class of gods. The theologians he quotes tend to be the
'oldies' -- Aquinas, etc. The definitions he gives for the terms and
how they relate to the material world are encompassing and vague.
Theologians and philosophers have dealt with his questions (he's raised
only points that have been around for hundreds of years) and have found
ways to deal with them.
Here's what Barwell should do: 1) note that in general the terms make
the kind of god most people describe impossible; 2) research current
theological efforts to deal and define omnipotence, etc.; 3) state that
while some may have defined their way around the problem, the fact they
had to manipulate or redefine terms suggests their approach is flawed
(he could compare this to how epicycles and the like were used to try
to save the geocentric universe); and thus 4) argue that the need to
change in response to science suggests that religions do not have
timeless truths, but instead are human constructions that are not very
plausible.
He could avoid having to insult and attack people who point out that
his "class" of gods is rather small. His assertion it represents 2000
years of theology is just silly. By trying to claim absolute proof of
logical contradictions he has set himself an impossible task -- any
proof he has can be circumvented by tweaking the definition.
I also think he'll be surprised what many liberal theologians are
arguing these days -- many don't believe in the virgin birth, question
the authorship of various books in the Bible, and have a non-literal
interpretation that is much different than the kind of hard core middle
ages theology Barwell cites.
Zapanaz
wrote:
This whole argument is kind of dumb.
1. What, exactly, do you mean by "God"?
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Your mouse has moved.
Windows NT must be restarted for the change to take effect.
Reboot now? [ OK ]
Gandalf Grey
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> All the above claims are universal, not particular.
From various posts:
****************************************************
Barwell wrote:
Barwell wrote:
Barwell wrote:
Barwell wrote:
********************************************
All the above claims are universal, not particular.
>
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>> For weeks now a person who I firmly believe is a right wing stalking
>> horse
>> named W. Barwell has been pasting together sloppy, fallacious arguments
>> that purport to universally disprove the existence of God.
>
>
> Right wing stalking horse? Sorry, but I have a LONG record as very
> anti-right on the net.
You have your hands full defending your claim against the numerous logical
fallacies I've found there.
Get to it, horsey.
> 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.
>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. 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?????
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.
> 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.
> 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?"
> 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.
> 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.
> 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?"
> 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.
>
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> All we have to work with are assertions
> and logic.
Get on with it, Barlow.
>
> 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.
2. Judaism is NOT Christianity, and you're attributing to the one what is
strictly true only of the other.
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.
We're beginning to see that your argument is as fallacious in its details as
it was in its major presumption.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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]
> 13 OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
> FREE WILL DISPROVEN PART 2.
>
> 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.
Bhagwan Shree SODDI
"Zapanaz" <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote:
(snip)
> This whole argument is kind of dumb.
>
> 1. What, exactly, do you mean by "God"?
>
Meangood Sky Daddy
Bhagwan Shree SODDI
Rev. James Slaughter
I agree completely. If it takes me more than one annoying second to
scroll down just to get to the funny bits, way too many words. To read.
wbarwell
>
> Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
>
>> Barwell's arguments relate to statements about gods by theologians. He is
>> simply pointing out that there claims about gods are logically
>> contradictory. This implies that the claimed gods of the theologians
>> cannot exist as they desribe.
>
> To cut to the chase:
>
> Barwell's main error is to over-reach in his claim of proof of an
> entire class of gods.
Sorry. The class of creator/omni-everything gods is dead.
it can never be made viable.
> The theologians he quotes tend to be the
> 'oldies' -- Aquinas, etc.
Yes. because they are now dogmatic.
because it is a short essay I leave a LOT out.
For example, Islam is overtly predestinarian.
The Quran is overtly predestinarian.
Predestination destroys free will as I have shown,
and makes god creator of all evil. The bible, is
overtly predestinarian, see Romans et al.
> The definitions he gives for the terms and
> how they relate to the material world are encompassing and vague.
Hardly.
Simply wrong. God created all. Explicit in OT and Quran and other
religious tomes.
All powerful, again, Augustine, Aquinas and Amnslem among
other defined these terms open ended.
God is the greatest exemplar of any attribute one can imagine.
Anslem, if there exists good, some things are better than other goods.
The most good of all must be god.
Power, wisdom, al get the same treatment.
And in conclusion, god is that that is so great nothing greater can be
imagined. Islam likewise has many hadiths expanding on
Allah's powers and abilities.
If its vague, ain't my fault, but #8, god is greater than anything else that
can be imagined says it all.
Which is why I included it. Its pretty much what Christian and Moslem
theologians claim.
> Theologians and philosophers have dealt with his questions (he's raised
> only points that have been around for hundreds of years) and have found
> ways to deal with them.
No, they haven't. These old clunkers have indeed been around and
are dogmas of religions of billions of people.
They have never heard of open theologians or process theologians, Islam and
Christianity stomped out the Aristotelian philosophers that challenged
these dogmas centuries ago. Its all heresy in almost all major religions.
>
> Here's what Barwell should do: 1) note that in general the terms make
> the kind of god most people describe impossible; 2) research current
> theological efforts to deal and define omnipotence, etc.; 3) state that
> while some may have defined their way around the problem, the fact they
> had to manipulate or redefine terms suggests their approach is flawed
> (he could compare this to how epicycles and the like were used to try
> to save the geocentric universe); and thus 4) argue that the need to
> change in response to science suggests that religions do not have
> timeless truths, but instead are human constructions that are not very
> plausible.
>
> He could avoid having to insult and attack people who point out that
> his "class" of gods is rather small. His assertion it represents 2000
> years of theology is just silly. By trying to claim absolute proof of
> logical contradictions he has set himself an impossible task -- any
> proof he has can be circumvented by tweaking the definition.
>
> I also think he'll be surprised what many liberal theologians are
> arguing these days -- many don't believe in the virgin birth, question
> the authorship of various books in the Bible, and have a non-literal
> interpretation that is much different than the kind of hard core middle
> ages theology Barwell cites.
--
wbarwell
>
>
> Barwell wrote:
>
> All we can do is prove god does not exist, which indeed is provable.
Again, you take one sentence out of context where context
here shows I meant god in sense of a member of the class
of creator omni-everything gods. The Grand God of Grand
Theology, teh traditions of four great religious traditions.
"THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction."
By purposefully failing to discuss this in terms
of "god" being of a specific class and type of god
as used in my original essay, by plucking a few
sentences out of context, you try to pretend I use
"god" in a way I did not. I most certainly did not use
"god" in an unlimted open way as you lie, in this essay.
You have been called down several times on this.
You repeat your dishonest claims.
This is the fallacy of selective quoting, strawman,
suppressed evidence and porbably other fallacies.
Its is dishonest. As it has been brought forcefully to
your attention, you have no excuse for repeating this.
You seem to have little regard for your credibility, and
seem to think people do not mind you quoting out of
context with an agenda of misleading people.
You seem to be looking to make sure you have no
shreds of credibility left at all, in case somebody missed
your games the first time around.
wbarwell
Here are too many more words.
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 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.
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, 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 speak, by numbers of believers,
these are not that widespread or very important.
Animist gods, such as found in Voodoo and the
like. It is possible to sort other kinds
of gods into a few classes of gods and likewise
disprove each class.
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.
2. A BASIC DEFINITION THE CLASS OF
OMNI-EVERYTHING AND CREATOR OF ALL GODS.
I sometimes call this the Grand God of
Grand Theology. Or the Grand God
for short.
3. NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD
There is no evidence whatsover for 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 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. Most of 4 1/2 billion believers will agree
with most of these, and these are all dogmatic to
most mainsteam 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.
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 has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
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 ignore other claims though such claims
as god's mercy, justice and love are also affected
and could be used to strengthen the argument.
Many of these are destroyed anyway by considering
A. - G. 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, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above or are destroyed by
discussion of the 8 attributes discussed above.
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 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 gods
belonging to that class are also disproven. Jesus,
Allah and other gods that properly belong to the
class of omni-everything creator gods are
simultaneously disproven if we succeed.
D. Tertiary claims are also likewise disproven.
Mohammed 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.
8. 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. I chose these since the majority
of believers 4 1/2 billion approximately belong to
these traditions and related religions and sects.
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 existant.
It should be noted the original version as found
in Lactantius 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.
10. THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
A. The free will defense of the problem of evil
goesback 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.
B. God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to
do evil. Ability to do evil is less evil 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.
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 PART 2.
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.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory
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, but 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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 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.
17. 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.
17. Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand Theology 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 hanging off this class of gods in anyway.
This dooms religions based on such gods too.
18. 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.
19. This Grand God 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.
***********
wbarwell
>
> "wbarwell" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> news:1275o4l...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>
>>> For weeks now a person who I firmly believe is a right wing stalking
>>> horse
>>> named W. Barwell has been pasting together sloppy, fallacious arguments
>>> that purport to universally disprove the existence of God.
>>
>>
>> Right wing stalking horse? Sorry, but I have a LONG record as very
>> anti-right on the net.
>
> You have your hands full defending your claim against the numerous logical
> fallacies I've found there.
>
> Get to it, horsey.
>
Flaming goofball attack!
Call out the elephant tranquilizer gun squad!
Llanzlan Klazmon
Correctly.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Nothing to do with honesty on your part, I see.
>>
>> I see you are still in denial.
>
> Your bare assertion doesn't show that. But I note that you're prone to
> dismissive assertions, the mark of a weak thinker.
Mr Pot calls the kettle black.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> It
>>>>> would be up to you to demonstrate that the argument is an example of
>>>>> ignoratio elenchi. This you can't do because it is not an example
>>>>> of that fallacy.
>>>>
>>>> Already did. You were arguing about science which is based on
>>>> empircial data. Barwell's case does not address scientific questions
>>>> his argument relates to theological definitions of gods. Ignoratio
>>>> elenchi exactly fits your attempted rebutal. Your continuing to deny
>>>> it is making yourself to look like an idiot in public.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but you obviously don't understand the concept. I was arguing
>>> about logical statements which may or may NOT deal with empirical
>>> data.
>>
>> Barwell's arguments relate to statements about gods by theologians.
>
> I've listed several bare assertions on his part that do not relate to
> statements about gods by theologians. You snipped them. You are
> therefore dishonest as well as wrong.
You dishonestly 'quote mined' these so called assertions. As has been
already pointed out, your fellow superstitionists the babblical cretinists
couldn't get away with this tactic either and they are experts at it as we
see from the talk.origins quote mine project:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
You are fooling no one other than yourself. The fact is that Barwell's
article has really ticked you of because you deep down realise that it
blows your fundamental superstitions apart and you are having trouble
dealing with it. Ok your 'perty fulminations' as wbarwell put it are kind
of funny but I do feel sorry for you.
<SNIP more half baked amateur attempts at dishonest quote mining>
Klazmon
Llanzlan Klazmon
news:1148378373....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
Only a fool would deliberately lie about what others said when there is a
public record of the statements.
Klazmon.
PerfectlyAble
Gandalf Grey wrote:
> "PerfectlyAble" <jr...@kol.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1148345397.4...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Gandalf Grey wrote:
> >
> >> "PerfectlyAble" <jr...@kol.co.nz> wrote in message
> >> news:1148329707....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Gandalf Grey wrote:
> >> >> For weeks now a person who I firmly believe is a right wing stalking
> >> >> horse
> >> >> named W. Barwell has been pasting together sloppy, fallacious
> >> >> arguments
> >> >> that
> >> >> purport to universally disprove the existence of God.
> >> >
> >>
> >> phenomenon.
> >
> > Christians went on crusade. Ok, are you saying this isn't
> > an example of the phenomenon called religion?
>
> No. But the fact that christians went on crusade doesn't make christianity
> a subject for science. History perhaps, but not science.
The Art of war, how to motive men to heinous acts, how to
get them to use weapons of mass destruction without qualms.
Oh, yes, it is all a subject of science. You complete denial
is shocking for one who claims open mindedness. The facts
of warfare and its links to techonological innovation could
not of come about without societial changes in religious
values to accomadate the new evil. I'm mean could Hitler
have motivated civilised Germans without merging Christianity
with racial supremacy! The whole norion of evolution is
athiestic, even Darwim recognised that, add into the mix
a gradient from men upward to God and you can create
the notion of superior and inferior life forms, etc.
Fact is science influences religion, war, every aspect
of our lives, why would you even hesistate before
offering such an absurdity, that science does investifate
God. Geez, it has almost taken over from religion, life
and death decisions aren't spent with the Preist but
with Doctors, one branch of the preisthood of Science.
>
> >
> > A child claims that he just wanted to pick his nose,
> > he didn't know why. Are you suggesting we should
> > accept that we can't know why he wants too? Even make
> > his undetectable motivation a boogeyman worshipped
> > by children the world over?? Should we then ignore that
> > 'we' created the boogeyman, and that YOU are recreating
> > God by expressing that it has no way to be investigated.
> > i.e. the only way such phenomenon come about!
> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Because these arguments have had the effect of a parody of real
> >> >> science
> >> >> and
> >> >> logic, I have demonstrated their weakness and many fallacies whenever
> >> >> I
> >> >> have
> >> >> seen them.
> >> >>
> >> >> Now, I think it's as well to lay out a few simple facts that more
> >> >> nearly
> >> >> represent the truth of the current war of the Church on rationality
> >> >> and
> >> >> science.
> >> >
> >> > The Church is not at war, it gaveup the fight and some religious
> >> > fundamentalist protestants are trying to revive the old war that
> >> > was so lost so long ago. They achieve this aim by throwing history out.
> >> >
> >> >> 1. Science is under no obligation to disprove the existence of a
> >> >> phenomenon
> >> >> for which there is no empirical evidence and no logical argument.
> >> >
> >> > Science has an obligation to research any physical ot social
> >> > phenomia.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. Science has no obligation to research any phenomena that
> >> cannot
> >> be proved to exist.
> >
> > Science will research everything, even mass religion, even
> > watching the brains via NMR of believers as they communicate
> > with their God and estimate the correlation to a paranoid delusional.
> > Fact is God is very testable and very much nonsense.
>
> Unsupported assertion.
Which one? The idea that we cannot how you could
make the positive assertion that God is uninvestigateable
and thus create a gap in which Godists can have hope.
You are making the positive claim. How exactly do
you times 0 by 0 and get 1? You claim God doesn't
exist and then claim he cannot be investigated, but
surely because God is fallacy fallacies are investigated.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> It's important to recognize the overarching importance of this
> >> >> statement.
> >> >>
> >> >> No empirical proof of the necessary existence of a god has ever been
> >> >> discovered.
> >> >
> >> > Which by the standards of science and logic make God non-existant!
> >>
> >> Methodologically, that much is true. God is therefore not in the realm
> >> of
> >> methodological realism.
> >
> > There is not other realm
>
> Oh please. Another autocratic scientologist. Scientists disagree with your
> faith-based scientology.
No, don't put words in my mouth. I never said there weren't other
realms, I'm just saying your denial that after 2,000 years nobody
has broutht scientific analysis to bear on relgiion and God is
patently absurd. There will always be something out there,
it is the fool who declares it must look like them, be assimulated
to their way of thought and about them. Faith in God, is just that,
the willful act of the believe to construct a fiction, like a child
with a fictional friend. Or are you saying we can't investigate them
either??? Please!
>
>
> >> >> The ID/Creationist movement has never succeeded in doing more
> >> >> than calling attention to the fact that scientific knowledge is
> >> >> incomplete.
> >> >
> >> > Scientific knowledge virture is that it accepts it starts from
> >> > ignorance.
> >> > Theological knowledge starts from the belief in God and so from
> >> > necessity of its own basis cannot debate God's existance. A
> >> > they tell us, its an act of faith. Consent manufactured and
> >> > even acknowledged as such.
> >> >
> >> >> They have attempted to use rhetoric that implies that the fact that
> >> >> science
> >> >> does not know everything must mean that there is a god. This
> >> >> rhetorical
> >> >> device is known as the Argument from Ignorance, *argumentum ad
> >> >> ignorantium.*
> >> >> It is a logical fallacy that will become immediately apparent to
> >> >> anyone
> >> >> with
> >> >> a little reflection. If I cannot find my car keys it does not
> >> >> automatically
> >> >> prove that my car keys have been transported to the planet Mars by
> >> >> intergalactic pixies or whatever other vain theory one cares to
> >> >> suggest.
> >> >> The most we can say about the bare fact that I cannot find my carkeys
> >> >> from a
> >> >> logical standpoint is that I cannot find my car keys. A bare fact
> >> >> does
> >> >> not
> >> >> imply an entire theory by logical necessity.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, just because I find my car keys in the last place I look
> >> > doesn't give God divine powers over the universe. Just because
> >> > some Godshit declares everything looks designed doesn't make
> >> > the God the creator of the universe (any God).
> >> >
> >> >> Embedded within this rhetorical dodge by the religious right is
> >> >> another
> >> >> fallacy: the presumption that, for example, evolution vs. Creationism
> >> >> excludes all other explanations and embraces all possible explanation.
> >> >> To
> >> >> put it bluntly, either science knows everything or god exists. But
> >> >> two
> >> >> opposing views do not by necessity exclude each other, nor do they by
> >> >> necessity include all possible views. Gaps in the fossil record are
> >> >> historically 'momentary.' Gaps in scientific knowledge are not by
> >> >> necessity
> >> >> permanent. This all leads to the 'god of the gaps' concept, in which
> >> >> god
> >> >> exists in whatever small area of knowledge in which our knowledge is
> >> >> incomplete. As the gaps narrow, god becomes smaller and smaller.
> >> >
> >> > Rubbish. Obviously people of whatever religion put their lives
> >> > daily in the views and preachings of the scientific priesthood.
> >> > Most barely agree with their own preists if not directly related
> >> > to them or financially connected. Fact is the religious right
> >> > raise God up to a burder of proof it cannot supply and then
> >> > claim its science equal. Evolution vs the invisible pink unicorn.
> >> > There is no god of the gaps, science has disproven God
> >>
> >> Nonsense. Science has not disproven god nor has religion proven god.
> >> You
> >> can't point to a single argument that would bear out your belief.
> >
> > Science does investigate religion, and has found NO evidance for Gods,
> > except as myths.
>
> No evidence is not an argument or a proof. Sorry.
Your no, no, no. Science cannot be used to measure
and map the brain while it is in a NMR machine, as
people think about faith in God. Science is the act of
making comparisions Comparing pixies beliefs, with
dead Gods now myths, with invisible child friends.
Science has been questioning Religion since the
renassiance. Where Religion onces had the last word
on life and death now its schavio's doctor! Wakeup,
religion has been pushed to the margins, is useless
as an economic tools to grow economies because of
its irrational basis. In the same way irrational trading
can be studied whether its called religion or not,
makes you claim patently ABSURD. Science has
brought a blowtouch to religious beliefs, and burnt them
to a cinder.
>
> >
> > In fact science has walked on walker, flown to the moon, brought
> > people back from the dead, reattached limbs. Science has OUT
> > done any religious claim of merit. If thats not evidance then you
> > don't want evidance, you want to cling on to the notion that a
> > pixy could exist outside of the delusional minds of the pixy movement.
>
> 1. I don't want to prove anything.
> 2. You seem to see science as your religion.
You seem to believe that science is perfect.
Even science has it quackery.
>
> Be happy in your belief. I'll stick with evidence and logic and the
> scientific method.
You are fool then. Science is the best tool we have, but not
all there is. Science has disproven God, but that doesn't
mean we should blindly worship it. Thats like saying
just because cannibalism causes brain diseases,
that we should all have brain diseases. There is
no God of the gaps, just like there is no pixy of the
Gaps, no invisible pink unicorns of the gap, no Thor
of the gaps.
> >> >> Many specific examples could be cited, but the final truth is that
> >> the
> >> >> Church's war on rationality consists of a rhetorical device inflated
> >> >> into
> >> >> a
> >> >> political program. The fundamentalist view is nothing more than a
> >> >> logical
> >> >> fallacy.
> >> >
> >> > The Church, from what I understand, does not dispute science.
> >>
> >> I should have used the term fundamentalists. Fundamentalists do dispute
> >> science in many areas.
> >
> > Everyone dispute science if there's a economic, social, etc advantage
> > in it.
> > It ain't nothing new. The Church has recognised that fighting
> > rational thought would only lead inevitably to irrational statements.
> > This is a political forum and the fundamentalists have real political
> > power from being anti-science.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >> 2. Positive assertions carry with them the burden of proof.
> >> >>
> >> >> As has been mentioned, no assertion that god is real has ever been
> >> >> proved
> >> >> by
> >> >> way of empirical evidence or logical argument.
> >> >
> >> > Again nonsense, since the Church demand faith is the only
> >> > way to God. Your strawman gives the Church to much credit.
> >>
> >> Don't be ridiculous. Positive assertions do carry the burden of proof
> >> and
> >> that is a basic tenet of both science and logic. I give the religious
> >> right
> >> no credit at all in making such a statement since they have never been
> >> able
> >> to defend their claims.
> >
> > You give them credit by peddling the idea that a God could
> > exist.
>
> You're quite wrong. There is no argument and no proof that a god exists.
> There is also no evidence and no argument that a god cannot exist.
>
> I'm attempting to demonstrate what any real scientist would know.
>
> You seem to need some absolute edge over the opposition.
>
> I give no one 'credit' by stating the rules of logic and science.
>
> >> >> That being said it is also true that no assertion that god CANNOT
> >> >> exist
> >> >> has
> >> >> ever been proved by way of empirical evidence or logical argument.
> >> >> This
> >> >> being the case, all that has been said of point 1. applies to point 2.
> >> >> If
> >> >> someone makes an assertion that god cannot exist, it now DOES become
> >> >> their
> >> >> responsibility to prove that this is the case.
> >> >
> >> > Rubbish. The Church clearly state God without faith is not valid.
> >>
> >> So what? You're now introducing a term [faith] that isn't being used by
> >> the
> >> fundamentalists OR science and accusing me of creating a strawman.
> >
> > I saying that you and fundamentalists both argue that God
> > can exist outside of the minds of believers.
>
> ANd you cannot prove that god cannot exist outside of the mind of believers.
> No one in the history of the argument has ever developed an absolute proof
> of the existence or non-existence of a god.
>
> If you can't handle that, it's really your problem.
>
> >> Either one has the duty to support a postivie assertion or not. If not,
> >> religious assertions become just as valid as scientific assertions, and
> >> you
> >> accuse me of giving the religious right too much credibility????
> >
> > I disagree. You are the one placing them together.
>
> Not at all. The assertion that god cannot be empirically or logically
> disproven does not put a burden on atheism in any way. Science has no
> burden to prove or disprove something that has no evidentiary support.
>
> > Just as you
> > argue that religion has to prove the positive claim. So evangelicals
> > and you have to prove that they can be held equally.
>
> Why? Since no religion can prove its claims...period...what more is
> required. Are you so insecure that, apart from recognizing that religion
> has no good argument, you also need to have their heads bent down and force
> them to recant? What are you? A member of the inquisition?
>
> > Its
> > like claiming because the San Francisco bridge exists that
> > another bridge exist that nobody can cross, that nobody is
> > allow to cross, and could never cross, nor would be ever built,
> > could be compared to it!
>
> No. It's not like that at all. An assertion is an assertion. If you feel
> you need to go the extra mile and assert that there is no possible god, then
> PROVE IT! If you can't [and you cannot] you're not going to twist logic
> into a method in which science gets to assert anything it wants without
> proof or argument but no one else can. What you're babbling is a classic
> example of the argument from ignorance. Religion can't prove god so
> atheists MUST be right.
>
> Forget it. The real world doesn't work that way. If you've got an
> argument, present it. But don't presume that somehow atheists are in a
> position to win by default. They aren't.
>
> >You not only have a duty to prove
> > the positive assertion, but you also have to prove the framework
> > you are going to do it with, you can't give religion the benefit of
> > the doubt.
>
> THen you can't give science the same benefit. And you're going to be right
> back where you started from. If there's no reason for science to give
> religion the benefit of the right to make an assertion and go from there,
> there's no reason for religion to give science the benefit of a doubt when
> it comes to any area of science that remains unexplained, nor any gap in the
> fossil record, nor any theoretical concept that exists without direct
> empirical support.
>
> > Secondly you have to get them to assert their axioms,
> > that they will behave logically, they they will except they could be
> > wrong. Because it's a waste of time trying talking to someone
> > who is not honestly entering in to debate by putting their ideas
> > up to be disproved. Thats why the Church claims faith is the
> > only way to God, because you can't argue with someone who
> > admits they can't debate with you.
>
> You're off on a tangent concerning politics. Please address the point.
>
> >
> >> >> But science is not in the business of proving the non-existence of
> >> >> entitites. Science is in the business of explaining nature in terms
> >> >> of
> >> >> nature. This means dealing with empirical data and natural
> >> >> phenomenon.
> >> >> God, being defined as extra- or super- natural is not a subject of
> >> >> scientific experiment or explanation.
> >> >
> >> > But in being defined by humanity, for humanity, it can be probed.
> >>
> >> Not by science. Which is the point.
> >
> > The brain is mappable. Inputs and outputs recordable.
> > Brain cells mimiced, even dissected and probed.
> > Why do you deny this>?
>
> Because it's not true. We are FAR from understanding the relationship of
> the brain to consciousness itself let alone beliefs.
>
> You assume far too much.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >> Atheists have every reasonable right to believe that there is no god,
> >> >> since
> >> >> there exists no argument or proof that such an entity exists. But
> >> >> attempting to prove that such a being cannot exist is very different
> >> >> from
> >> >> a
> >> >> rational belief. Any such proof must be universally applicable and
> >> >> logically adequate in order to succeed.
> >> >
> >> > Rubbish. Sorry, but thats an argument from ignorance. a double
> >> > negative. It is not the burden of the atheist to believe in God,
> >>
> >> I just said it wasn't. Can you read? Plus, you apparently don't know
> >> what
> >> an argument from ignorance is if you're applying it to the above.
> >
> > A husband tells his wife he doesn't know who he had sex with,
> > so he couldn't of have had sex. The wife claims thats an argument
> > from ignorance and that he must have had sex because he
> > hasn't with her for sometime. It is quite plausible for you to contend
> > a
> > statement that is also an argument from ignorance.
> >
> > I contend that you are implying that religious knowledge is
> > equal to scientific knowledge.
>
> Then you're an idiot. I've mentioned that religion has no evidence for the
> existence of god. THerefore, there is no good reason for anyone to believe
> in its claims. I then went on to say that any assertion, ANY assertion
> requires support, and that support DOES NOT COME from a lack or failure of
> some other argument.
>
> You've obviously chosen up sides and decided that a lack of religious
> argument means that any assertion you make about god MUST be true. THAT is
> the argument from ignorance, my friend. If you want to utterly, completely
> and finally disprove the existence of god, you're going to have to come up
> with your own argument with its own support, not sit around and claim that
> the failure of religion MUST mean that you're right. There is no logical
> reason why that should be the case.
>
> > Now initially, before any facts
> > are presented they are but once you accept that science has
> > a wealth of proven knowledge, has achieved the claims that
> > religion made but could not repeat. Then you have in al integrity
> > to accept that religion isn't even on the starting block with
> > equal merit. You accept there is no God, now accept that
> > the proposition cannot be held as equal to science. That
> > religion also has that burden to reach, that claim to make FIRST.
>
> No assertion needs to pass some pre-assertional test that allows it to
> compete. Any assertion stands or falls on its own. Any competent scientist
> would know that. You don't prove the binomial theorum by the fact that some
> mentally challenged child can't count. You prove it on its own merits. If
> you can't, you're a poor scientist.
>
> >
> > This is precisely the problem with creationism in schools
> > debate. That religion and science warrent equal merit.
>
> They don't. Creationism is not a scientific theory. Evolution is.
>
> Now wasn't that simple?
>
> > The shitster of creationism claim that creation also explains
> > everything science does, so should be afforded eqaul time.
> > Thats a positive claim they have to prove.
>
> And they can't.
>
> >
> >> The presumption that all postive assertions require the support of proof
> >> or
> >> an argument is hardly the appeal to ignorance.
> >
> > Agreed. Then provide proof that religion should be held
> > to the same merit as science.
>
> I never made that claim. You're so blinded by your zeal to beat religion
> into the ground that you've wholly missed the point.
>
> >
> >> > to disprove it. Its not the burden of anyone to accept anything
> >> > without any shred of evidance.
> >>
> >> Which I've already stated, if you'd taken the time to read.
> >>
> >> >> To date, no such argument has ever emerged. Mr. Barwell's ridiculous
> >> >> collection of fallacious pseudo-arguments are a case in point.
> >> >>
Gandalf Grey
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Kla...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
It was a very deep mine, filled with unversal assertions based on
purportedly specific arguments.
You saw that and you snipped it because you're at least as dishonest as
Barwell and wedded to the same faith-based pseudo science.
Gandalf Grey
> The Fool wrote:
>
>>
>> Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
>>
>>> Barwell's arguments relate to statements about gods by theologians. He
>>> is
>>> simply pointing out that there claims about gods are logically
>>> contradictory. This implies that the claimed gods of the theologians
>>> cannot exist as they desribe.
>>
>> To cut to the chase:
>>
>> Barwell's main error is to over-reach in his claim of proof of an
>> entire class of gods.
>
> Sorry. The class of creator/omni-everything gods is dead.
> it can never be made viable.
Not by any argument you've come up with, Barwell.
"wbarwell" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:126n6oc...@corp.supernews.com...
> chris.holt wrote:
>
> IS THERE A GOD?
> Strong Atheism's answer.
>
> A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
>
> The general overarching definition of god as per
> the major religions of the world is:
Fallacy of Division, with a possible Appeal to Tradition. The assumption
that what is true of most religions must be true of all possible assertions
concerning god is to assume that what is true of most is true of all. This
is the fallacy of division. You also seem to believe that what is true of
traditional forms of religious dogma must hold for any assertion concerning
god, this seems to be a variety of the fallacy of appeal to tradition.
Your argument fails on these points.
>
> 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.
None of the above are necessary aspects to the assertion "there is a god"
Not only is no one of the above necessary, but no combination of the above
is necessary. Once again, this is the fallacy of composition. Each of the
above represents an assertion *concerning* a god or gods. None of the above
represents the simple assertion "there exists a god."
Further, no amount of debunking of any one or all of the above arguments
does anything more than to debunk the particular arguments. Your "proof"
seems to rely on the notion that debunking the opponent's argument means
your argument must be correct. That notion is a classic example of the
*argumentum ad ignorantium.* It is always an appeal to ignorance when we
assume that no proof of one positive assertion consists of proof of another
positive assertion. No proof is simply no proof.
Hence, you're argument fails on these points.
[snip to]
> A CLASS OF GODS
>
> It is important to note here that this is a
> definition not for a particular god, but an
> entire class of gods.
Which does not logically necessitate that "an entire class of gods" exhausts
all possible classes that would include 'god.' Hence, you're indulging
again in the Fallacy of Composition, attempting to float the argument that
what might be true of any one class of gods must be true for any class of
gods.
Hence, your argument fails on that point.
> Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Yet you have actually made them so. That you seem to be unaware of this is
notable.
> Christianity claims one may attain salvation
> only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
> dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
> blasphemous.
>
> Ideas like this though, are of little importance
> to the overarching and general claims made for a
> personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
> coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
> for this sort of god, this sort of theological
> system of expansive claims for god.
> Grand theologies are those theologies that have
> adopted this class of god as their basic
> attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
> is important to remember here that what is being
> discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
> gods or specific gods.
>
> THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
>
> Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
> to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
> Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
> their basic definitions of what god is at god's
> most basic level.
>
> A big problem with this class of gods is, it
> collapses rather easily into internal self
> contradiction.
Again, you have chosen to debunk assertions rather than to support your own
assertions. Hence, you're indulging in the argument from ignorance.
And your argument thus fails.
>
> THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The Problem of Evil is not a simple assertion that there is a god. Once
again, it is a subspecies of assertion *concerning* a god or gods.
And so this does not support your universal claim that you can prove there
is no god.
[Snip past irrelevant sub-arguments to...]
> God is thus disprove and is utter irrelevant
> to anything real and existant.
You have not made your case to this point, having allowed yourself to do
nothing but make several stabs at debunking particular assertions concerning
god and done nothing to prove the universal claim that "there is no god".
And so once again, you haven't really even made an argument.
[Snip attempted survey of selected arguments to...]
> THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF THE
> ABOVE EXAMINATION OF GOD
>
> Thus the idea god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent,
> and creator of all,
But god need not be any of these things for the general assertion "a god
exists" to be true.
You said you had a universal proof for the non-existence of God. What you
appear to have is a highly selective debunking of already debunked
historical assertions, none of which are necessary for a god to exist.
If you have a proof, it must apply to more than "special cases concerning
god." A proof of the nonexistence of god would have to offer either an
argument or empirical evidence that would make valid the assertion "god does
not exist." You have not produced such an argument. Most of what you have
produced is shot through with logical fallacies as has been demonstrated
above.
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> Barwell wrote:
>>
>> All we can do is prove god does not exist, which indeed is provable.
"wbarwell" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
[snip to]
> Ideas like this though, are of little importance
> to the overarching and general claims made for a
> personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
> coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
> for this sort of god, this sort of theological
> system of expansive claims for god.
> Grand theologies are those theologies that have
> adopted this class of god as their basic
> attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
> is important to remember here that what is being
> discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
> gods or specific gods.
>
> THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
>
> Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
> to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
> Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
> their basic definitions of what god is at god's
> most basic level.
>
> A big problem with this class of gods is, it
Gandalf Grey
> Bhagwan Shree SODDI wrote:
>
>>
>> "Gandalf Grey" <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote::
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> You put too many words in that.
>
> Here are too many more words.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> IS THERE A GOD? NO.
> STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - PART 1.
"wbarwell" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:126n6oc...@corp.supernews.com...
> chris.holt wrote:
>
> IS THERE A GOD?
> Strong Atheism's answer.
>
> A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
>
> The general overarching definition of god as per
> the major religions of the world is:
Fallacy of Division, with a possible Appeal to Tradition. The assumption
that what is true of most religions must be true of all possible assertions
concerning god is to assume that what is true of most is true of all. This
is the fallacy of division. You also seem to believe that what is true of
traditional forms of religious dogma must hold for any assertion concerning
god, this seems to be a variety of the fallacy of appeal to tradition.
Your argument fails on these points.
>
> 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.
None of the above are necessary aspects to the assertion "there is a god"
Not only is no one of the above necessary, but no combination of the above
is necessary. Once again, this is the fallacy of composition. Each of the
above represents an assertion *concerning* a god or gods. None of the above
represents the simple assertion "there exists a god."
Further, no amount of debunking of any one or all of the above arguments
does anything more than to debunk the particular arguments. Your "proof"
seems to rely on the notion that debunking the opponent's argument means
your argument must be correct. That notion is a classic example of the
*argumentum ad ignorantium.* It is always an appeal to ignorance when we
assume that no proof of one positive assertion consists of proof of another
positive assertion. No proof is simply no proof.
Hence, you're argument fails on these points.
[snip to]
> A CLASS OF GODS
>
> It is important to note here that this is a
> definition not for a particular god, but an
> entire class of gods.
Which does not logically necessitate that "an entire class of gods" exhausts
all possible classes that would include 'god.' Hence, you're indulging
again in the Fallacy of Composition, attempting to float the argument that
what might be true of any one class of gods must be true for any class of
gods.
Hence, your argument fails on that point.
> Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Yet you have actually made them so. That you seem to be unaware of this is
notable.
> Christianity claims one may attain salvation
> only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
> dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
> blasphemous.
>
> Ideas like this though, are of little importance
> to the overarching and general claims made for a
> personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
> coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
> for this sort of god, this sort of theological
> system of expansive claims for god.
> Grand theologies are those theologies that have
> adopted this class of god as their basic
> attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
> is important to remember here that what is being
> discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
> gods or specific gods.
>
> THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
>
> Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
> to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
> Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
> their basic definitions of what god is at god's
> most basic level.
>
> A big problem with this class of gods is, it
> collapses rather easily into internal self
> contradiction.
Again, you have chosen to debunk assertions rather than to support your own
assertions. Hence, you're indulging in the argument from ignorance.
And your argument thus fails.
>
> THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The Problem of Evil is not a simple assertion that there is a god. Once
again, it is a subspecies of assertion *concerning* a god or gods.
And so this does not support your universal claim that you can prove there
is no god.
[Snip past irrelevant sub-arguments to...]
> God is thus disprove and is utter irrelevant
> to anything real and existant.
You have not made your case to this point, having allowed yourself to do
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> "wbarwell" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>> news:1275o4l...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>>
>>>> For weeks now a person who I firmly believe is a right wing stalking
>>>> horse
>>>> named W. Barwell has been pasting together sloppy, fallacious arguments
>>>> that purport to universally disprove the existence of God.
>>>
>>>
>>> Right wing stalking horse? Sorry, but I have a LONG record as very
>>> anti-right on the net.
>>
>> You have your hands full defending your claim against the numerous
>> logical
>> fallacies I've found there.
>>
>> Get to it, horsey.
>>
>
>
> Flaming goofball attack!
"wbarwell" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:126n6oc...@corp.supernews.com...
> chris.holt wrote:
>
> IS THERE A GOD?
> Strong Atheism's answer.
>
> A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
>
> The general overarching definition of god as per
> the major religions of the world is:
Fallacy of Division, with a possible Appeal to Tradition. The assumption
that what is true of most religions must be true of all possible assertions
concerning god is to assume that what is true of most is true of all. This
is the fallacy of division. You also seem to believe that what is true of
traditional forms of religious dogma must hold for any assertion concerning
god, this seems to be a variety of the fallacy of appeal to tradition.
Your argument fails on these points.
>
> 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.
None of the above are necessary aspects to the assertion "there is a god"
Not only is no one of the above necessary, but no combination of the above
is necessary. Once again, this is the fallacy of composition. Each of the
above represents an assertion *concerning* a god or gods. None of the above
represents the simple assertion "there exists a god."
Further, no amount of debunking of any one or all of the above arguments
does anything more than to debunk the particular arguments. Your "proof"
seems to rely on the notion that debunking the opponent's argument means
your argument must be correct. That notion is a classic example of the
*argumentum ad ignorantium.* It is always an appeal to ignorance when we
assume that no proof of one positive assertion consists of proof of another
positive assertion. No proof is simply no proof.
Hence, you're argument fails on these points.
[snip to]
> A CLASS OF GODS
>
> It is important to note here that this is a
> definition not for a particular god, but an
> entire class of gods.
Which does not logically necessitate that "an entire class of gods" exhausts
all possible classes that would include 'god.' Hence, you're indulging
again in the Fallacy of Composition, attempting to float the argument that
what might be true of any one class of gods must be true for any class of
gods.
Hence, your argument fails on that point.
> Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Yet you have actually made them so. That you seem to be unaware of this is
notable.
> Christianity claims one may attain salvation
> only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
> dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
> blasphemous.
>
> Ideas like this though, are of little importance
> to the overarching and general claims made for a
> personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
> coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
> for this sort of god, this sort of theological
> system of expansive claims for god.
> Grand theologies are those theologies that have
> adopted this class of god as their basic
> attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
> is important to remember here that what is being
> discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
> gods or specific gods.
>
> THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
>
> Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
> to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
> Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
> their basic definitions of what god is at god's
> most basic level.
>
> A big problem with this class of gods is, it
> collapses rather easily into internal self
> contradiction.
Again, you have chosen to debunk assertions rather than to support your own
assertions. Hence, you're indulging in the argument from ignorance.
And your argument thus fails.
>
> THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The Problem of Evil is not a simple assertion that there is a god. Once
Gandalf Grey
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Kla...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
You mean like your lie about Barwell's statements?
Llanzlan Klazmon
news:12761v3...@corp.supernews.com:
I see your point. But in the case of spiders we draw such conclusions from
the empirically known properties of spiders and we can apply our "theory"
of the way the universe works to draw the conclusion that giant spiders
are not viable. We are confident of this because experience has shown the
"theory" is a reliable description of the way nature works. We can't
really apply this to gods as things stand today, because we don't have any
actual gods available to determine their properties. The theologians start
with an impossible small god and then procede to attempt to fix the
problems (using the spider analogy) by blowing it up into an even more
impossible big god. Every band aid they apply causes more leaks to spring
up.
If any actual gods (by which I mean an extremely powerful entities from
our point of view) decided they wanted us to know of their existance, then
we would know of it end of story. It is reasonable to suppose that a god
entity would have the requisite ability to do that otherwise they wouldn't
be worthy of the term god. The superstitionists making up imaginary
entities and then assigning properties to them is doomed to failure.
Klazmon.
>
>
Gandalf Grey
Sorry, but no. You can call all sorts of things science. That doesn't make
them science.
PerfectlyAble
Gandalf Grey wrote:
> "wbarwell" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> news:12771pm...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Gandalf Grey wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Barwell wrote:
> >>
> >> All we can do is prove god does not exist, which indeed is provable.
>
>
> "wbarwell" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> news:126n6oc...@corp.supernews.com...
> > chris.holt wrote:
> >
> > IS THERE A GOD?
> > Strong Atheism's answer.
> >
> > A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
> >
> > The general overarching definition of god as per
> > the major religions of the world is:
>
> Fallacy of Division, with a possible Appeal to Tradition. The assumption
> that what is true of most religions must be true of all possible assertions
> concerning god is to assume that what is true of most is true of all. This
> is the fallacy of division. You also seem to believe that what is true of
> traditional forms of religious dogma must hold for any assertion concerning
> god, this seems to be a variety of the fallacy of appeal to tradition.
You assume god is possible. Thats the fallacy of construction.
You cannot talk about fight club, whats the first rule of fight
club! Whats the second rule of fight club! YOU CANNOT TALK
about FIGHT CLUB!
Until you can prove a God is possible and that gaps also isn't
filled with pixies, invisible pink unicorns and gaint one eyed
kangeroos with brains the size of planets, then such the fuckup
about "assertions concerning God", how is that even possible!@#@
Llanzlan Klazmon
<SNIP>
>
> It was a very deep mine, filled with unversal assertions based on
> purportedly specific arguments.
>
<Dishonest amateur attempts at quote mining snipped>
Oh dear there's nothing left.
Klazmon.
Llanzlan Klazmon
Hello Mr Pot. Got any more dishonest amateur attempts at quote mining for
us?
Klazmon.
>
>
>
Zapanaz
You are wrong.
He is stating the listed items as definitions of the god whose
existence he is disproving. It is inherent in that that a god which
does not meet that definition is not disproved by his argument, which
he states explicitly elsewhere.
>[snip to]
>
>> A CLASS OF GODS
>>
>> It is important to note here that this is a
>> definition not for a particular god, but an
>> entire class of gods.
>
>Which does not logically necessitate that "an entire class of gods" exhausts
>all possible classes that would include 'god.' Hence, you're indulging
>again in the Fallacy of Composition, attempting to float the argument that
>what might be true of any one class of gods must be true for any class of
>gods.
>
>Hence, your argument fails on that point.
>
This is wrong for the same reason. You are saying that he is
extending his specific definition to a more general idea of god, which
he is not, and he has explicitly said he is not.
>> Sub-theories about god are not important here.
>
>Yet you have actually made them so. That you seem to be unaware of this is
>notable.
>
I will see if I can get Bizarro Superman to translate that sentence.
>If you have a proof, it must apply to more than "special cases concerning
>god."
If he were claiming his disproof applied to anything beyond what he
has defined, then that would be true. But he isn't.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Have you had any formal psychotherapy?
>
******No. But I have a tuxedo.******
Gandalf Grey
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Kla...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
I can keep it up a lot longer than you can, liar.
You snipped universal claims buried in purportedly specific arguments.
Gandalf Grey
1. I don't assume god is possible. That's where you boneheads still don't
get it. My demonstration of the rules of logic has nothing to do with the
existence of god. It's about LOGIC!!!!
PerfectlyAble
The Fool wrote:
> PerfectlyAble wrote:
>
> > Science does investigate religion, and has found NO evidance for Gods,
> > except as myths.
>
> > people back from the dead, reattached limbs. Science has OUT
> > done any religious claim of merit. If thats not evidance then you
> > don't want evidance, you want to cling on to the notion that a
> > pixy could exist outside of the delusional minds of the pixy movement.
> > investigate you religious comeout with the claim that no there
> > still is a gap that God could fit into. Well NO there isn't,
> > except the delusional minds of some human's brain.
>
> Kid, you really are out of your league discussing these kinds of
> issues, you don't understand the basics of science and logic at all.
> If you believe what you wrote, then you aren't only against religion,
> you are against scientific inquiry. You should study and learn about
> the basics before making an idiot of yourself.
Ad hom.
>
> -snip-
>
> > I contend that you are implying that religious knowledge is
> > equal to scientific knowledge.
>
> Your hatred of religion is obvious, you hate it so much you let reason
> and rationality go in order to try to attack it. You are more like a
> religious fanatic than like a true scientist, you've lost objectivity.
I love pixies, what have you got against my love of pixies,
claiming that I don't. You evil man.
Oh, sorry thats would be an ad hom and you have the market on
that sownup.
>
> The fact: science cannot prove or disprove god. At least not at this
> stage. That means that nobody has any reason from science to believe
> in a god. If people choose to believe in a religion, you can argue
> that it is wrong from many points -- accident of birth as to which
> religion they are worshiping, the nature of myth, the intellectual
> history of at least the West moving away from religion, etc. There are
> many practical and persuasive arguments you can make against various
> religions, and certainly against religions have political power.
Science is has value to us, we only brandish it because it
has value to us. You seem to believe, I can't imagine how that
science is in any way limited by God.
This by the way is not about *my* motivations, its about
the argument. Please stop the ad hom, you only pure yourself
a fool.
> BUT if you to try to say that god is disproven, you've gone over to the
> dark side. You've become like the ones you see as an enemy. You
> ignore logic for political expediency. You take a position based on
> your emotion rather than following logic. You twist science and logic
> to try to use it to your advantage, just like religions have done. In
> short, you become a mirror image of that which you despise.
I have never appealed to emotion. I merely state the facts.
Science is valued no matter what religion you are,
its accessible, repeatably so, it produces results.
On this measure, note a real measure from the REAL
world, beliefs in God are fractured, irrational, unrepeatable,
and produce arbitary and differing results.
Nothing emotional. I merely point out that a comparision
between science and God inspired dogma, scientific dogma
has won. That science has then gone on to push back the
results of God inspired dogma to make religion superflous.
Now exactly what don't you agree with? Me saying that,
or what I've said?
> That happens a lot, but it's sad when people can't stick to where
> science and logic lead, regardless of the 'politics' involved.
>
> You and Barwell (I suspect you're not two different people -- the
> spelling errors, weird rambly repetitive drone, etc., are telltale
> signs) simply need to confront reality. You're so caught up in your
> "jihad" you ignore reason. That's unforgivable.
Yeah, religious people lose the argument, are
shownup for being immoral, or helpers of evil. They
declare how they are under attack and that they shouldn't
lose an argument because religion needs protecting.
Oh, poor pooh you.
Zapanaz
<Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
Actually the existence of God can, in any event, be disproven much
more simply.
1. "Bob" exists
2. Therefore, God does not.
It's that simple.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"The Shrink asks me what the American flag means to me.
I tell him, "soak it in heroin Doc, and I'll suck it."
The shrink tells me I have a bad attitude. Tells
me to get right with Jesus.
Then with tears running down their fink faces, the Do-rights
as one man bellow out the Star Spangled banner."
- William S. Burroughs
Gandalf Grey
"Zapanaz" <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote in message
news:q27772l19a95ufi8a...@4ax.com...
Sorry, but that's quite wrong. Barwell has stated both within the argument
and outside of it, that his argument disproves the existence of any god.
>Barwell wrote:
But these assertiions create impossible contradictions showing why
there wil never be proof for god, because god is disprovable and impossible.
Note there is no qualification on the conclusion. That is not a claim about
a specific kind of god.
>Barwell wrote:
Theology states god is necessary and ground of all being.
But since god is easily debunked logically, it cannot even exist,
much less be necessary.
That sentence is a universal claim about god, not a particular god. Note
again, no qualification.
>Barwell wrote:
All we can do is prove god does not exist, which indeed is provable.
That is a universal statement concerning god. Again, no attempt at a
qualification that we would expect from any careful thinker.
>Barwell wrote:
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant
The above starts with a specific statement and ends with a universal claim
unsupported by the previous argument. Look particularly at what the
statement is. If THESE gods [the gods of his supposed real argument] cannot
exist as defined, specific gods cannot. But he ends with the following
blanket, unqualified statement. "GOD is thus disproven." No qualification
whatsoever.
>Barwell wrote:
If by taking 8 claims, found in all major religions and all major
theological traditions, I can disprove god, I have then disporved god in an
economical and efficiant manner.
Another claim that his specific 'class of gods' argument disproves god in
general.
>Barwell wrote:
I simply note the efficient and simplest way to prove god
does not exist and do it that way. Why would I want to do
anything else?
Again, a universal claim to a prove of god's non-existence in any form. Not
a specific god, not a class of gods, but god in general.
Barwell tries one of the oldest and most disreputable tricks in the book.
He pretends to have a special case argument, and then claims that his
conclusions go beyond the argument.
It's a classic case of inoratio elenchi argument. While Barwell's class
argument may hold [though even that is shot with flaws] it in no way implies
a general statement outside of the argument itself.
>
PerfectlyAble
Gandalf Grey wrote:
> "The Fool" <sn...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:1148347939.0...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > PerfectlyAble wrote:
> >
> >> Science does investigate religion, and has found NO evidance for Gods,
> >> except as myths.
> >
> >> In fact science has walked on walker, flown to the moon, brought
> >> people back from the dead, reattached limbs. Science has OUT
> >> done any religious claim of merit. If thats not evidance then you
> >> don't want evidance, you want to cling on to the notion that a
> >> pixy could exist outside of the delusional minds of the pixy movement.
> >> Everytime I put up evidance, facts, that science can and does
> >> investigate you religious comeout with the claim that no there
> >> still is a gap that God could fit into. Well NO there isn't,
> >> except the delusional minds of some human's brain.
> >
> > Kid, you really are out of your league discussing these kinds of
> > issues, you don't understand the basics of science and logic at all.
> > If you believe what you wrote, then you aren't only against religion,
> > you are against scientific inquiry. You should study and learn about
> > the basics before making an idiot of yourself.
> >
> >
> >> I contend that you are implying that religious knowledge is
> >> equal to scientific knowledge.
> >
> > Your hatred of religion is obvious, you hate it so much you let reason
> > and rationality go in order to try to attack it. You are more like a
> > religious fanatic than like a true scientist, you've lost objectivity.
> >
> > stage. That means that nobody has any reason from science to believe
> > in a god. If people choose to believe in a religion, you can argue
> > that it is wrong from many points -- accident of birth as to which
> > religion they are worshiping, the nature of myth, the intellectual
> > history of at least the West moving away from religion, etc. There are
> > many practical and persuasive arguments you can make against various
> > religions, and certainly against religions have political power.
> >
> > dark side. You've become like the ones you see as an enemy. You
> > ignore logic for political expediency.
>
> problem. It's as though there is some smell of blood that gets into what
> are probably otherwise rational people. Suddenly, it's not enough for them
> that there is no evidence and no valid arguments for god. Suddenly they go
> all Ann Coulter and need to have the fundies shoved onto their knees to
> publicly recant before science cuts their heads off.
You claim religion is irrelevent, invaild and then claim that doesn't
'cut off their head'. Interesting!
You'll note I've never said religion people cannot believe whatever
they want.
>
> It's really qutie remarkable to see what hatred can do to otherwise normal
> people.
>
>
> You take a position based on
> > your emotion rather than following logic. You twist science and logic
> > to try to use it to your advantage, just like religions have done. In
> > short, you become a mirror image of that which you despise.
> >
> > That happens a lot, but it's sad when people can't stick to where
> > science and logic lead, regardless of the 'politics' involved.
> >
> > You and Barwell (I suspect you're not two different people -- the
> > spelling errors, weird rambly repetitive drone, etc., are telltale
> > signs) simply need to confront reality. You're so caught up in your
> > "jihad" you ignore reason. That's unforgivable.
>
> I hadn't thought of that. I'm just too damned trusting.
> >
Gandalf Grey
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Kla...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
Hello Mr. True Believer. What I have are valid quotes that prove that
Barwell attempted to make a specific argument into a universal claim. I'll
be reprinting them everytime you show up.
Barwell wrote:
But these assertiions create impossible contradictions showing why
there wil never be proof for god, because god is disprovable and impossible.
No qualification whatsoever in that last sentence. Barwell sweeps from the
specific to a universal generality.
Barwell wrote:
Theology states god is necessary and ground of all being.
But since god is easily debunked logically, it cannot even exist,
much less be necessary.
Once again, Barwell goes from a specific [though deeply flawed] argument to
a universal claim.
Barwell wrote:
All we can do is prove god does not exist, which indeed is provable.
No qualification whatsoever. A blanket claim of god's nonexistence wholly
unsupported by evidence or argument.
Barwell wrote:
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant
Here we see Barwell doing his thing. Going from a narrow argument to a
general conclusion not supported by the argument.
Barwell wrote:
If by taking 8 claims, found in all major religions and all major
theological traditions, I can disprove god, I have then disporved god in an
economical and efficiant manner.
Again a blanket generalization not supported by the argument.
Barwell wrote:
I simply note the efficient and simplest way to prove god
does not exist and do it that way. Why would I want to do
anything else?
A universal claim, wholly unsupported by anything Barwell has written to
date.
Gandalf Grey
Why didn't he just say so?
Zapanaz
<Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>> You are wrong.
>>
>> He is stating the listed items as definitions of the god whose
>> existence he is disproving.
>
>Sorry, but that's quite wrong. Barwell has stated both within the argument
>and outside of it, that his argument disproves the existence of any god.
>
>>Barwell wrote:
>But these assertiions create impossible contradictions showing why
>there wil never be proof for god, because god is disprovable and impossible.
>
>Note there is no qualification on the conclusion. That is not a claim about
>a specific kind of god.
>
>>Barwell wrote:
>Theology states god is necessary and ground of all being.
>But since god is easily debunked logically, it cannot even exist,
>much less be necessary.
>
>That sentence is a universal claim about god, not a particular god. Note
>again, no qualification.
At the very beginning:
'First of all, this proof "God" does not exist
is aimed at an entire class of gods, not
particular gods.'
Given that, a general statement about "gods" within the body of the
proof can only be taken as referring to what that word has been
defined to mean.
That he does not explicitly restate the limits of his definition every
time he uses the word does not change that. It would be dumb to do so
and would only clarify anything for a reader incapable of grasping
context.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
art for arts sake, money for gods sake.
The Fool
wbarwell wrote:
> The Fool wrote:
>
> > Barwell's main error is to over-reach in his claim of proof of an
> > entire class of gods.
>
> Sorry. The class of creator/omni-everything gods is dead.
> it can never be made viable.
Then I guess all the churches, mosques and synogogues will be emptying
out soon, all the religious scholars, scientists and others who read
your little post will say, 'gee, I guess I'd best stop believing'.
Or, perhaps, they'll just not recognize their concept of God in the way
you define your 'class' of gods, and laugh you off.
Face it, you failed.
Llanzlan Klazmon
<SNIP>
>
> I can keep it up a lot longer than you can, liar.
You better talk to your doctor about that. I believe it is called obsessive
compulsive disorder. Don't worry it is treatable.
Klazmon.
The Fool
PerfectlyAble wrote:
> You assume god is possible. Thats the fallacy of construction.
No, god may or may not be possible; it's just that so far I haven't
seen any way to disprove the existence. From what I've seen on all
sides of the debate, the answer to that question isn't knowable.
Assumptions about what is possible are irrelevant, we just don't know.
Llanzlan Klazmon
<SNIP>
>> Hello Mr Pot. Got any more dishonest amateur attempts at quote mining
>> for us?
>
> Hello Mr. True Believer. What I have are valid quotes that prove that
> Barwell attempted to make a specific argument into a universal claim.
> I'll be reprinting them everytime you show up.
Good for you. It's kind of funny in a sad kind of way. When you get bored
go and talk to your doctor about it. They can do things for obsessive
compulsive disorder these days.
Klamzon.
The Fool
PerfectlyAble wrote:
> The Fool wrote:
> > The fact: science cannot prove or disprove god. At least not at this
> > stage. That means that nobody has any reason from science to believe
> > in a god. If people choose to believe in a religion, you can argue
> > that it is wrong from many points -- accident of birth as to which
> > religion they are worshiping, the nature of myth, the intellectual
> > history of at least the West moving away from religion, etc. There are
> > many practical and persuasive arguments you can make against various
> > religions, and certainly against religions have political power.
>
> Science is has value to us, we only brandish it because it
> has value to us. You seem to believe, I can't imagine how that
> science is in any way limited by God.
Since I'm an agnostic and a firm believer in science your response is
off base. Pointing out that someone has not disproven the possibility
of most gods that people who worship happen to believe in isn't the
same as sharing their theist beliefs. I am not a member of any
religion, and am raising my children to hopefully be immune from
religious folk trying to convert them or otherwise mislead them.
However, when those on the side of science and reason, which I believe
in, start acting like religious fundamentalists with the same kind of
attacks and bluster that the fundies use, then they are giving up the
most powerful aspect of reason, and weakening its appeal. You are
mimicking those you claim to oppose, and in so doing, have become like
them. Sad.
> This by the way is not about *my* motivations, its about
> the argument. Please stop the ad hom, you only pure yourself
> a fool.
If I post about your motivations, then it is about your motivations.
> > BUT if you to try to say that god is disproven, you've gone over to the
> > dark side. You've become like the ones you see as an enemy. You
> > ignore logic for political expediency. You take a position based on
> > your emotion rather than following logic. You twist science and logic
> > to try to use it to your advantage, just like religions have done. In
> > short, you become a mirror image of that which you despise.
>
> I have never appealed to emotion. I merely state the facts.
*eyes rolling*
> Science is valued no matter what religion you are,
> its accessible, repeatably so, it produces results.
> On this measure, note a real measure from the REAL
> world, beliefs in God are fractured, irrational, unrepeatable,
> and produce arbitary and differing results.
I've never argued for a belief in God.
I am firmly convinced of the value of science.
Yet your beliefs about the nature of other peoples' beliefs in god
really amounts to an irrational attack on others for not thinking like
you. In that, you mirror the way some religious fundies attack
atheists. It also paints you not as an atheist, which is a person who
simply doesn't have a belief in God, but doesn't judge the beliefs of
others, to an anti-theist, which in your case appears as a sort of
bigotry. As a believer in reason and science, I detest when people try
to claim they are for science and reason, yet instead offer up
irrational bigotry.
> Yeah, religious people lose the argument, are
> shownup for being immoral, or helpers of evil. They
> declare how they are under attack and that they shouldn't
> lose an argument because religion needs protecting.
> Oh, poor pooh you.
You obviously aren't reading the posts carefully if you think I'm a
religious person. Clearly you are so emotional about this you don't
even take the time to read.
HellPope Huey
HOW YOU GUESS ME AM WHACKJOB ENTITY NUMBER "F"???
--
HellPope Huey
I wandered lonely as a cloud...
until I turned the map right-side up.
Bureaucracy is a giant mechanism
operated by pygmies.
~ Honore de Balzac
"I'm sweating like J. Edgar Hoover
trying to squeeze into a new girdle!"
~ The head of Richard Nixon, 'Futurama"
http://www.nationalcynical.com/sounds/192- ncnstairwaymedley.mp3
Gandalf Grey
Exactly wrong. In every other sense other than the political, the head is
already off.
>
> You'll note I've never said religion people cannot believe whatever
> they want.
Wow. How nice of you.
Gandalf Grey
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Kla...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
> "Gandalf Grey" <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in
> news:44739beb$0$24675$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com:
>
> <SNIP>
>>
>> I can keep it up a lot longer than you can, liar.
>
> You better talk to your doctor about that.
irrelevant response noted.
Gandalf Grey
It's a bit like the homophobic fear crusade. They seem to believe that if
homosexual unions were legalized as "marriage" that all the married people
would say "Oh my God! I'd better get a divorce. Marriage is over."
Dogmatically religious types will continue to believe in dogma. Spiritual
types will continue to believe that there's something greater than
themselves regardless of what you call it. The faithful will continue to
believe in faith.
Even if Barwell's "proof" hadn't been internally flawed and promoted as
proving more than it does, it would have accomplished precisely nothing.
>
Gandalf Grey
Sorry, but that doesn't explain the way he constantly refers to a prove
against "God" both inside and outside of his argument. Context only goes so
far. And when a writer switches from a stipulated use of the term to a
general use, that's HIS problem, not the readers.
Gandalf Grey
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Kla...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
> "Gandalf Grey" <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in
> news:4473a018$0$24694$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>> Hello Mr Pot. Got any more dishonest amateur attempts at quote mining
>>> for us?
>>
>> Hello Mr. True Believer. What I have are valid quotes that prove that
>> Barwell attempted to make a specific argument into a universal claim.
>> I'll be reprinting them everytime you show up.
>
> Good for you. It's kind of funny in a sad kind of way.
Yes, you are. I always find scientism funny in a sad kind of way.
Llanzlan Klazmon
@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> wbarwell wrote:
>> The Fool wrote:
>>
>> > Barwell's main error is to over-reach in his claim of proof of an
>> > entire class of gods.
>>
>> Sorry. The class of creator/omni-everything gods is dead.
>> it can never be made viable.
>
> Then I guess all the churches, mosques and synogogues will be emptying
> out soon, all the religious scholars, scientists and others who read
> your little post will say, 'gee, I guess I'd best stop believing'.
Religious belief among scientists is generally much lower than the general
population as shown by published NAS surveys. People believe in gods either
because they have been told to as a child and don't think much more about
it. (Shown by the fact that the majority stay in whatever religion their
parents belonged to). Others because it is of comfort to them or both. Some
may even do so out of fear. You can't reason someone out of a position they
didn't arrive at through reason.
>
> Or, perhaps, they'll just not recognize their concept of God in the way
> you define your 'class' of gods, and laugh you off.
More likely they haven't really even thought about the question.
>
> Face it, you failed.
>
Non sequitur. He didn't say he was attempting to get people to abandon
their religious beliefs. Personally I would prefer that particularly the
fundroids stuck with their religion as they keep telling us that if god
wasn't real they would go on the rampage. As always religion remains a good
method for keeping the unwashed masses in check ;-).
klazmon.
>
Zapanaz
<Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
>Sorry, but that doesn't explain the way he constantly refers to a prove
>against "God" both inside and outside of his argument. Context only goes so
>far. And when a writer switches from a stipulated use of the term to a
>general use, that's HIS problem, not the readers.
You reading the word "god" in a way which is different from the way it
has been explicitly defined does not mean the writer has changed his
definition of that word.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Everyone knows watermelon's not supposed to have a creamy filling. Even
Martha Stewart.
Gandalf Grey
> On Tue, 23 May 2006 18:33:56 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
> <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Sorry, but that doesn't explain the way he constantly refers to a prove
>>against "God" both inside and outside of his argument. Context only goes
>>so
>>far. And when a writer switches from a stipulated use of the term to a
>>general use, that's HIS problem, not the readers.
>
> You reading the word "god" in a way which is different from the way it
> has been explicitly defined does not mean the writer has changed his
> definition of that word.
It does when he consistently steps outside of that explicit definition and
when he responds to direct criticisms that he hasn't defined god out of
existence by insisting that he has.
I'm sorry, but you've got nowhere to go with this.
Zapanaz
<Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Zapanaz" <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote in message
>news:88g7725jra5tgp77p...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 23 May 2006 18:33:56 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
>> <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Sorry, but that doesn't explain the way he constantly refers to a prove
>>>against "God" both inside and outside of his argument. Context only goes
>>>so
>>>far. And when a writer switches from a stipulated use of the term to a
>>>general use, that's HIS problem, not the readers.
>>
>> You reading the word "god" in a way which is different from the way it
>> has been explicitly defined does not mean the writer has changed his
>> definition of that word.
>
>It does when he consistently steps outside of that explicit definition and
>when he responds to direct criticisms that he hasn't defined god out of
>existence by insisting that he has.
>
>I'm sorry, but you've got nowhere to go with this.
>
You're right, I don't, because you are confusing what you imagine him
to be saying with what he is saying.
>Barwell wrote:
But these assertiions create impossible contradictions showing why
there wil never be proof for god, because god is disprovable and
impossible.
That was one example you provided. There is no reason to believe the
use of the word god in that sentence means something different from
what it has been defined to mean. The only place it does is in your
head.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
>a cri de coeur
>
In English, we just say "I stepped on the cat".
Gandalf Grey
> On Tue, 23 May 2006 18:33:56 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
> <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Sorry, but that doesn't explain the way he constantly refers to a prove
>>against "God" both inside and outside of his argument. Context only goes
>>so
>>far. And when a writer switches from a stipulated use of the term to a
>>general use, that's HIS problem, not the readers.
>
> You reading the word "god" in a way which is different from the way it
> has been explicitly defined does not mean the writer has changed his
> definition of that word.
I include this to demonstrate the claims Barwell made at a very early stage
of the thread.
Wbarwell wrote:
May 11
>Nobody can prove a god exists, or a million gods.
>Nobody can prove Hesiod was wrong.
>Or that the Universe is not indeed an infinitely old
>collective of things which are basically physics without a
>single trace of any gods.
>All we can do is prove god does not exist, which indeed is provable.
This is about as plain as it could possibly get. Barwell claims that god
cannot be proven to exist, but that we can "prove god does not exist, which
indeed is provable"
No stipulations, no reference to a narrow definition. Only a universal
unsupported claim.
He then went on to provide an argument that was only applicable to a narrow
view of god.
The entire text is pasted below. You'll search in vain for an "explicit
definition" that saves Barlow from the charge of presenting a narrow
argument that presumes to support a universal claim.
Path:
g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.xsnews.nl!sn-ams-06!sn-xt-ams-03!sn-post-ams-01!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: wbarwell <wbarw...@mylinuxisp.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,alt.society.liberalism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Why Do Enlightened Modern Philosophers Spend So Much Time
Debunking Christianity?
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 02:45:26 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <1265qls...@corp.supernews.com>
References: <125sdls...@corp.supernews.com>
<8kss52hq1bmlo2u4l...@4ax.com>
<V%v7g.53543$x97....@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>
<li8t52plc5uq2m960...@4ax.com>
<gSx7g.36653$cY3....@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>
<59kt525ihflu23jsl...@4ax.com>
<r3I7g.53574$x97....@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>
<lquv52lldgkqqp68r...@4ax.com>
<GlT7g.38119$cY3....@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>
<1147293859.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
<rok462dtavlhghnv9...@4ax.com>
<1147303042.4...@q12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: KNode/0.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Complaints-To: ab...@supernews.com
Lines: 77
Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On 10 May 2006 13:44:19 -0700, "Michael Ejercito"
>> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Martin McPhillips wrote:
>> >> Oh, so you are going the imbecile
>> >> route (as opposed to the simply
>> >> stupid route of "responding" with
>> >> "Wrong") by returning to the
>> >> "You're a liar" response.
>> >>
>> >> So, anyway, you imagine a cause and
>> >> effect universe that had no cause
>> >> ("didn't 'come from', period"), i.e.,
>> >> had nothing as its cause.
>> >>
>> >> The eternal cause and effect universe
>> >> without cause. Very mystical, Don.
>> > It IS possible only IF the universe has no beginning in time.
>> >
>> > A universe that has a beginning in time must have a cause outside
>> >itself.
>>
>> Why does it need either a beginning or cause?
> If something has a beginning, it must have a cause.
>
> For example, the keyboard you type on has a beginning, and it has a
> cause (it was manufactured in a factory).
>
>
> Michael
What factory manufactored god?
You have read Huma, haven't you?
Hume made a strong point about analogies.
Maybe the Universe has no maker, maybe it is an organic
entity like a carrot.
Why not use that analogy rather than god as maker
of a Universe?
Because at bottom, this is all one has unless you are science
working from hard evidence, for which there is none for god.
Why should the Universe have a beginning. Ad hoc answer.
To make room for god. Of course we can see god is rather unlikely.
and even if god was likely, it may well be god has nothing to do with the
creation of the Universe.
Hesiod's Theogony had the primal chaos emanating the Titan gods.
And that cannot be disproven.
A priori claims are simply not a good way to go about this as any other
assertion is as good as any baseless assertion anyone cares to make.
Nobody can prove a god exists, or a million gods.
Nobody can prove Hesiod was wrong.
Or that the Universe is not indeed an infinitely old
collective of things which are basically physics without a
single trace of any gods.
Gandalf Grey
I'd love to agree with you, but Barwell had already crowed about having a
universal proof for the non-existence of god before he wrote that. And his
constant refusal to respond to the criticism that he was not being explicit
enough with protestations that he had indeed disproved god argue against
your position.
If you prefer making snide comments about my mental state rather than paying
attention to what Barwell has actually said, that would be your problem.
Zapanaz
<Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>> That was one example you provided. There is no reason to believe the
>> use of the word god in that sentence means something different from
>> what it has been defined to mean. The only place it does is in your
>> head.
>
>I'd love to agree with you, but Barwell had already crowed about having a
>universal proof for the non-existence of god before he wrote that. And his
>constant refusal to respond to the criticism that he was not being explicit
>enough with protestations that he had indeed disproved god argue against
>your position.
>
>If you prefer making snide comments about my mental state rather than paying
>attention to what Barwell has actually said, that would be your problem.
I have no idea what Barwell "already crowed", or you imagine he did,
someplace other than this thread.
In the article responded to, he defined a word, and used the word
which he defined. You are saying that he stopped meaning the word the
way he defined it but meant something else instead. That's just dumb.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
there was a young lady from Bude
who was taking a swim in the lake
a man in a punt
stuck his pole in her ear
saying you can't swim here
it's private
Bhagwan Shree SODDI
They're assholes.
Fuck 'em.
Now can we talk about something that matters?
Gandalf Grey
> On Tue, 23 May 2006 19:40:53 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
> <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> That was one example you provided. There is no reason to believe the
>>> use of the word god in that sentence means something different from
>>> what it has been defined to mean. The only place it does is in your
>>> head.
>>
>>I'd love to agree with you, but Barwell had already crowed about having a
>>universal proof for the non-existence of god before he wrote that. And
>>his
>>constant refusal to respond to the criticism that he was not being
>>explicit
>>enough with protestations that he had indeed disproved god argue against
>>your position.
>>
>>If you prefer making snide comments about my mental state rather than
>>paying
>>attention to what Barwell has actually said, that would be your problem.
>
> I have no idea what Barwell "already crowed",
I include this to demonstrate the claims Barwell made at a very early stage
of the thread.
Wbarwell wrote:
May 11
>Nobody can prove a god exists, or a million gods.
>Nobody can prove Hesiod was wrong.
>Or that the Universe is not indeed an infinitely old
>collective of things which are basically physics without a
>single trace of any gods.
>All we can do is prove god does not exist, which indeed is provable.
This is about as plain as it could possibly get. Barwell claims that god
cannot be proven to exist, but that we can "prove god does not exist, which
indeed is provable"
Michael Ejercito wrote:
What factory manufactored god?
All we can do is prove god does not exist, which indeed is provable.
Gandalf Grey
"Bhagwan Shree SODDI" <weenie_boi@pee_pants.com> wrote in message
news:afQcg.56326$iB2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
LOL.
>
>
Zapanaz
<Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>I include this to demonstrate the claims Barwell made at a very early stage
>of the thread.
why do all usenet arguments end this way?
Nothing you are saying changes what I have said. I have proved you
wrong. Sorry. Now you are just repeating the same things, over and
over, even though they don't negate what I've already said.
plonk
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Officer, I know I was going faster than 55MPH, but I wasn't going to
be on the road an hour.
-- Steven Wright