The Existence of God
Joseph Geloso
LEVEL ONE: Ideaspace; First division of Ideaspace into possibilities
and impossibilities.
Ideaspace is the set of all ideas, including both notions and concepts,
where notion means a loosely- or vaguely-defined idea, and concept
means a fully- or clearly-defined idea.
Ideaspace includes all that can possibly be talked about, since we only
ever talk about what we think about (unless we're speaking in tongues
or in the grip of some delerium or other).
Since Ideaspace contains both notions and concepts, and since notions
may possibly contain contradictions, and since reality can contain no
contradictions, it follows that Ideaspace may contain some ideas which
are impossibilities. An impossibility is a notion that contains a
contradiction. Apart from containing a contradiction, I do not find any
other condition that prevents possibility for an idea.
So the whole of Ideaspace may be divided into possibilities and
impossibilities.
I would ask that the reader fully agree with everything on level one
before proceeding to level two, and so on and so forth with subsequent
levels. I expect that I will find it far easier to answer objections if
this procedure is adhered to.
LEVEL TWO: Further division of possibilities into existents and
nonexistents.
Of possibilties, not all ever become realities. There is nothing
intrinsically impossible about a unicorn, for instance; nonetheless, I
do not expect that any specimens will turn up any time soon, because
they are most likely fictitious.
So of all possibilities, some are instantiated in reality, and these I
call existents, while others are not thus instantiated, and these I
call nonexistents.
In addition to those possibilities that happen to be nonexistent, there
is also the entire set of impossibilities which contains only
nonexistents. Since an impossibility cannot possibly exist, it follows
simply that none of them do exist.
LEVEL THREE: Further division of existents into contingent and
necessary, and further commentary on nonexistents.
Of the existents, some depend for their existence on certain
conditions, and these existents I call contingent. The conditions
themselves will always be particular configurations of other existents,
which in their turn may be contingent on other conditions. Since there
can be no infinite regress in the chain of contingencies, it stands to
reason that there must be at least one necessary existent: I.e., the
set of necessary existents is necessarily non-empty.
So the existents may be divided into contingent existents and necessary
existents.
Now to turn for a moment to the nonexistents, these also may be divided
into two groups, according to why they do not exist. Some nonexistents
do not exist because they cannot possibly exist, i.e. they are
impossibilities. Others do not exist because the requisite conditions
for their existence simply have not as yet come about (nor need they
ever necessarily come about). These possibilities whose conditions have
not come about obviously must fall into the class of contingents, along
with those contingents whose conditions have come about and which
exist.
The upshot is that all of ideaspace may now be divided into three
categories: impossibilities, contingents, and necessary existents. The
distinction between existent and nonexistent contingents is irrelevant
in this discussion.
LEVEL FOUR: God.
God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that God
necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He exists
necessarily. It is impossible that God should exist contingently, so
the only remaining possibilities are that He necessarily exists or that
He is impossible. Consequently, if God is not impossible, then God
exists.
QED.
Lion Of Judah
contingencies?
Also why define God as necessarily existent?
God doesn't have to be the creator of the universe to be God [the most
powerful or the most high] He just needs to be the unsurpassed wisdom and
knowledge [knowledge -- and particularly of the future -- is true power].
"Joseph Geloso" <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156528878.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Lion Of Judah
news:D5HHg.5505$y7....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> Pretty cool. But why can't there be an infinite regress in a chain of
> contingencies?
>
> Also why define God as necessarily existent?
>
> God doesn't have to be the creator of the universe to be God [the most
> powerful or the most high] He just needs to be the unsurpassed wisdom and
> knowledge [knowledge -- and particularly of the future -- is true power].
In other words, the unsurpassed wisdom and knowledge isn't necessarily
existent. It is contingent and a requirement for being God the most high.
bulkington63
So you have defined god as a necessary existent. Why? and since you
have now 'forced' this definition it only leads you to your mistaken
conclusion.
>This is not to assert that God
> necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He exists
> necessarily.
Why?
>It is impossible that God should exist contingently,
No it's not impossible. God's existance is contingent on people
claiming she exists.
>so
> the only remaining possibilities are that He necessarily exists or that
> He is impossible. Consequently, if God is not impossible, then God
> exists.
But unfortunetly for you, she doesn't exist.
>
> QED.
LOL
Lion Of Judah
news:1156530206.2...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Consider what Jesus taught regarding the kingdom of heaven before his coming
and that of John the baptist-- that it suffered violence and before now the
violent took it by force. Also consider the war that takes place in heaven
spoken by Revelation in which the Devil and his angels are cast out of
heaven for good.
Why was the Devil in heaven in the first place? Because he convinced many
people that he was God, and his "heaven" was supported by the beliefs of the
majority of people on earth, which is why he sought to kill everyone who
didn't believe that he was God.
Lion Of Judah
>> No it's not impossible. God's existance is contingent on people
>> claiming she exists.
>
> Consider what Jesus taught regarding the kingdom of heaven before his
> coming and that of John the baptist-- that it suffered violence and before
> now the violent took it by force. Also consider the war that takes place
> in heaven spoken by Revelation in which the Devil and his angels are cast
> out of heaven for good.
>
> Why was the Devil in heaven in the first place? Because he convinced many
> people that he was God, and his "heaven" was supported by the beliefs of
> the majority of people on earth, which is why he sought to kill everyone
> who didn't believe that he was God.
I should have clarified, Jesus was referring to the Old Testament acts of
the God YHVH and his prophets especially Moses. But obvioulsy he could not
just spell it out or no Jew would have ever followed him in his day.
Lion Of Judah
> "Lion Of Judah" <ever...@everywhere.net> wrote in message
> news:D5HHg.5505$y7....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> Pretty cool. But why can't there be an infinite regress in a chain of
>> contingencies?
>>
>> Also why define God as necessarily existent?
>>
>> God doesn't have to be the creator of the universe to be God [the most
>> powerful or the most high] He just needs to be the unsurpassed wisdom and
>> knowledge [knowledge -- and particularly of the future -- is true power].
>
> In other words, the unsurpassed wisdom and knowledge isn't necessarily
> existent. It is contingent
Some clarification. It is contingent on all other beings being inferior in
wisdom and knowledge.
Lion Of Judah
> "Lion Of Judah" <ever...@everywhere.net> wrote in message
> news:UlHHg.5513$y7....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>> No it's not impossible. God's existance is contingent on people
>>> claiming she exists.
>>
>> Consider what Jesus taught regarding the kingdom of heaven before his
>> coming and that of John the baptist-- that it suffered violence and
>> before now
Some more clarification regarding "before now" ...
www.gigabytesrus.com/sonofman/TheOldSerpentChained.pdf
Now the Devil's greatest scheme to be worshipped as God is laid bare.
Immortalist
Joseph Geloso wrote:
> Modal Existential Argument.
>
I think that you are on to the style I would call philosophical. You
really are starting, elabarating on and concluding an entire argument,
well done! Keep writing like this and you will be able to deal with
about anything.
This one part has a problem with compatibility and the contradictory
since exclusion is necessary in valid either or aruments;
> God necessarily exists
> OR
> He is impossible.
Description of False Dilemma
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following
pattern of "reasoning":
Either claim X is true or claim Y
is true (when X and Y could
both be false).
Claim Y is false.
Therefore claim X is true.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be
false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is
false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:
Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
It is not the case that 1+1=4.
Therefore 1+1=12.
In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options,
this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:
Bill is dead or he is alive.
Bill is not dead.
Therefore Bill is alive.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html
In this way when we deal with Either-Or disjunctive syllogisms,
negation by contradiction and non-compatability are necessary for
falsification.
http://www.google.com/search?q=disjunctive+syllogism
> God necessarily exists
> OR
> He is impossible.
Description of False Dilemma
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following
pattern of "reasoning":
Either claim X is true or claim Y
is true (when X and Y could
both be false).
Claim Y is false.
Therefore claim X is true.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be
false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is
false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:
Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
It is not the case that 1+1=4.
Therefore 1+1=12.
In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options,
this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:
Bill is dead or he is alive.
Bill is not dead.
Therefore Bill is alive.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html
In this way when we deal with Either-Or disjunctive syllogisms,
negation by contradiction and non-compatability are necessary for
falsification.
http://www.google.com/search?q=disjunctive+syllogism
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Joseph Geloso poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
...
> LEVEL FOUR: God.
>
> God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that God
> necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He exists
> necessarily. It is impossible that God should exist contingently, so
> the only remaining possibilities are that He necessarily exists or that
> He is impossible. Consequently, if God is not impossible, then God
> exists.
>
> QED.
Baloney. Modal Fallacy.
Possibility does not establish necessity.
Regards,
Josef
Man is, and always has been, a maker of gods. It has been the most
serious and significant occupation of his sojourn in the world.
-- John Burroughs
Lion Of Judah
Hey it was all done in the spirit of Ezekiel:7:23 so don't blame me.
Uncle Vic
(jose...@hotmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
> God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that God
> necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He exists
> necessarily. It is impossible that God should exist contingently, so
> the only remaining possibilities are that He necessarily exists or that
> He is impossible. Consequently, if God is not impossible, then God
> exists.
The problem with evil makes the Christian god impossible.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Member: Intensional misspellingg club.
Immortalist
Uncle Vic wrote:
> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Joseph Geloso
> (jose...@hotmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
> > God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that God
> > necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He exists
> > necessarily. It is impossible that God should exist contingently, so
> > the only remaining possibilities are that He necessarily exists or that
> > He is impossible. Consequently, if God is not impossible, then God
> > exists.
>
> The problem with evil makes the Christian god impossible.
>
If the bible is wrong in some places and the God exists, it seems to be
not impossible however unlikely it be, since the definition of it from
the bible could be mistaken.
droth
> Modal Existential Argument.
>
>
> LEVEL ONE: Ideaspace; First division of Ideaspace into possibilities
> and impossibilities.
>
> before proceeding to level two, and so on and so forth with subsequent
> levels. I expect that I will find it far easier to answer objections if
> this procedure is adhered to.
Sure.
> LEVEL TWO: Further division of possibilities into existents and
> nonexistents.
>
> Of possibilties, not all ever become realities. There is nothing
> intrinsically impossible about a unicorn, for instance; nonetheless, I
> do not expect that any specimens will turn up any time soon, because
> they are most likely fictitious.
>
> So of all possibilities, some are instantiated in reality, and these I
> call existents, while others are not thus instantiated, and these I
> call nonexistents.
>
> In addition to those possibilities that happen to be nonexistent, there
> is also the entire set of impossibilities which contains only
> nonexistents. Since an impossibility cannot possibly exist, it follows
> simply that none of them do exist.
You already dealt with impossibilities, and removed them from the this
category in stage 1. There was no point re-mentioning them.
> LEVEL THREE: Further division of existents into contingent and
> necessary, and further commentary on nonexistents.
>
> Of the existents, some depend for their existence on certain
> conditions, and these existents I call contingent. The conditions
> themselves will always be particular configurations of other existents,
> which in their turn may be contingent on other conditions. Since there
> can be no infinite regress in the chain of contingencies, it stands to
> reason that there must be at least one necessary existent: I.e., the
> set of necessary existents is necessarily non-empty.
You haven't shown a) that infinite regress is impossible. and hence: b)
that all existents do not fall into the contingent category. Nor do you
address the possibility of co-contingency. Nor co-necessity.
> So the existents may be divided into contingent existents and necessary
> existents.
Not accepted.
> Now to turn for a moment to the nonexistents, these also may be divided
> into two groups, according to why they do not exist. Some nonexistents
> do not exist because they cannot possibly exist, i.e. they are
> impossibilities. Others do not exist because the requisite conditions
> for their existence simply have not as yet come about (nor need they
> ever necessarily come about). These possibilities whose conditions have
> not come about obviously must fall into the class of contingents, along
> with those contingents whose conditions have come about and which
> exist.
Again, no point mentioning the impossibles.
> The upshot is that all of ideaspace may now be divided into three
> categories: impossibilities, contingents, and necessary existents. The
> distinction between existent and nonexistent contingents is irrelevant
> in this discussion.
The division into three is not proven.
> LEVEL FOUR: God.
>
> God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that God
> necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He exists
> necessarily. It is impossible that God should exist contingently, so
> the only remaining possibilities are that He necessarily exists or that
> He is impossible. Consequently, if God is not impossible, then God
> exists.
The weakest part of the whole argument. Special pleading, and a
circular argument.
Chris Johnson
Joseph Geloso wrote:
> Modal Existential Argument.
<snip>
> God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that God
> necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He exists
> necessarily.
Even if a god could be so proven, how does Christian theology derive
from this? How is the veracity of the Bible (if you believe it) proved
as a corollary? How does this in any way imply that Jesus is somehow
endorsed (setting aside familial relations) by this god?
<snip>
wcb
>
> In a message sent 'round the world, Joseph Geloso poured fuel on the
> fire with the following:
>
>
> ...
>
>
>> LEVEL FOUR: God.
>>
>> God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that God
>> necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He exists
>> necessarily. It is impossible that God should exist contingently, so
>> the only remaining possibilities are that He necessarily exists or that
>> He is impossible. Consequently, if God is not impossible, then God
>> exists.
>>
>> QED.
>
>
> Baloney. Modal Fallacy.
>
> Possibility does not establish necessity.
Charles Hartshorne's modal baloney.
Process theology nonsense.
If god is defined as necessary,
and if he does no exist, god is impossible.
But if you can show god is a contradictory idea,
then god does not exist.
Hartschorn's process theology god did not work with
physics despite 50 years work on the problem. The problem
of having a theology based on a metaphysical physics made of
from scratch that basically was nothing like real physics.
Hartshorne's Process Theology god is thus impossible
because you can't outguess nature. Ideas like
the world made up of earth, water wind and fire show
the futility of guessing what nature is. Whitehead's
metaphysical physics was also nonsense.
So Hartschorne's failed god that does not work with physics
is impossible and debunks his modal nonsense which is really
tautology in disguise.
If god exists he exists, if not he doesn't.
If god is defined as having necessary existence,
he will indeed have that but only if he exists.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
wcb
> Pretty cool. But why can't there be an infinite regress in a chain of
> contingencies?
>
> Also why define God as necessarily existent?
>
Necessary existent means if, you define god as
a first cause it must exist.
If there is a first cause it MUST exist to be first.
It cannot have not been.
Whether it is the biblical Yahweh or Hesiod's Theogony style
chaotic void that emanated Gaia, the Earth that brought
forth the Titan gods of Greek mythology matters not, both are
necessary in that if there is a start, something must be first.
Necessary being is theology jargon for first cause really.
Or it could be the fields that are the real cause of
virtual particals and the one that birthed our universe.
Gandalf Grey
"wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12eungl...@corp.supernews.com...
> Hartschorn's process theology god did not work with
> physics despite 50 years work on the problem.
In fact, Whitehead's Process Metaphysics works so well with physics that
more than a few physicists have embraced it as a valid model of the
universe.
You're a moron, Barwell. And you don't know a damned thing about Process
Philosophy.
Uncle Vic
(reanima...@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
> Uncle Vic wrote:
>> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Joseph Geloso
>> (jose...@hotmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>>
>> > God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that
>> > God necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He
>> > exists necessarily. It is impossible that God should exist
>> > contingently, so the only remaining possibilities are that He
>> > necessarily exists or that He is impossible. Consequently, if God
>> > is not impossible, then God exists.
>>
>> The problem with evil makes the Christian god impossible.
>>
>
> If the bible is wrong in some places and the God exists, it seems to
> be not impossible however unlikely it be, since the definition of it
> from the bible could be mistaken.
>
The inerrant bible is mistaken?
Lion Of Judah
> Lion Of Judah wrote:
>
>> Pretty cool. But why can't there be an infinite regress in a chain of
>> contingencies?
>>
>> Also why define God as necessarily existent?
>>
>
> Necessary existent means if, you define god as
> a first cause it must exist.
>
> If there is a first cause it MUST exist to be first.
> It cannot have not been.
> Whether it is the biblical Yahweh or Hesiod's Theogony style
> chaotic void that emanated Gaia, the Earth that brought
> forth the Titan gods of Greek mythology matters not, both are
> necessary in that if there is a start, something must be first.
>
> Necessary being is theology jargon for first cause really.
Yeah.
First cause need not imply most High though, and that is another
[contingent] attribute of the Biblical God.
Wordsmith
Uncle Vic wrote:
> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Joseph Geloso
> (jose...@hotmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
> > God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that God
> > necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He exists
> > necessarily. It is impossible that God should exist contingently, so
> > the only remaining possibilities are that He necessarily exists or that
> > He is impossible. Consequently, if God is not impossible, then God
> > exists.
>
> The problem with evil makes the Christian god impossible.
Why?
W
Uncle Vic
(word...@rocketmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
> Uncle Vic wrote:
>> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Joseph Geloso
>> (jose...@hotmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>>
>> > God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that
>> > God necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He
>> > exists necessarily. It is impossible that God should exist
>> > contingently, so the only remaining possibilities are that He
>> > necessarily exists or that He is impossible. Consequently, if God
>> > is not impossible, then God exists.
>>
>> The problem with evil makes the Christian god impossible.
>
> Why?
>
Omniscienced and omnibenevolence are mutually exclusive in the presence of
evil.
Immortalist
Uncle Vic wrote:
> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Immortalist
> (reanima...@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
> >
> > Uncle Vic wrote:
> >> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Joseph Geloso
> >> (jose...@hotmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
> >>
> >> > God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that
> >> > God necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He
> >> > exists necessarily. It is impossible that God should exist
> >> > contingently, so the only remaining possibilities are that He
> >> > necessarily exists or that He is impossible. Consequently, if God
> >> > is not impossible, then God exists.
> >>
> >> The problem with evil makes the Christian god impossible.
> >>
> >
> > If the bible is wrong in some places and the God exists, it seems to
> > be not impossible however unlikely it be, since the definition of it
> > from the bible could be mistaken.
> >
>
> The inerrant bible is mistaken?
>
Could be mistaken since humans could have mis-interpreted the Gods
meaning if it exists or there was a copy error since it was reproduced
many times by hand, before the printing press was discovered in the
16th century and some error would eventually be incorperated like in
natural selection because it worked better?.
http://www.sbea.mtu.edu/users/slstonge/mistakes.html
http://personal.bgsu.edu/~roberth/bible.html
http://www.doesgodexist.org/JulAug98/WhatAboutAllThoseMistakesInTheBible.html
http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/theology/05text.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bible.html
wcb
>
> In fact, Whitehead's Process Metaphysics works so well with physics that
> more than a few physicists have embraced it as a valid model of the
> universe.
>
Name a big, famous, well respected physicist that does.
Liar.
I challenged this lie before and as usual you ran from my challenge.
And this was not about process physics but about god.
A man who can't make his god work is no expert on anything.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2829
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics
by David Ray Griffin
David Ray Griffin teaches philosophy of religion at the School of Theology
at Claremont and is executive director of the Center for Process Studies.
The following article appeared in Process Studies, pp. 85-112, Vol. 21,
Number 2, Summer, 1992. Process Studies is published quarterly by the
Center for Process Studies, 1325 N. College Ave., Claremont, CA 91711. Used
by permission. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and
Winnie Brock.
1. Introduction
Charles Hartshorne rests the case for his philosophy on its coherence and
its adequacy to the facts of experience, including the well-established
teachings of the physical sciences. And yet he has admitted over the years,
and continues to admit in the Library of Living Philosophers volume (PCH),
that there is one issue on which he has not reconciled his philosophy with
physical theory. One of the problems raised in the essay by William Reese
is, Hartshorne says, "a problem, even the problem, for me: how God as
prehending, caring for, sensitive to, the creatures is to be conceived,
given the current non-Newtonian idea of physical relativity, according to
which there is apparently no unique cosmic present or unambiguous
simultaneity" (PCH 616). In responding to Lewis Ford, Hartshorne says: "I
also agree that relating the divine becoming to the problem of simultaneity
in physics exceeds my capacity. . . . I feel incapable of solving the
problem, and it seems clear that Whitehead did not solve it" (PCH 642; see
also 724).
The failure to find a solution has not been for want of trying. As Frederick
Post helpfully documented in 1973 in "Relativity Theory and Hartshorne?s
Dipolar Theism," Hartshorne has been perplexed by this difficulty from the
earliest period of his writing (TPP 89). And several other writers have
joined the effort: John T. Wilcox stimulated much of the discussion with "A
Question from Physics for Certain Theists" (JR 40) in 1961; Lewis Ford
asked "Is Process Theism Compatible with Relativity Theory?" (JR 48) in
1968; Paul Fitzgerald published "Relativity Physics and the God of Process
Philosophy" (PS 2) in 1972;....
Free Lunch
Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com> wrote in
<Xns982A8B8C...@216.196.97.136>:
>Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Immortalist
>(reanima...@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
>>
>> Uncle Vic wrote:
>>> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Joseph Geloso
>>> (jose...@hotmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>>>
>>> > God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that
>>> > God necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He
>>> > exists necessarily. It is impossible that God should exist
>>> > contingently, so the only remaining possibilities are that He
>>> > necessarily exists or that He is impossible. Consequently, if God
>>> > is not impossible, then God exists.
>>>
>>> The problem with evil makes the Christian god impossible.
>>>
>>
>> If the bible is wrong in some places and the God exists, it seems to
>> be not impossible however unlikely it be, since the definition of it
>> from the bible could be mistaken.
>>
>
>The inerrant bible is mistaken?
What evidence is there that the Bible is inerrant? As far as I am aware,
that is merely a doctrine of a minority of Christians.
wcb
> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Immortalist
> (reanima...@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
>>
>> Uncle Vic wrote:
>>> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Joseph Geloso
>>> (jose...@hotmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>>>
>>> > God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that
>>> > God necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He
>>> > exists necessarily. It is impossible that God should exist
>>> > contingently, so the only remaining possibilities are that He
>>> > necessarily exists or that He is impossible. Consequently, if God
>>> > is not impossible, then God exists.
>>>
>>> The problem with evil makes the Christian god impossible.
>>>
>>
>> If the bible is wrong in some places and the God exists, it seems to
>> be not impossible however unlikely it be, since the definition of it
>> from the bible could be mistaken.
>>
>
> The inerrant bible is mistaken?
>
God is good, many verses. God is perfect,
for example Matthew 5:48
God is omniscient, any number of verses.
There is no mistake.
Matthew 5:48 was a real workhorse of theology.
If god is perfect, he has all perfections.
if he is good, he must be perfectly good and so on.
OMNISCIENCE PROOF TEXTS
OLD TESTMENT
Jeremiah. 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew
thee.
Is. 41:23
Show the things that are to come hereafter, that
we may know that ye are gods"
Isaiah 46:10
9 Remember the former things of old: for I am
God, and there is none else; I am God, and there
is none like me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from
ancient times the things that are not yet done,
saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do
all my pleasure:
Ezekiel 11:5
And the Spirit of the LORD fell upon me,
and said unto me, Speak; Thus saith the LORD;
Thus have ye said, O house of Israel: for I know
the things that come into your mind, every one of them.
Job 21:22
22 Shall any teach God knowledge? Seeing he judgeth those
that are high.
Job 36:4
3 I will fetch my knowledge from afar, and will
ascribe righteousness to my Maker.
4 For truly my words shall not be false: he that
is perfect in knowledge is with thee.
Proverbs 15:3
The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping
watch on the evil and the good(Proverbs 15:3).
Psalm 139
1 LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me .
2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising,
thou understandest my thought afar off.
3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and
art acquainted with all my ways.
4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but,
lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
5 Thou hast beset me behind and before,
and laid thine hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit?
or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there:
if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there .
9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell
in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10 Even there shall thy hand lead me,
and thy right hand shall hold me.
11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me;
even the night shall be light about me.
12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but
the night shineth as the day: the darkness and
the light are both alike to thee.
Psalms 147:5
3 He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth
up their wounds.
4 He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth
them all by their names.
5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding
is infinite.
NEW TESTMENT
John 21:17
Lord, thou knowest all things?
1 John 3:20
God is greater than our heart, and
knoweth all things.
Acts 15:18
Known unto God are all his works from the
beginning of the world.
Romans 2:16
In the day when God shall judge the secrets
of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Romans 11:33
33 O the depth of the riches both of the
wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his
judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord?
or who hath been his counseller?
Hebrews 4:13
13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest
in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto
the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
1 Peter 1:2
2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God
the Father,...
END
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> In fact, Whitehead's Process Metaphysics works so well with physics that
>> more than a few physicists have embraced it as a valid model of the
>> universe.
>>
>
> Name a big, famous, well respected physicist that does.
David Bohm, John Gribbon, Richard Feynman.
But not just physicists, scientists from many disciplines.
Each one of the scientists below presents process philosophy as the core of
science.
Athearn, Daniel. Fruits of Time; Nature and the Unfolding of Difference.
Universal Publishers, 2003.
_____. Scientific Nihilism: On the Loss and Recovery of Physical
Explanation. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994.
Beauchamp, Tom L. "Cosmic Epochs and the Scope of Scientific Laws."
Process Studies 2, no.4 (Winter 1972): 296-300. [abstract]
Birch, L. Charles. "The Authority of Science." Crux (Feb.-March 1963):
5-8.
_____. "A New Dialogue Between Science and Philosophy." (unpubl.)
_____. "Process Thought: What Does it Mean to Me?" (unpubl.)
_____. "Science and Ethics." Search 9:10 (October 1978): 365-70.
_____. "Social Responsibility in Science." Australian Science Teacher's
Journal 18 (1972): 19-25.
Birro, Cela. The Ways of Enjoyment: A Dialogue Concerning Social Science.
NY: Exposition Pr, 1957. [abstract]
Bohm, D. and B. J. Hiley. The Undivided Universe: An Ontological
Interpretation of Quantum
Theory. London and New York: Routledge, 1993.
Bohm, David and F. David Peat. Science, Order, and Creativity. New York:
Bantam Books, 1987.
Bobo, James J. "Perception, Living Matter, Cognitive Systems, Immune
Networks: A Whiteheadian Future for Science Studies." (unpublished)
Braithwaite, R. B. "Review: A. N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern
World." Mind 35 (1926).
Briggs, John and F. David Peat. Looking Glass Universe: The Emerging
Science of Wholeness. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc, Cornerstone Library,
1984.
Bright, L. Whitehead's Philosophy of Physics. London, Newman Philosophy of
Science Series, 3, Sheed and Ward, 1958.
Budenholzer, Frank E. "Emergence, Probability, and Reductionism." Zygon:
Journal of Religion & Science 39, no. 2 (June 2004): 339-356.
Burgers, J. M. Experience and Conceptual Activity. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 1965.
Capek, Milic. The New Aspects of Time; Its Continuity and Novelties.
Selected Papers in the Philosophy of Science. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1991.
_____. "Note about Whitehead's Definitions of Co-presence." Philosophy of
Science 24 (1957): 79-86. [abstract]
Carrier, Martin. "Emergence and the Final Theory, or: How to Make Scientific
Progress Sustainable." Revista de Filosofia 28, 1 (2003): 7-31.
Cesselin, F. "Le Dernier Livre de Whitehead: Essai sur la Science et la
Philosophie." Revue de Metaphysique et de Morale 53 (1948): 81-84.
Chew, Geoffrey F. "An historical reality that includes Big Bang, free will
and elementary particles." In Science and the Spiritual Quest; New essays
by leading scientists. ed. Richardson, W. Mark, Robert John Russell,
Philip Clayton, and Kirk Wegter-McNelly. New York, NY: Routledge, 2002.
158-164.
Clayton, Philip. "Disciplining Relativism and Truth." Zygon, 24, 3 (1989):
315-34.
_____. "Inference to the Best Explanation." Zygon, 32, 3 (1997): 377-91.
_____. "Introduction to Process Thought." In Physics and Whitehead:
Quantum, Process, and Experience. Timothy E. Eastman and Frank Keeton, eds.
SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought, ed. David Ray Griffin.
(Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2004): 3-13.
_____. "The Ontology of 'Intelligent Species.' " Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 13, 1 (1990): 75-76.
. "Philosophy of Science: What One Needs to Know." Zygon, 32, 1
(1997): 99-108.
_____. "Philosophy of Science and the German Idealists." History of
Philosophy Quarterly, 14 (1997): 287-304.
Cobb, John B., Jr. "Overcoming Reductionism." Existence and Actuality,
eds., John B. Cobb, Jr. and Franklin I. Gamwell (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1984), 149-64.
Come, Arnold B. ?he Possibilities of a Scientific Ethic._ The
Possibilities of a Scientific Ethic 22, no. 3: (265-294)
[abstract]
Eastman, Timothy E. "Duality without Dualism." In Physics and Whitehead:
Quantum, Process, and Experience. Timothy E. Eastman and Frank Keeton, eds.
SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought, ed. David Ray Griffin.
(Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2004): 14-30.
_____. "The Observational-Inductive Framework for Science." 1st Crisis in
Cosmology Conference American Institute of Physics, 2005.
_____. "Review of David R. Griffin, ed., The Reenchantment of Science."
Process Studies 18, no.1 (Spring 1989): 69-75.
_____, and Hank Keeton, eds. Physics and Whitehead: Quantum, Process, and
Experience. SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought, ed. David Ray
Griffin. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2004.
_____, et. al. "Resource Guide for Physics and Whitehead."
http://www.ctr4process.org/publications/PSS/eastman.pdf
Emmet, Dorothy. The Effectiveness of Causes. Albany: State University of
New York Press, 1985.
Epperson, Michael. "Review: Subquantum Kinetics: A Systems Approach to
Physics and Cosmology, by Paul La Violette." In Process Studies 33, no.2
(Fall-Winter 2004): 360-362.
Felt, James W. "Whitehead's Early Theory of Scientific Objects." Ph.D.
Dissertation. St. Louis University, 1965.
_____. "Review: Physics and Whitehead: Quantum, Process, Experience, ed.
by Timothy E. Eastman and Hank Keeton." In Process Studies 33, no.2
(Fall-Winter 2004): 349-352.
Ford, Lewis. "Can Science Provide the Foundations for a Metaphysics?"
Greenman, M. A. "A Whiteheadian Theory of Meaning." Philosophy of Science
20, no.1 (1953): 31-41.
Griffin, David Ray, ed. The Reenchantment of Science: Postmodern
Proposals. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988.
_____. "The Restless Universe: A Postmodern Vision." The Restless
Universe, ed., Kieth J. Carlson. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990, pp.
59-111. ["Response from David Griffin," pp. 198-201]
Grunbaum, Aldolf. "Whitehead's Method of Extensive Abstraction." British
Journal for the Philosophy of Science 4 (Nov. 1953): 215-226. [abstract]
_____. "Whitehead's Philosophy of Science." The Philosophical Review 71
(Apr. 1962): 218-229. [abstract]
Gunter, Pete A. Y. "Whitehead and the Sciences." Interchange 29, no.1
(1998): 101-104.
_____. "The Necessity of Intuition: And Its Misunderstandings." Southwest
Philosophy Review 3 (1986): 199-207. [abstract]
Hall, David L. The Civilization of Experience: A Whiteheadian Theory of
Culture. New York: Fordham University Press, 1973.
Hattich, Frank. "Review of Quantum Mechanics and the Philosophy of Alfred
North Whitehead, edited by Michael Epperson." Studies in History and
Philosophy of Modern Physics 36B, no. 3 (September 2005): 590.
Helal, Georges. La Philosophie Comme Panphysique: La Philosophie des
Sciences de Alfred North Whitehead. Montreal: Les Editions Bellarmin,
1979.
Jacobson, Nolan P. "The Cultural Meaning of Science." (unpubl.) [abstract]
Jensen, Louis K. "David Bohm: A Process-Relational Interpretation of
Quantum Physics." CPS Seminar. May 1, 2001.
Jungerman, John A. "Evidence for Process in the Physical World." In
Physics and Whitehead: Quantum, Process, and Experience. Timothy E. Eastman
and Frank Keeton, eds. SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought, ed.
David Ray Griffin. (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2004): 57-56.
Keeton, Hank. "Whitehead as Mathematical Physicist." In Physics and
Whitehead: Quantum, Process, and Experience. Timothy E. Eastman and Frank
Keeton, eds. SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought, ed. David Ray
Griffin. (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2004): 31-46.
Kockelmans, Joseph J. "A. N. Whitehead." In Philosophy of Science: The
Historical Background. New York: Free Press, 1968, pp. 410-424. [Contains
an excerpt from Whitehead's Problems in Science and Philosophy, pp. 44-57.]
Koestler, Arthur. "Free Will in a Hierarchic Context." (unpubl., Process
Thought and Modern Science Conference, June 1974.) [abstract]
Laszlo, Ervin. "Bipolar Co-Evolution: Outline of A Metaphysics of
Universal Coherence." (unpubl.)
Latour, Bruno. "Do Scientific Objects Have a History?" ??? ( ): 76-91.
Latour, Bruno. "When Things Strike Back: A Possible Contribution of
"Science Studies" to the Social Sciences." British Journal of Sociology 51,
no. 1 (January/March 2000): 107-123.
Leclerc, Ivor. "Some Main Philosophical Issues Involved in Contemporary
Scientific Thought." In Mind In Nature eds. Cobb, John & David Griffin
(Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1977): 101-108. [abstract]
Lowe, Victor. "Whitehead's Philosophy of Science." In Understanding
Whitehead (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1966), 59-89.
Lowe, Victor, et al. Whitehead and the Modern World: Science, Metaphysics,
and Civilization. New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1972. [B 1674 W354
L69]
Lucas, George R., Jr. "Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Nature." In
The Rehabilitation of Whitehead (Albany: State University of New York
Press, 1989), 180-204.
McEwen, William P. The Problem of Social-Scientific Knowledge. Totowa, Nj:
Bedminister Pr, 1963. [abstract]
McHenry, Leemon. "Whitehead, Quantum Mechanics, and Local Realism."
(unpubl.) February 2002.
McMullin, Ernan. "Whitehead's Philosophy of Science." Philosophical Studies
12: 216-220. [abstract]
Maxwell, Thomas P. "Integral Spirituality, Deep Science, and Ecological
Awareness." Zygon 38, no.2 (June 2003): 257-276.
Mays, Wolfe. Whitehead's Philosophy of Science and Metaphysics. The Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff, 1977.
Meyer, Steven. "Of an Analogy: Hypertext and Stem Cells, Interstitial
Links, Prehensions,
Tender Buttons." (unpubl.)
Muray, Leslie A. "Romanticism, Radical Empiricism, and Science: The
Mystical Naturalism of Bernard E. Meland." (unpubl.)
Nagami, Isamu. "Centering on Whitehead's Cosmology." Life and the
Universe: Scientific and Religious Viewpoints. Tokyo: Yoko Civilization
Research Institute (August 1999):49-65.
Northrop, F. S. C. Science and First Principles. New York: Macmillan,
1931.
_____. "Whitehead's Philosophy of Science." The Philosophy of Alfred
North Whitehead, ed., Paul A. Schilpp. New York: Tudor, 1951 [1941], pp.
167-207.
Owen, W. A. "Whitehead's Philosophy of Science and the Concept of
Substance." Ph.D. Dissertation. Georgetown Univ., 1964.
Palter, R. "Philosophic Principles and Scientific Theory." Philosophy of
Science 23 (1956): 111-135.
Palter, Robert W.. "Whitehead and the Philosophy of Science."
International Studies in Philosophy 12 (Spring 1980): 81-6. [abstract]
_____. Whitehead's Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1960. [abstract]
Peat, F. David. Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm.
[with a new afterword by the auther] Reading: Helix Book, 1996.
Pierobon, Frank. Review of Penser avec Whitehead, une libre et sauvage
creation de concepts by Isabelle Stengers. Revue internationale de
philosophie 57, no. 223 (March 2003): 79-112.
Plamondon, Ann. "Metaphysics and 'Valid Inductions.'" Process Studies 3, no.
2 (Summer 1973): 91-99. [abstract]
_____. Whitehead's Organic Philosophy of Science. Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1979.
____. "Whitehead and the Philosophy of Science." In Mind in Nature, ed.
John B. Cobb Jr. and David Griffin (Washington, D.C.: University of America
Press, 1977): 109-21 [abstract]
Prigogine, Ilya with Isabelle Stengers. The End of Certainty: Time, Chaos,
and the New Laws of Nature. New York, NY: The Free Press, 1996.
Reeck, Darrell. "Historical Sociology and Process Philosophy." (Unpubl.)
[abstract]
Sachs, Mendel. "The Principle of Relativity." International Journal for
Field-Being 1, no.11 (December 2001), 15 July 2003 <
http://www.iifb.org/ijfb >.
Schoen, Edward L. "Clocks, God, and Scientific Realism." Zygon 37:3
(September 2002): 555-580.
Schmidt, P. F. "Perception, Science, and Metaphysics: A Study in
Whitehead." Ph.D. Dis., Yale University, 1951.
Schmidt, Paul F. "Models of Scientific Thought." American Scientist, 45,
137-149, 1957. [abstract]
Shields, George. "Big Bang, Cantorian Sets, and the Finitude of the Past."
(unpubl.).
Smuts, Jan. "The Holistic Universe." Process Philosophy: Basic Writings.
Eds., Jack R. Sibley and Pete A. Y. Gunter. Washington, DC: University
Press of America. 1978, pp. 219-45.
Stapp, Henry P. "Future Achievements to be Gained Through Science."
(unpubl., 1991).
Stebbing, L. Susan. "Abstraction and Science." Journal of Philosophical
Studies 2 (1927): 28-38.
Stein, Ross L. "Towards a Process Philosophy of Chemistry." International
Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry 10, no. 1 (2004): 5-22.
Stengers, Isabelle. "How to Understand Deleuze and Guattari's Last Message,
Honouring the Divergence Between Functions and Concepts?" (unpubl.)
Stengers, Isabelle. "Liberer la philosophie du serieux de toute histoire
fleche." Magazine Litteraire 406 (February 2002): 28.
Stengers, Isabelle. "Whitehead and the Laws of Nature." Salzburger
Theologische Zeitschrift 3, no.2 (1999): 193-206.
Tekippe, Terry J. "Whitehead." In Scientific and Primordial Knowing, by
Terry J. Tekippe (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1996):
345-92.
Thorpe, W. H. "Science and Man's Need for Meaning." The World & I (January
1986): 203-9.
Trundle, Robert C. "Quantum Fluctuation, Self-Organizing Biological
Systems, and Human Freedom." Idealistic Studies 24, no. 3 (Fall 1994):
269-81. [abstract]
Turner, J. E. "Dr. A. N. Whitehead's Scientific Realism." Journal of
Philosophy 19 (1922): 146-57.
Waddington, C.H. "Whitehead and Modern Science." In Mind in Nature, ed.
John Cobb and
David Griffin. (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1977),
143-46.
[abstract]
Weiss, Paul. "Recollections of Alfred North Whitehead (Interviewed by
Lewis S. Ford)." Process Studies 10, no. 1-2 (Spring-Summer 1980): 44-56.
[abstract]
Whitehead, A. N. Essays in Science and Philosophy. New York:
Philosophical Library, 1947.
_____. The Interpretation of Science: Selected Essays, ed. A. H. Johnson.
Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1961.
_____. A Philosopher Looks at Science. New York: Philosophical Library,
1965.
_____. Science and the Modern World. New York: The Free Press, 1967
[1925].
Wolf, Fred A. "Consciousness, Quantum Mechanics, and the Role of the
Observer." [Unpbub.] Conference papers presented on April 3, 1976.
Wyman, M. A. "Whitehead's Philosophy of Science in the Light of Wordsworth's
Poetry." Philosophy of Science 23 (1956): 283-296.
> I challenged this lie before and as usual you ran from my challenge.
You're a liar, Barwell and you don't know a damned thing about process
philosophy.
Gandalf Grey
> OMNISCIENCE PROOF TEXTS
There are no omniscience proof texts.
Bill M
"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156549497.6...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Uncle Vic wrote:
>> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Immortalist
>> (reanima...@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>>
>> >
>> > Uncle Vic wrote:
>> >> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Joseph Geloso
>> >> (jose...@hotmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>> The inerrant bible is mistaken?
>>
>
> Could be mistaken since humans could have mis-interpreted the Gods
> meaning if it exists or there was a copy error since it was reproduced
> many times by hand, before the printing press was discovered in the
> 16th century and some error would eventually be incorperated like in
> natural selection because it worked better?.
>
Then the Bible isn't very trust worthy!
>
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <1156528878.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
>Modal Existential Argument.
>
>
:
I'll summarise:
God must exist because Joseph says so, and offers no proof whatsoever,
merely philoso-drivel.
Go away and do something useful for the world, such as cure yourself
of the parasite that lives in your head.
Bill M
>
>> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Immortalist
>> (reanima...@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>> The inerrant bible is mistaken?
Basing your religious beliefs on the Bibles is basing it on pure nonsense.
The foundations of all Christian religions are the Bibles and Jesus Christ.
The Bibles are the literature of pure 'faith', not of scientific
observation, evidence or historical fact or demonstration.
The Bibles are a foundation of quicksand. There are NO ORIGINALS in
existence. Why would not any 'real' God protect the originals??? What are
available are altered copies of copies by unknown men of questionable
veracity. The books of the Bibles were written more than 1,000 years before
the invention of the printing press. Even the so called originals were
supposedly written by 66 or more different authors of unknown veracity. They
are biased by, and dependent on the writings and opinions of the clergy. And
the status and survival of the clergy is totally dependent on their
followers belief in their Bible stories.
There is NO - NADA _evidence the Bibles are the word of any Gods. They are
no more than the words of hundreds of errant religious leaders motivated to
impress and control their flock.
It is believed that the foundation of the Christian religion, civilization
and morality is the Good Book. This is patently ridiculous because the
Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions, human
and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction,
barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and
certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally
untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction.
The Bibles quite obviously contain mostly myths, fables, legends.
contradictions and totally impossible tales. NONE of the Bibles were written
during Jesus' 'CLAIMED LIFE TIME'. Time and distance was required to allow
the creation of fictional stories and the embellishment of history.
There is also the matter of the Biblical canon itself. After all, ancient
Israel and the early church knew of many more religious books than the ones
that now constitute the Bible. For example, there were 50 gospels in
circulation at the time the New Testaments were chosen by church leaders,
yet only four
made it into the New Testament. Who decided which of the books would
become part of the Christian scriptures, and again, "Why?" Who decided,
"This book belongs... this book doesn't..."? What were their reasons?
What were their motives? How do we know if ANY of them were authentic?
In addition there is evidence that the Bibles were altered by church leaders
to support their personal motives and ambitions..
The fact is, there are no clear records available which document the
church's process of determining which books were acceptable and which books
were unacceptable and why. The general consensus of opinion among scholars
is that the decision was based on whether or not the book agreed with the
prevailing theological thought and motives at the time. In other words, the
only books accepted were the ones that agreed with the opinions, desires and
motives of the church leadership at the time
It is interesting to note that NONE of the Bibles were written during Jesus'
claimed life time. It seems time needed to pass to permit the creation of
tales and the embellishment of history.
According to Bart Ehrman, professor and Chair of the Dept. of Religious
Studies at the University of North Carolina, The Bible is not the error-free
word of any god. There are some 5,700 ancient Greek manuscripts that are the
basis of the modern versions of the New Testament, and scholars have
uncovered more thousands of differences in those texts.
The last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark appear to have been added to the
text years later -- and these are the only verses in that book that mention
Christ reappearing after his death.
Another critical passage is in 1 John, which explicitly sets out the Holy
Trinity (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). It is a cornerstone of
Christian theology, and this is the only place where it is spelled out in
the entire Bible -- and it appears to have been added to the text centuries
later, by an unknown scribe.
For a man who originally believed the Bible was the inspired Word of God,
Ehrman sought the true originals to shore up his faith. The problem: he
found there are NO original manuscripts of ANY of the Bibles - Old or New
Testaments!
If the history of the resurrection of Christ had not really happened, the
message . . . according to the authority of the apostle Paul, had to be
'null and void'. Ehrman slowly came to a horrifying realization: There was
no real historical record. It was, he felt, no more than myths and fables,
told by illiterate men and not set down in writing for decades that
followed.
There is no solid agreement even within the Christian community on the
interpretation of the Bibles. There are 18 English versions alone. There are
thousands of variations and opinions as to the meaning of various Biblical
statements.
If Jesus was God, why did he not leave behind his recorded record of his
rules and commands? Why are there NO Biblical documents written during his
'claimed' time on earth? The Old Testaments were written 'before his birth'.
The New Testaments were written '60 and more years after his death' by men
that could never have known Jesus personally. NONE were written during his
'claimed' life time.
There is NO objective verifiable evidence as to their authenticity and
veracity. The Bibles contain both historical and scientific errors. They
contain manifest absurdities, unfulfilled prophesies, immoralities,
indecencies, obscenities, atrocities, barbarities, myths, folklore and
legends. They are nothing more than hearsay, myths, contradictions and
implausible tales.
Here is just a small sampling of implausible Bible stories.
The story of creation
A totally illogical Biblical story is the story of creation. It is obviously
pure fiction.
Genesis says that God created first the earth, then the Sun and Moon.
We know from astronomical data that our Sun and Moon is much older than the
earth. And all of these are older by eons than man. Only uneducated
egocentric humans could have written such nonsense.
Biblically, God created the world about six thousand years ago. 'Scientific
Evidence' indicates the Universe, as we now know it, began more than 13
BILLION years ago or more.
In the Bible, the Universe is a firmament and the Earth is a fixed (not to
mention flat) Planet and the Son, Moon and other planets revolve around the
earth. This was believed until modern scientific inquiry showed this was
totally false. We now KNOW the Earth revolves around the Son and the
Universe is over 20 BILLION light years in diameter and is made up of
trillions of Stars and Planets of which our planetary system is a very
miniscule and inconsequential part. There was no concept of a 'Universe' in
Biblical times.
Everything beyond our immediate Son and planets was considered Heaven.
In the Bible the earth is created in the first day, before the Son, Moon and
Stars. Objective scientific evidence is that the Earth did not form until
approximately 10 BILLION YEARS after the beginning of the present Universe
and after the formation of the Son, and many other stars.
The Creation of the World
Genesis
In the beginning of creation, when God made heaven and earth, the earth was
without form and void, with darkness over the face of the abyss, and a
mighty wind that swept over the surface of the waters. God said, Let there
be light, and there was light; and God saw that the light was good, and he
separated light from darkness. He called the light day, and the darkness
night. So evening came, and morning came, the first day. God created light
before he created the Sun and the Moon!
Astronomical evidence shows the Son existed long before the Earth; therefore
the earth was not created before the Son. It is equally obvious that the
writers of that time thought the World was the center the firmament and that
they had no conception of the size and nature of the Universe. Everything
beyond the Sun and Moon was considered to be gods Heaven
God said, Let there be a vault between the waters, to separate water from
water. So God made the vault, and separated the water under the vault from
the water above it, and so it was; and God called the vault heaven. Evening
came, and morning came, a second day.
God said; Let the waters under heaven be gathered into one place, so that
dry land may appear; and so it was. God called the dry land earth, and the
gathering of the waters he called seas; and God saw that it was good. Then
God said, Let the earth produce fresh growth, let there be on the earth
plants bearing seed, fruit-trees bearing fruit each with seed according to
its kind. So it was; the earth yielded fresh growth, plants bearing seed
according to their kind and trees bearing fruit each with seed according to
its king; and God saw that it was good. Evening came, and morning came, a
third day.
And this good and loving God created animals that eat other animals (and
man) and poisonous plants and snakes that kill!
God said, Let there be lights in the vault of heaven to separate day from
night, and let them serve as signs both for festivals and for seasons and
years. Let them also shine in the vault of heaven to give light on earth. So
it was; God made the two great lights, the greater to govern the day and the
lesser to govern the night; and with them he made the stars. God put these
lights in the vault of heaven to give light on earth, to govern day and
night, and to separate light from darkness; and God saw that it was good.
Evening came, and morning came, a fourth day.
Ancient man erroneously thought the stars beyond the Sun and Moon to be
Heaven. The Moon was NOT considered a reflection from the light of the Sun
but a lesser light.
God, said, Let the waters teem with countless living creatures, and let
birds fly above the earth across the vault of heaven. God then created the
great sea-monsters and all living creatures that move and swarm in the
waters, according to their kind, and every kind of bird; and God saw that it
was good. So he blessed them and said, be fruitful and increase, fill the
waters of the seas; and let the birds increase on land. Evening came, and
morning came, a fifth day.
And this all loving God created creatures of that kill and eat other
creatures including man.
Archaeological evidence shows that animals evolved from primitive cells over
a period of about four billion years - not in one day!
God said, let the earth bring forth living creatures, according to their
kind: cattle, reptiles, and wild animals, all according to their kind. So it
was; God made wild animals, cattle, and all reptiles, each according to its
kind; and he saw that it was good. Then God said, Let us make man it our
image and likeness to rule the fish in the sea , the birds of heaven, the
cattle, all wild animals on earth, and all reptiles that crawl upon the
earth. So God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created
him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, be
fruitful and increase, fill the earth and subdue it, rule over the fish in
the sea, the birds of heaven, and every living thing that moves upon the
earth. God also said, I give you all plants that bear seed everywhere on
earth, and every tree bearing fruit which yields seed: they shall be yours
for food. All green plants I give for food to the wild animals, to all the
birds of heaven, and to all reptiles on earth, every living creature. So it
was; and God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. Evening came,
and morning came, a sixth day.
And God created animals that need to kill and eat other animals including
man in order to survive. This is a loving and caring God?
Thus heaven and earth were completed with all their mighty throng. On the
sixth day God completed all the work he had been doing, and on the seventh
day he ceased from all his work. God blessed the seventh day and made it
holy, because on that day he ceased from all the work he had set himself to
do and rested.
Why would a God that is not physical but spiritual, get tired and need rest?
If this creator is such a loving and caring guy, why does he permit totally
innocent children to die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a
fully developed brain, deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.?
Why are some born idiots and others with super intelligence?
Why does this loving and caring god create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes,
Volcanic Eruptions, Wars, cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases and
serious body malfunctions that effect people indiscriminately regardless of
their conduct or religious beliefs? Why does he permit millions of both
young and old to starve to death?
These afflict humans indiscriminately - young and old, atheists and members
of all religious beliefs.
Why did he design humans to suffer the decrepitude and malignancies of old
age? Even those that devote their lives to religious leadership suffer these
punishments of old age.
Why did this caring benevolent god create animals that need to eat other
animals to survive?
If there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an
all-caring and benevolent god. The objective evidence is that, if there is a
god creator, he has no concern about the welfare of the creatures on Earth.
Adam and Eve
In the Bible, there are two different accounts of Adam and Eve's creation.
According to the Priestly (P) history of the 5th or 6th century BC (Genesis
1:1-2:4), God on the sixth day of Creation created all the living creatures
and, "in his own image," man both "male and female." God then blessed the
couple, told them to be "fruitful and multiply," and gave them dominion over
all other living things.
According to the lengthier Yahwist (J) narrative of the 10th century BC
(Genesis 2:5-7, 2:15-4:1, 4:25), God, or Yahweh, created Adam at a time when
the earth was still void, forming him from the earth's dust and breathing
"into his nostrils the breath of life." God then gave Adam the primeval
Garden of Eden to tend but, on penalty of death, commanded him not to eat of
the fruit of the "tree of knowledge of good and evil." Subsequently, so that
Adam would not be alone, God created other animals but, finding these
insufficient, put Adam to sleep, took from him a rib, and created a new
companion, Eve. The two were persons of innocence until Eve yielded to the
temptations of the evil serpent and Adam joined her in eating the forbidden
fruit, whereupon they both recognized their nakedness and donned fig leaves
as garments. Immediately, God recognized their transgression and proclaimed
their punishments-for the woman, pain in childbirth and subordination to
man, and, for the man, relegation to an accursed ground with which he must
toil and sweat for his subsistence. Adam died at the age of 930!
In later Christian theology, the concept of original sin (q.v.) took hold-a
sin in which human kind has been held captive since the fall of Adam and
Eve. The doctrine was based on Pauline Scripture but has not been accepted
by a number of Christian sects and interpreters. Why should BILLIONS of
innocent people be punished over thousands of years for this original sin
that they had no part in?
This is both sadistic and ridiculous!
Jonah
As the story is related in the Book of Jonah, the prophet Jonah is called by
God to go to Nineveh (a great Assyrian city) and prophesy disaster because
of the city's wickedness. Jonah, in the story, feels about Nineveh as does
the author of the Book of Nahum-that the city must inevitably be destroyed
because of God's judgment against it. Thus Jonah does not want to prophesy,
because Nineveh might repent and thereby be saved. So he rushes down to
Joppa and takes passage in a ship that will carry him in the opposite
direction, thinking to escape God.
A storm of unprecedented severity strikes the ship, and it shows signs of
breaking up and foundering. Jonah confesses that it is his presence on board
that is causing the storm. At his request, he is thrown overboard, and the
storm subsides.
A "great fish," appointed by God, swallows Jonah, and he stays within the
fish's maw for three days and nights. He prays for deliverance and is
"vomited out" on dry land (ch. 2).
Totally implausible. He would have been digested by the fish in those three
days!
Sodom and Gomorrah
According to the Bible these cities and everyone in them, except Lot and his
family, were destroyed by fire and brimstone for their sinfulness. Lot's
wife was turned into a pillar of salt for disobeying God's command to not
look back at her city of birth being destroyed.
There is no way that EVERYONE in two cities could be so sinful, especially
innocent children, to deserve destruction by fire and brimstone.
Sodom and Gomorrah constituted, along with the cities of Admah, Zeboiim, and
Zoar (Bela), the five biblical "cities of the plain." Destroyed by"brimstone
and fire" because of their wickedness (Genesis 19:24).
Sodom and Gomorrah probably were devastated about 1900 BC by an earthquake
in the Dead Sea area of the Great Rift Valley, an extensive rift extending
from the Jordan River valley in Israel to the Zambezi River system in East
Africa. When the catastrophic destruction occurred, the petroleum and gases
existing in the area probably contributed to the imagery of "brimstone and
fire"
Cruel, inhumane and pure nonsense!
The Tower of Babel
Genesis 11.1 - 11.9
God became concerned that the Tower being built would reach his heaven.
He confounded the builders by giving them different languages so they could
no longer communicate with each other to continue the construction.
Why would this be of any concern to an all powerful God creator and wouldn't
this God creator realize that no tower could possibly reach his spiritual
heaven?
Noah and the Ark
The Bible is claimed to be the inerrant word of God
The story of Noah and the flood is only one of many ridiculous biblical
tales with no authentication or plausibility of any kind. It is an
impossible story.
1. The largest boat ever built to this day could not even come CLOSE to
housing Noah, his sons, wives and two of every type of animal on earth.
2. How were the 1.7 MILLION species collected in a boat and
cared for by a few people. How did he manage to get them all back to Asia,
Africa, Australia, North America, South America, the Arctic and Antarctic?
3. And this was a boat built of wood many thousands of years ago. There
are 1.7 million KNOWN species of animals on this planet. This story is
patently impossible, using only materials and tools available to Noah, to
build an arch large enough to hold all these creatures, together with
suitable environments for each of them to live in, keeping them all
separated so they don't kill and eat each other. And then provide room and
an environment for many hundreds of millions of known species of insects,
plants, molds etc. on this planet?
4. Where did they house all of the new born during this ten month
escapade?
5. In addition, the ship would have to carry a TEN MONTHS supply of food
and fresh water for the people and thousands of animals for them to survive.
What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone
extinct. How did they dispose of the thousands of tons of feces? It must
have been one stinking ship!
6. Now according to the Bible the earth was flooded for ten months. This
would kill off all the vegetation. What did the animals eat for an
additional year or more after the flood subsided?
7. Noah sends a dove out to see if there was any dry land. But the dove
returns without finding any. Then, just seven days later, the dove goes out
again and returns with an olive leaf. But how could an olive tree survive
the flood? And if any seeds happened to survive, they certainly wouldn't
germinate and grow leaves within a seven day period. 8:8-11.
8. And according to this myth, Noah was also over 600 years old!
This is a grossly implausible tale that ranks as a greater tale than Santa
Claus, The Wizard of Oz, The Easter Bunny and The Tooth Fairy!
Genesis 6:6
6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was
filled with pain.
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face
of the earth: men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and
birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them."
9 Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he
walked with God.
Genesis 7
1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family,
because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven
[a] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every
kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind
of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the
earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days
and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living
creature I have made."
6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. 7
And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to
escape the waters of the flood. 8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of
birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female,
came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after
the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.
This is patently ridiculous and impossible. How could they capture and load
over three million animals in a period of seven days???
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the
second month-on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and
the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth
forty days and forty nights.
13 On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with
his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. 14 They had with
them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to
their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its
kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs
of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and
entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every
living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters
increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and
increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the
water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under
the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the
mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [, 21 Every living thing that
moved on the earth perished-birds, livestock, wild animals, all the
creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry
land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing
on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures
that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the
earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.
This of course would have also killed all the vegetation on Earth!
Genesis 7:6 (New International Version)
6 Noah was "six hundred" years old when the floodwaters came on the earth.
7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to
escape the waters of the flood
Genesis 8
1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that
were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters
receded.
3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and
fifty days the water had gone down,
4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on
the mountains of Ararat.
5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day
of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible
And what did they eat until all the vegetation recovered from the flood???
Genesis 9 God's Covenant with Noah
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and
increase in number and fill the earth.
2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and
all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground,
and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands.
3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you
the green plants, I now give you everything.
4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.
5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand
an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an
accounting for the life of his fellow man.
Before man learned how to create a fire, he had no choice but to eat raw
meat!
Samson
Hebrew Shimshon, Israelite hero portrayed in an epic narrative in the Old
Testament (Judg. 13-16). He was a Nazirite (q.v.) and a legendary warrior
whose incredible exploits hint at the weight of Philistine pressure on
Israel during much of the early, tribal period of Israel in Canaan
(1200-1000).
Samson was claimed to possess extraordinary physical strength, and the moral
of his saga relates the disastrous loss of his power to the violation of his
Nazirite vow. Credited with remarkable exploits-e.g., the slaying of a lion
and moving the gates of Gaza-he first broke his religious promises by
feasting with a woman from the neighboring town of Timnah, who was also a
Philistine, one of Israel's mortal enemies. Other remarkable deeds follow;
e.g., his decimating the Philistines in a private war. On another occasion
he repulsed their assault on him at Gaza, where he had gone to visit a
harlot. He finally fell victim to his foes through love of Delilah, a woman
of the valley of Sorek, who beguiled him into revealing the secret of his
strength: his long Nazirite hair. As he slept, Delilah had his hair cut and
betrayed him. He was captured, blinded, and enslaved by the Philistines, but
in the end he was granted his revenge; through the return of his old
strength, he supposedly demolished the great Philistine temple of the god
Dagon, at Gaza, destroying his captors and himself (Judg.16:4-30).
A truly implausible tale!
God created a three level Universe - Heaven above, a flat World resting on
water. Genesis 1:6-10; 7:11; 8:2; 11:11-9; 19:24; 28:12-13; Exodus 20:4;
Numbers 16:30-33; Deuteronomy 33:17.
God created the Sun and the Moon on the fourth day but created light on the
first day! Genesis1:1-9; 14-19
It is claimed that the Eve, first woman, was created from one of Adam's
ribs.
Genesis 3:1-5 Men and women have the same number of ribs on each side of
their body? And in any case why would a god that has created the Universe
and everything in it need to tale rib from Adam to create Eve???
The Bibles claim that a talking snake talked Eve into eating the forbidden
fruit.
The Bibles claim that Adam lived 930 years, Seth 912 years, Enosh 905 years,
Kenan910 years, Mahalael 895 years, Jared 962 years, Methuselah 969 years;
Lamech 777 years, and Noah 950 years. Genesis 5:-31; 9:29
God commanded that every baby boy at age of eight days be circumcised.
At that time sterilization (of knives) was unknown and many died of
infection for which they new no cure. Why did this almighty and all caring
God create baby boys with foreskins on their penis that he then required to
be painfully and dangerously removed?
This all caring and loving God sent ten horrible plagues upon the Egyptians
Exodus 7:14-12:32 and in his loving generosity gave Israel the land of the
Canaanites and the Israelites slaughtered every person of seven nations.
Twenty one million, men women and innocent children, were slaughtered
according to the Bible. Exodus 12:1-2
This is a loving god???
According to the verse, Jesus was being tempted by Satan, for forty
days. Assuming that Jesus is God, we are required to believe that God
was tempted by Satan, who was created by God in the first place.
[NIV, Mark 1:12-13]
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all
the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. "All this I will give
you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me." Jesus said to
him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your
God, and serve him only.' " [NIV, Matthew 4:8-10] If Jesus is God,
would the Devil promise him that he will give him the kingdoms of the
world when all the all kingdoms of the world were created by and already
belong to God??
======================================================
God in the Bibles classifies bats as birds when anyone with an elementary
knowledge of biology knows that bats are flying MAMMALS!
Letiviticus11:13, 19
This God can't control his temper resulting in killing thousands of people.
Numbers 11:31-35; 25:1-9
He and Moses ordered the Israelites to kill all the male and Female
Medianites who had ever had sex but to spare the young women who were
virgins and keep them for themselves to enjoy. Numbers 31:14-1
Jeremiah:16:1: The word of the LORD came also unto me, saying,
2: Thou shall not take thee a wife, neither shall thou have sons or
daughters in this place.
3: For thus saith the LORD concerning the sons and concerning the daughters
that are born in this place, and concerning their mothers that bare them,
and concerning their fathers that begat them in this land;
4: They shall die of grievous deaths; they shall not be lamented; neither
shall they be buried; but they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth:
and they shall be consumed by the sword, and by famine; and their carcasses
shall be meat for the fowls of heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.
5: For thus saith the LORD, Enter not into the house of mourning, neither go
to lament nor bemoan them: for I have taken away my peace from this people,
saith the LORD, even loving kindness and mercies.
======================================================
According to the unerring Bible, the earth is the oldest object in the
Universe. (Genesis 1:1), snakes can talk (Genesis 3:1-5), and Man had
dominion over the dinosaurs (Genesis 1:26, 28)."
Really??? The Earth did not come into existence until 10 BILLION years after
the Universe. Man came into existence MILLIONS of years AFTER the extinction
of the Dinosaurs.
======================================================
God is satisfied with his works
[Gen 1:31]
God is dissatisfied with his works.
[Gen 6:6]
God dwells in chosen temples
[2 Chron 7:12,16]
God dwells not in temples
[Acts 7:48]
======================================================
Jesus' claimed last words on the cross, 'My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?' Hardly seems like the words of a god that created and
controlled the whole world and who planned his entry and exit on earth.
More obvious nonsense!
======================================================
Additional Bible nonsense too voluminous to quote fully;
Mt.4:8: Gen. 1:6; Deut. 30.4; Job. 9:6,22:13, 26:11; PSA 75.3, 103.12;
1 Sam 2.8; Isa. 13.5, 40.21-22; Dan 4.10-11; Re. 7.1, 20.8; Psa 93:1, 96:10,
105.5Job. 22.14; Rev. 6.14; Acts 10:11; Rev. 6:13, 8:14; Mat. 2:9; Gen 1:16;
Lev.19.27, 11.7,10-12: Mat. 5:17-19; Luke 16:17; Lev. 19.19; Luke 16:1-9;
Amos 3:6; Isa. 45:7; Lev, 18.22, 20.13; Deut. 13.6; Judges 14.20; 1 Sam
16:21-23, 18.1-3; Sam 1:26, 13:3, 15:37, 16:16-17: Mat. 2:13-15; Luke 2:1-7,
21; Gen. 11.6, 18:21, 27:33; Exod. 9:14, 12:12; Num 33.4; Deut. 3.23; Exod.
18:11; Eccl. 9.5-6, 9:10; Job 7.9-10, 13:28, 14:1-2, 14:1-2, 10-12, 21; Prov
2:18-19; Eccl. 10:17, 17:27, 28, 30, 19.3, 44:9; wisdom 2:1-5
This is just a sampling of ridiculous Bible tales. The Bibles are obviously
a mixture of fiction, fables, folklore and pure nonsense.
And these Bibles were dictated by God??? Then this God must be a demented
idiot.
Michael Gray
<ever...@everywhere.net> wrote:
- Refer: <lMHHg.5523$y7...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>
Talk to yourself a lot?
Brian Fletcher
"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns982A7EA9...@216.196.97.136...
> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Joseph Geloso
> (jose...@hotmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
>> God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that God
>> necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He exists
>> necessarily. It is impossible that God should exist contingently, so
>> the only remaining possibilities are that He necessarily exists or that
>> He is impossible. Consequently, if God is not impossible, then God
>> exists.
>
> The problem with evil makes the Christian god impossible.
This infers that God, whatever you conceive it to be, is somehow
denominational.
BOfL
Brian Fletcher
"Chris Johnson" <effi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156536427....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Cultural programming. One of Aus's leading media men/jornalist, had , and
filmed, a very life changing experience for him (he used to be on the board
of Australin sceptics.) Under clinical conditions, he witnesses a woman
who's brain activity was being monitored by a mri machine, showing a coma
state,adjudicated by a brain specialist who was not aware of the purpose of
the monitoring. She was fully lucid, communicating to "entities" around
the journo.. Under the same clinical conditions, she demonstrated
'stigmata', nearly died, and then miraculously recovered.
I have no doubt of the veracity of the report. He interpreted the event in
the only way he could, via that of his catholic upbringing.
When people have visions of Jesus, they usually report seeing a tall blue
eyed blond 'entity' with a beard.
A case of mis-taken id-entity.
This type of experience appears(first or second hand) to the healthy
sceptic, to validate certain dogmas, so finds is blocked by an apparent
contradiction.
BOfL
Pastor Kutchie
Joseph Geloso wrote:
> Modal Existential Argument.
>
>
> and impossibilities.
>
That'll do: God is impossible, it is easy to deduce this without any
specialist knowledge.
Grab a beer, it contains all you need to understand something so
fundamental about the nature of consciousness - i.e. that it is
principally an effect of a material cause - that it is simply dishonest
to continue to entertain the idea that a consciousness without a
material cause can be the first cause of everything. Thus the argument
vis a vis the existence of God is settled without even needing to
suggest a first cause of everything.
Still don't get it? Have another drink.
Uncle Vic
@bigpond.net.au) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
> "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns982A7EA9...@216.196.97.136...
>> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Joseph Geloso
>> (jose...@hotmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>>
>>> God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that God
>>> necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He exists
>>> necessarily. It is impossible that God should exist contingently, so
>>> the only remaining possibilities are that He necessarily exists or that
>>> He is impossible. Consequently, if God is not impossible, then God
>>> exists.
>>
>> The problem with evil makes the Christian god impossible.
>
> This infers that God, whatever you conceive it to be, is somehow
> denominational.
>
It is, since heaven is for Christians only. Or Muslims only. Or Mormons
only... etc.
word...@rocketmail.com
Uncle Vic wrote:
> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Wordsmith
> (word...@rocketmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
> >
> > Uncle Vic wrote:
> >> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Joseph Geloso
> >> (jose...@hotmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
> >>
> >> > God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that
> >> > God necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He
> >> > exists necessarily. It is impossible that God should exist
> >> > contingently, so the only remaining possibilities are that He
> >> > necessarily exists or that He is impossible. Consequently, if God
> >> > is not impossible, then God exists.
> >>
> >> The problem with evil makes the Christian god impossible.
> >
> > Why?
> >
>
> Omniscienced and omnibenevolence are mutually exclusive in the presence of
> evil.
Oh? In the JudeaoChristian universe, God evicted evil from his abode,
so he didn't have to endure evil's presence. God's in his realm; the
devil's in his. There.
W : )
wcb
>
> David Bohm, John Gribbon, Richard Feynman.
Feynman!? Bullshit!
Gribben!? Bullshit!
Bohm! Prove it!
Feynman! Bullshit!
Prove that! Just plain wrong.
Gribben! Bullshit!
Prove any of these people accepted Whitehead's
bullshit process metaphysics physics he
pulled out of his butt!
Hard evidence, not a mindless google spray like you just performed!
Google abuse.
wcb
>
> What evidence is there that the Bible is inerrant? As far as I am aware,
> that is merely a doctrine of a minority of Christians.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Bible.htm
63% Believe Bible Literally True
Survey of 1,000 Adults
April 21-22, 2005
Is the Bible Literally True and the Word of God?
Yes No
All 63% 24%
Catholics 58% 29%
Evangelical 89% 4%
Protestant 70% 21%
Other 42% 39%
RasmussenReports.com
April 23, 2005--Sixty-three percent (63%) of
Americans believe the Bible is literally true and
the Word of God. A Rasmussen Reports survey found
that 24% disagree and say it is not.
A related survey found that 47% of Americans pray
every day or nearly every day.
Among Evangelical Christians, 89% believe the
Bible is literally true and just 4% say it is not.
Among other Protestants, 70% believe the Bible is
literally true. That view is shared by 58% of
Catholics.
By a 4-to-1 margin, those who believe the Bible is
literally true have a favorable opinion of the new
Pope.
Sixty-five percent (65%) of women believe the
Bible is literally true along with 61% of men.
Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans believe
in the literal truth of the Bible as do 59% of
Democrats and 50% of those not affiliated with
either major party.
Eighty-two percent (82%) of black Americans
believe the Bible is literally true and is the
Word of God. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of White
Americans share that view along with 71% of other,
primarily Hispanic, Americans.
While older Americans are a bit more likely to
believe in the literal truth of the Bible, 58% of
American adults under 30 hold that view.
See Demographic Data.
Michael Gray
<bria...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
- Refer: <AzNHg.18031$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>
>"Chris Johnson" <effi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1156536427....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Joseph Geloso wrote:
>>> Modal Existential Argument.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that God
>>> necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He exists
>>> necessarily.
>>
>> Even if a god could be so proven, how does Christian theology derive
>> from this? How is the veracity of the Bible (if you believe it) proved
>> as a corollary? How does this in any way imply that Jesus is somehow
>> endorsed (setting aside familial relations) by this god?
>>
>
>
>Cultural programming. One of Aus's leading media men/jornalist, had , and
>filmed, a very life changing experience for him (he used to be on the board
>of Australin sceptics.) Under clinical conditions, he witnesses a woman
>who's brain activity was being monitored by a mri machine, showing a coma
>state,adjudicated by a brain specialist who was not aware of the purpose of
>the monitoring. She was fully lucid, communicating to "entities" around
>the journo.. Under the same clinical conditions, she demonstrated
>'stigmata', nearly died, and then miraculously recovered.
>
>I have no doubt of the veracity of the report. He interpreted the event in
>the only way he could, via that of his catholic upbringing.
I take it that you are referring to this?:
http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-08/082506yet.html#i3
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> David Bohm, John Gribbon, Richard Feynman.
Pucker up, Barwell.
>
> Feynman!? Bullshit!
[PDF] Feynman's Unanswered Question File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as
HTML
allow purpose to exert any independent influence on events-in that.
sense it is all determinism, whether law-like or random. Alfred North
Whitehead ...
www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/faculty/daly/FeynmanG%C7%D6s%20Unanswered%20Ques%20%20copy.pdf
- Similar pages
Dusek review of "Intellectual Impostures" Feynman, a leading genius of the
period, despised philosophy, ... Bergsonian time," and AN Whitehead
incorporated parts of Bergson's philosophy of process ...
www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dusek.html - 25k - Cached - Similar
pages
[PDF] Quantum cosmology based on discrete Feynman paths
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
The model incorporates Whitehead's idea that discrete process is more.
fundamental than matter by representing process as Feynman-path steps
through a ...
repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1759&context=lbnl -
Similar pages
MY TEACHERS' TEACHERS' TEACHERS' Feynman graduated MIT in 1936, then went to
Princeton. ... after Russell & Whitehead made a brilliant start with the
3-volume "Principia Mathematica", ...
www.magicdragon.com/JVPteachers.html - 42k - Cached - Similar pages
> Gribben!? Bullshit!
[PDF] The Sense of Being Stared At File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as
HTML
As Whitehead expressed it, 'sensations are projected by the mind so as
to ... interwoven in an intimate way' (Davies and Gribben, 1991, p. 208). Or
as the ...
www.sheldrake.org/papers/Staring/JCSpaper2.pdf - Similar pages
How Process Theology Can Affirm Creation <I>Ex Nihilo</I> Under the
influence of early quantum theory in the 1920s, Whitehead thought ... 124;
Drees 51, 63-64, 97; Linde 607, 618, 620-21; Gribbon, Beginning 245. ...
www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3000 - 62k - Cached -
Similar pages
Amazon: Listmania! - View List "Whitehead's Influence in the Sciences" -
5:08pm Listmania! Whitehead's Influence in the Sciences ... Henry Stapp has
been influenced somewhat by Whitehead as was David Bohm to some extent. ...
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse/-/333NM2DXAYXJH -
83k - Cached - Similar pages
Amazon.com: Physics and the Ultimate Significance of Time: Bohm ... Buy
this book with Causality and Chance in Modern Physics by David Bohm today!
... Whitehead's Influence in the Sciences · Whitehead's Influence in the ...
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/088706115X?v=glance - 82k -
Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.amazon.com ]
fips David Bohm, The Undivided Universe. Bohm attempts to ground quantum
mechanics with an ontological basis. Citing Whitehead as an influence, Bohm
proposes ...
www.n-gon.com/fips/index.html - 7k - Cached - Similar pages
Constructive Postmodernism The quantum theorist whose thought most resembled
Whitehead's was David Bohm. Bohm wrote extensively about the importance of
thinking in terms of events ...
www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2220 - 44k - Cached -
Similar pages
An Annotated Bibliography of Books for Introduction to Process ... Ilya
Prigogine, David Bohm, and Henry Stapp interact with process ... rigorous]y
developed aesthetic theory making systematic use of Whitehead's influence.
...
www.ctr4process.org/publications/Biblio/Web%20Bibliography/Process%20Thought,%20annotated.htm
- 161k - Cached - Similar pages
Science & Theology News - David Ray Griffin on Process Thought as ... "At
the heart of this modification," says Griffin, "is Whitehead's rejection of
the ... John Eccles, David Bohm, Henry Stapp, Ilya Prigogine, and others.
...
www.stnews.org/Books-2375.htm - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
QUANTUM-MIND Archives -- August 1998 (#52) [Henry Stapp] There are deep
similarities between Whitehead's idea of the process ... Now the key theorem
here is by David Bohm who showed that the quantum ...
listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9808&L=quantum-mind&P=5057 -
26k -
wcb
You have to be trolling. Nobody can be this
braindead and live.
Gandalf Grey
> Free Lunch wrote:
>
>>
>> What evidence is there that the Bible is inerrant? As far as I am aware,
>> that is merely a doctrine of a minority of Christians.
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Bible.htm
>
> 63% Believe Bible Literally True
He asked for evidence that the bible is inerrant, not for how many people
believe it, you moron.
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>> news:12ev3up...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>> OMNISCIENCE PROOF TEXTS
>>
>> There are no omniscience proof texts.
>
> You have to be trolling.
There is no proof of omniscience. Therefore there are no omniscience proof
texts.
wcb
>
>
> Basing your religious beliefs on the Bibles is basing it on pure nonsense.
>
> The foundations of all Christian religions are the Bibles and Jesus
> Christ. The Bibles are the literature of pure 'faith', not of scientific
> observation, evidence or historical fact or demonstration.
>
ANOTHER BRAIN DEAD CLOWN!
THE POINT IS TAKE WHAT THE MORONS SAY AND SEE
WHAT THAT LEAD TO LOGICALLY!
DISPROOF OF THEIR RELIGION, GOD, AND BIBLE!
BILL! DO YOU READ THIS SHIT OR JUST SCAN A
FEW LINES AND START SPOUTING?!!
SPOUT, SPEW, MISS THE POINT, SPOUT, SPEW!
IS THERE ANYBODY IN AA WITH A BRAIN? ANYBODY?
THE BIBLE IS CRAP BILL! BECAUSE ITS LEADS
TO DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE ABSURDITY THAT SHOW
GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE!
JEZUZ FUCKING SHIT ON A STICK!
NOT A POUND OF BRAINS BETWEEN THE LOT OF YOU!
Gandalf Grey
> Bill M wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Basing your religious beliefs on the Bibles is basing it on pure
>> nonsense.
>>
>> The foundations of all Christian religions are the Bibles and Jesus
>> Christ. The Bibles are the literature of pure 'faith', not of scientific
>> observation, evidence or historical fact or demonstration.
>>
>
> ANOTHER BRAIN DEAD CLOWN!
The numbers mount daily. Amazing how many people that suddenly see what an
intellectual poser you really are, Barwell.
Gandalf Grey
"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:iWPHg.1410$xQ1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Gandalf Grey
You don't know shit about process philosophy, Barwell.
Each one of the scientists below presents process philosophy as the core of
science. Not that David Bohm has written two books that deal heavily with
Whiteheadian philosophy.
Tender Buttons." (unpubl.)
[abstract]
> I challenged this lie before and as usual you ran from my challenge.
You're a liar, Barwell and you don't know a damned thing about process
philosophy.
Sean
"Michael Gray" <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:enhve2l79nk8gj232...@4ax.com...
Yes. But thru the prism of obfuscation and outright denial with no evidence
to back it up.
As far as serious skeptics are concerned about proving Willisee wrong, as
opposed to automatically presuming it's fantasy, you may have missed this
from fear of having to face the truth of these matters.
MIKE WILLESEE: James Randi is a phoney. I mean he forgets that he once named
me Investigative Journalist of the Year and sent me a trophy. Fortunately I
threw it away, I didn't take it seriously.
ANDREW DENTON: But, okay, put aside James Randi. Why not give it to somebody
that's not carrying any strong religious belief to absolutely thoroughly
investigate?
MIKE WILLESEE: We were quite prepared to do that, but all the people who
criticised us, not one person asked to see the footage, including all the
footage that didn't go to air. Not one person asked to interview any
witnesses. Not one critic made the slightest attempt at investigation, so
now tell me who I hand it over to?
[ Scientism and rational skeptics at their best. Just ignore it, throw a ton
of mud, and hope it goes away. ]
Son of Discord
Bullshit. The buybull states that god himself *created* evil --
knowingly and willingly (being omniscient, he can't not do anything
knowingly or willingly)
>God's in his realm; the
>devil's in his. There.
Your attempted reconciliation fails in that the non-property of
omnipotence is also attributed to your deity -- that is, "power
without end". If the Devil is responsible for evil -- which he isn't,
since your god already admits to it -- then god knowingly and
willingly allows, and even facilitates, this evil. If your god didn't
like it, he could do something about it.
Try again, boopie. :)
>
>W : )
"Son of Discord"
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
" . . The bible is crap, people who believe it
are idiots, and blasphemy is a victimless
crime because the whole fetid pile of
christianic mythology is a ficticious crock of shit."
-Stix, undefeated former Warlord of the BAAWA
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
John Baker
Perhaps someone should investigate why you appear to get dumber with
every post.
>
Bob
wrote:
>God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that God
>necessarily exists,
As I mentioned in the other thread about this, I do not accept the
possibility of nothingness. It has no ontological substance and
therefore cannot be used as the subject of any proposition.
Being is necessary, not contingent.
>but that if He exists at all, then He exists
>necessarily. It is impossible that God should exist contingently, so
>the only remaining possibilities are that He necessarily exists or that
>He is impossible. Consequently, if God is not impossible, then God
>exists.
And therefore God exists necessarily. It is not possible under any
ontological circumstances for God not to exist.
Always keep in mind the separation of Ontology from Epistemology.
That's the same as the separation of Realism from Idealism. That's the
separation of the Objective from the Subjective. That is the
separation of Real from Fantasy.
--
I just neutered the cat - now he's French.
Tim
"Bob" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:44f047e1...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On 25 Aug 2006 11:01:18 -0700, "Joseph Geloso" <jose...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that God
>>necessarily exists,
>
> As I mentioned in the other thread about this, I do not accept the
> possibility of nothingness. It has no ontological substance and
> therefore cannot be used as the subject of any proposition.
>
How could nothing have ontological substance? Ontology is the study of the
essential characteristics of Being, not non-Being.
> Being is necessary, not contingent.
>
>>but that if He exists at all, then He exists
>>necessarily. It is impossible that God should exist contingently, so
>>the only remaining possibilities are that He necessarily exists or that
>>He is impossible. Consequently, if God is not impossible, then God
>>exists.
>
> And therefore God exists necessarily. It is not possible under any
> ontological circumstances for God not to exist.
Wrong. There is not one single shred of evidence to support the myth the god
exists, let alone exists necessarily. If god does not exist and the universe
does exist then so much for your little play on words.
>
> Always keep in mind the separation of Ontology from Epistemology.
> That's the same as the separation of Realism from Idealism. That's the
> separation of the Objective from the Subjective. That is the
> separation of Real from Fantasy.
>
More Bob nonsense. You should buy yourself a dictionary and use it before
you start playing with words, then you wouldn't sound like such an idiot.
Ontology is a study, hence it implies an epistemology, unless of course it's
Bob ontology, then you just need faith in a magic pixie.
>
> --
>
> I just neutered the cat - now he's French.
More examples of your tolerant attitude, bible thump Bob?
Sean
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:f760f2ps7rt6bvu4q...@4ax.com...
Well, they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Maybe you missed the obvious John. If it is such a crock, ala the physical
evidence of the wounds appearing and healing, then how easy it would be to
simply prove that? Either things happened or it was a con. Who better than a
real team of scientists, to investigate that?
Makes no difference to me either way. Goodness knows why anyone would think
that was dumb. But nothing surprises me on newsgroups. nothing.
>
>
>>
Lion Of Judah
All the time.
Bob
>> As I mentioned in the other thread about this, I do not accept the
>> possibility of nothingness. It has no ontological substance and
>> therefore cannot be used as the subject of any proposition.
>How could nothing have ontological substance?
It can't, that's the whole point.
>> And therefore God exists necessarily. It is not possible under any
>> ontological circumstances for God not to exist.
>Wrong. There is not one single shred of evidence to support the myth the god
>exists, let alone exists necessarily. If god does not exist and the universe
>does exist then so much for your little play on words.
You are simply too dull to understand metaphysical arguments. So you
are forced to introduce straw men like "the myth" and "play on words".
>More Bob nonsense. You should buy yourself a dictionary and use it before
>you start playing with words, then you wouldn't sound like such an idiot.
>Ontology is a study, hence it implies an epistemology, unless of course it's
>Bob ontology, then you just need faith in a magic pixie.
Another collection of straw men.
Claude
--
Terrorists think they can solve everything by blowing it up and killing
innocent people.
Bush thinks he can fix everything by blowing it up and killing innocent
people.
Americans think Bush is a good guy.
Claude Hopper
eyelessgame
Joseph Geloso wrote:
> The upshot is that all of ideaspace may now be divided into three
> categories: impossibilities, contingents, and necessary existents. The
> distinction between existent and nonexistent contingents is irrelevant
> in this discussion.
Right.
Permit me to define an entity with the following six properties. It is
- a human female,
- nude,
- sexually insatiable for all practical purposes,
- physically identical to Cameron Diaz,
- sitting on my lap right now, and
- noncontingent.
Is such an entity impossible? Of course not. Cameron Diaz exists,
therefore something physically identical to Cameron Diaz can exist. The
remaining properties are all, by trivial inspection, possible. And
since this entity is defined to be noncontingent and is demonstrably
possible, it therefore must exist.
How is it that my lap remains empty?
eyelessgame
Bob
He is a lot better than the other choices.
Dichard Rawkins
<1156612396.2...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> How is it that my lap remains empty?
Simple. You are not taking the same drugs the Christian apologists are taking.
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.4.2746
[ Followup-To: alt.religion.christian ]
Dichard Rawkins
> >you start playing with words, then you wouldn't sound like such an idiot.
> >Ontology is a study, hence it implies an epistemology, unless of course it's
> >Bob ontology, then you just need faith in a magic pixie.
>
> Another collection of straw men.
This conversation would be less interesting if you were not doing the
philosophical and rhetorical equivalent of having sex with that entire
collection of straw men.
--
Tim
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 09:52:58 -0400, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
>
>>> As I mentioned in the other thread about this, I do not accept the
>>> possibility of nothingness. It has no ontological substance and
>>> therefore cannot be used as the subject of any proposition.
>
>>How could nothing have ontological substance?
>
> It can't, that's the whole point.
>
>>> And therefore God exists necessarily. It is not possible under any
>>> ontological circumstances for God not to exist.
>
>>Wrong. There is not one single shred of evidence to support the myth the
>>god
>>exists, let alone exists necessarily. If god does not exist and the
>>universe
>>does exist then so much for your little play on words.
>
> You are simply too dull to understand metaphysical arguments. So you
> are forced to introduce straw men like "the myth" and "play on words".
No, you are simply too stupid to read a dictionary.
word...@rocketmail.com
Son of Discord wrote:
> In alt.atheism word...@rocketmail.com shared this wisdom:
>
> >
> >Uncle Vic wrote:
> >> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Wordsmith
> >> (word...@rocketmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Uncle Vic wrote:
> >> >> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Joseph Geloso
> >> >> (jose...@hotmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
> >> >>
> >> >> > God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that
> >> >> > God necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He
> >> >> > exists necessarily. It is impossible that God should exist
> >> >> > contingently, so the only remaining possibilities are that He
> >> >> > necessarily exists or that He is impossible. Consequently, if God
> >> >> > is not impossible, then God exists.
> >> >>
> >> >> The problem with evil makes the Christian god impossible.
> >> >
> >> > Why?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Omniscienced and omnibenevolence are mutually exclusive in the presence of
> >> evil.
> >
> >Oh? In the JudeaoChristian universe, God evicted evil from his abode,
> >so he didn't have to endure evil's presence.
>
> Bullshit. The buybull states that god himself *created* evil --
> knowingly and willingly (being omniscient, he can't not do anything
> knowingly or willingly)
The Bible doesn't say that. God created the angels all good. Some chose
to rebel. How is that "god *himself* created evil"? It's not. Evil
created itself.
> >God's in his realm; the
> >devil's in his. There.
>
> Your attempted reconciliation fails in that the non-property of
> omnipotence is also attributed to your deity -- that is, "power
> without end". If the Devil is responsible for evil -- which he isn't,
> since your god already admits to it -- then god knowingly and
> willingly allows, and even facilitates, this evil. If your god didn't
> like it, he could do something about it.
See above.
> Try again, boopie. :)
I did. Take that.
W : )
wcb
>
> Oh? In the JudeaoChristian universe, God evicted evil from his abode,
> so he didn't have to endure evil's presence. God's in his realm; the
> devil's in his. There.
>
Original sin...
wcb
>
> The numbers mount daily.
Only 6 or 7 now.
Gandy, Fool, Sniper, Dh2, Duke...
people with intellectual levels of hamsters
for whom logic and reason is notably absent.
The number mount slowly...
wcb
>
> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> news:12evj5k...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>>> news:12ev3up...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>> OMNISCIENCE PROOF TEXTS
>>>
>>> There are no omniscience proof texts.
>>
>> You have to be trolling.
>
> There is no proof of omniscience. Therefore there are no omniscience
> proof texts.
This has to go into my moron quotes from Gandy.
The bible claims that god is omniscient.
God does not exist, and is not omniscient.
That does not mean the bible does not make
false claims there is a god and god is wrongly,
omniscient.
Amazing stupidity from a champion moron.
This is suoidy beyond teh call of duty.
wcb
>
> He asked for evidence that the bible is inerrant, not for how many people
> believe it, you moron.
Shit-for-brains asked for evidence that
the bible said something it did not.
I showed him what it said, that god created all
and was omniscient. From there logic showed
us these claims must be false.
He ranted and raved that this was not what
people believed, that god was omniscient.
I showed him people believe exactly that.
You two are beyond stupid.
You are lying now too, you know what he said.
DOES GOD EXIST? STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - NO.
1. OMNIGENESIS, DETERMINISM, FREE WILL, METAPHYSICAL
CHAOS AND THEOLOGICAL NIHILISM.
4.3 people believe in religions that have a god
that is claimed to have created all, and is omniscient
and omnipotent. Omny-everything creator class gods (OEC).
After OEC god religions, non-theistic religions like
Buddhism are the largest religions. Non-OEC gods are also
easily shown impossible, but these are not very numerous
nor important religions. This essay disproves the OEC
class gods that make up the vast bulk of today's important
religions.
Omni - all, genesis - creation.
Omnigenesis = creation of all.
Here I shall coin a word for further discussion.
Omnigenesis means creation of all, to the smallest
physical detail. If god is in any way omniscient,
and creator of all, then he in fact creates all,
omnigenesis, to the smallest detail, all of creation
to the smallest quantum level material, to the smallest
Planck quantum distance, Planck quantum time, dimensions,
fields, everything, all of it. All that is, was, and
shall be and can be. All physics we know of and much
physics we do not as yet understand. And this god creates,
at higher levels, emergent qualities arising from these
basics create our physical world and us. This god creates
us, our actions, our consciousness, feelings, nature, mental
inclinations and surrounding environment. One man may
be a lawyer in California, another an illiterate peasant
in Bangladesh. One man may be good, another an evil
psychopath. Omnigenesis means god creates all things
and all of this and all men's actions and existance
to the smallest details. All we are and all we do to
the smallest detail possible is created knowingly,
and purposefully to the smallest possible degree.
Omnigenesis removes all possibility of free will.
2. THE OMNISCIENT, CREATOR GOD
God creates all, all our acts, inclinations, personalty,
to the smallest detail, this is extreme determinism.
God at the start of creation must look at what his
considered creation will create and decide, do I allow
this or that to happen?
"Do I make John Smith 13 billion years into the future
a man who is evil and damned or good and saved to life
eternal in heaven? All acts Smith does are decided by god.
Does Smith at 10:23 June 24, 1999 commit murder or not?"
God must look at that future and say yes, or no and then
create the world that will generate that future he has
personally and purposefully decided on. All acts of all
sentient beings are decided on and created in the smallest
possible detail, knowing, and purposefully by this omniscient
creator God from the begining of creation.
3. OMNIGENESIS DESTROYS FREE WILL AND COMPATIBALISM.
This destroys compatibilism, the doctrine god creates
all but we have free will, and even though god knows what
we do, he does not interfere with our free will to choose
what we do. Many people hold this doctrine is incoherent
and impossible that knowing what we do destroys free will.
But omnigenesis makes that argument moot anyway, we can
have no sort of free will at all if god creates all to
the smallest detail, and thus no sort of compatibilism
can be true. Compatibilism is now irrelevant and meaningless
as a dodge to explain way free will vs God's foreknowledge
of the future. God knows the future because he knowingly
creates its every tiniest detail.
4. THERE ARE 3 ASPECTS OF CREATOR GODS
OMNIGENESIS FORCES US TO CONSIDER.
A. The Clock maker, determinate universe, and foreknowledge
This is idea that god is omniscient, has foreknowledge
of the future because the universe is determinate.
That god somehow winds up the Universe and lets it go
and it goes on unfolding in a determinate manner, the
Deist god. The God of some natural theologies.
Laplace's demon is a thought experiment, a conceptual idea
invented by Pierre-Simon Laplace, the French Astronomer in
his work "Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilites" in 1820.
Laplace's demon is said to be able to know the future
relying on the Universe's explicit determinism to calculate
the future. God is theorized as just a sort of Laplacian
demon here. This god created a determinate Universe and
knows the future since he can calculate the future state
of the Universe from a starting state due specifically
to the determinate quality of the Universe. Since this
god creates the initial state of the Universe, all futures
states unfold from that and god can control future states
by choosing the apporpriate initial starting state
of the Universe. Omnigenesis again.
Here, in a determinate Universe we can have no free
will, not even in principle.
Omnigenesis means there is no wind up universe
that unfolds, the Deist style great clock maker or
Aristotelian prime mover/creator. All is created to
the smallest detail in a detailed and totally,
purposefully, decided manner. Every atom of the Universe is
is created in a set position in time, all atoms,
and all that derive from them are set at creation.
Omnigenesis is totally determinate in a different
manner, this sort of determinism of all is created at
once, the fate of all in the Universe is decided at
one and in all particulars even before creation actually
commenced. God here knows the future because he knowing
and personally created every aspect of the future, not
because it unfolds in a determinate manner from a known
starting point.
B. God and omnipotence and time.
If god is omnipotent,or even just magnipotent, greatly
powerful, he is beyond being affected by mundane
things. Time does not affect god, he created time and
God controls time, time does not control or affect
God. For God there is no past, present, future, just now.
This is God as claimed by Augustine and Boethius.
God out of time, transcendence to time is a standard
theological claim because of these men.
But again it's omnigenesis. God creates all. And there
is no past, or future, all is one big now. Thus all is
created at once, now, in all its finest details. We are
back to omnigenesis as above.
We are driven there starting with claims god is
omnipotent and considering an omnipotent god who
created all and that god's relation to mundane time.
Omnipotence implies sovereingty over time which
drives us to total omni-genesis. Omnipotence and
omniscience both destroy and possibility of free will
in the very strongest manner possible.
C. Omnigenesis - Creator of all and Omniscience
As seen above in 2., a god that is simple said to
be creator of all and omniscient even with no
particular theory how he knows all, out of time,
or creates a determinate word that unfolds, a God
with no explicit theory as to how he knows all,
also dooms free will in the strongest manner possible.
Just the fact this god is omniscience and creates all
is sufficient to create omnigenesis, This dooms all free
will even if we attempt to avoid mentioning how
god is theoretically omniscient to avoid being pinned
down by making an overt claim. Its no less destructive
to free will despite lack of specifity.
D. Thus we have three theories of creation, omniscience
1. Deterministic, clock maker style Universe.
The theoretical deterministic prime mover's world.
2. Omniscient - creator god.
3. Omnipotent god transcendent to time.
All 3 theories lead to total omnigenesis.
All 3 theories destroy any possible free will
totally in the strongest manner possible.
5. OMNIGENESIS AND METAPHYSICAL NIHILISM
A. God is alleged all good, totally good, omniscient,
creator of all. And the omni-everything creator
class of gods including the gods of Judaism, Islam,
Christianity and others have these attributes explicitly,
and also have other attributes.
B. These specific attributes
are to be found in various revelations, Quran, Bible
et al. Proof texts are used to make specific claims,
god is merciful, just, he wants us to be saved and
other similar claims.
C. God is just, merciful, he loves us and wants us to
be good and to be saved. God hates sin, evil and
punishes evil men for their acts, including eternal
damnation. And so on. Different religions may have
slightly different variations and emphasis on this
or that aspect of their god's abilities. Also involved
are more metaphysical considerations. God's perfection,
God as source of all morality, god's immutability.
But omnigenesis destroys all of this. Since God
creates all to the smallest atom, act, and inclination,
there is no room for love or mercy. Why create one
man good, saved and to have eternal life in heaven,
and the next man evil, damned and tortured in eternal
torment in the flames of hell for all eternity for
acts that god decided, planned and created in all
their minute details to the lowliest quark?
Why that then, if god loves us all is just and merciful?
Since free will means nothing in the strongest manner
imaginable, a god that loves us would create us all
saved, and good and to have life eternal in heaven
if that god is as claimed merciful, just and loving
and omnibenevolent. Since we have no free will its
all one and the same. Thus we would expect a world
where all are good and moral evil is never done by man.
Heaven, hell, sin, salvation, damnation lose all
coherent sense and meaning. Where is love in
creating one man evil and allow him to torment many
innocent victims? How can that be loving, merciful or
just?
Theologians have created many half-baked excuses, suffering
creates character, evils allow second order goods to exist,
a kindness done to a fellow viction of a genocidal murderer
like Hilter perhaps.
That all dissolves into a meaningless, incoherent nihilism,
a bewildering meaninglessness far beyond the supposed
meaninglessness of a materialistic, Atheistic world
without god, which many theists assert is the logical
end point of Atheism.
Here god is creator of grotesquely meaningless chaos.
A world without any meaning, a surreal Hieronymus
Bosch world of demons and angels and the damned,
heavens and hells with lakes of molten sulfur and
fiery flames and unrelenting torture for men who
were only toys of a relentlessly mad, and meaningless
monster god who created them damned, for reasons unknown,
and unknowable, and irrational to nihilistic extremes.
6. SOULS
And supposedly this god creates souls, which somehow,
are attached to our physical bodies and minds and
are part of the heart of our very existence. Then again,
along with our bodies, our minds, our acts, our inclinations,
god must have created these souls. But he also must have
created them in relationship to our physical body and its
created acts, acts created by god to the smallest details.
It is the soul that allegedly is damned or saved and lives
for ever, or some such, but again, all acts of ours are
created by omnigenesis to the smallest quark so god either also
creates a corresponding soul, damned or saved in parallel.
Or maybe not, who can tell with such an incoherent chaotic,
senseless, irrational system?
The doctrine of souls, confusing enough as is, now becomes
impossible to explain in any fashion. It makes no sense
in a physical world that is determinate to the most
exacting omnigenesistic manner, how does a soul fit
into that world?
With omnigenesis all bets are off, all supposed knowledge
is impossible and incoherent to extremes.
7. CHAOS, NIHILISM, IRRATIONALITY, UNREALITY OF ALL
We achieve then total, absolute, furious metaphysical nihilism.
God is mad, and nothing in reality, or metaphysics or any possible
afterlife can be trusted. All supposed systems of metaphysics,
philosophy, religion, theology and reality are destroyed until
the rubble of it all is sucked into a chaotic surreal abyss of
irrational metaphysics undreamed of by thinking man. Theism
at bottom is nihilism so total it is obviously wrong in all its
particulars.
Good, evil, sin, salvation, damnation, sin, souls, heaven,
hell, love, mercy, justice, theodicy, teleology, ontology,
all makes no sense in the strongest terms. the class of
omni-everything, creator Gods destroys everything
with corrosive finality.
Theology, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, philosophy,
science, nothing makes the slightest sense in an omnigenesistic
world, with a god that destroys all it touches if we claim
this personal, concious god is all knowing and creates all.
God then is perfect intellectual nihilism.
This is In the end, taken to their logical ends are all
theology religion, and omni-everything, creator god class
religion can possibly hope to achieve. Utter madness
and total incoherence. Compared to this atheistic
materialism is mankind's only rational hope.
Materialism must be true, the only truth possible. The Grand
Gods of Grand Theologies not only self destruct, but destroy
everything else with such incredible thoroughness and totality
that they cannot possibly be truth or reality. The class of
creator, omni-everything gods are impossible in the strongest
terms.
There is no comparison, only with metaphysical materialism
and utter lack of these classes of gods can we find reality
reason and sanity. Systems that work and are rational. Creative
rather than nihilistic to the extreme that theology can be
show to be nihilistic and thus in the end, irrelevant to all
things.
This doctrine of omnigenesis destroys all and cannot possibly
be true. But all theology of omnipotent, omniscient creator
gods drive us to omnigenesis with logical and unrelenting
thoroughness. Those doctrines and claims that create a
omnigenetical god, omniscience, and creatorship of all,
omnipotence, time, foreknowledge of the future, combine to
create total total metaphysical nihilism. Multiple, overlapping
problems that cannot be fixed or explained away. Religion can never
be more than nihilism unless it abandons totally the doctrines
of omniscience, omnipotence, and creatorship of all things
by god. This utterly destroys the class of omni-everything
gods and all religions, Islam, Christianity, Brahmanistic
Hinduism, Judaism and all other religions built on the
doctrine that there is an omni-everything, creator god.
In the end, we have two stark and plain choices, sane
materialism, or total theological/metaphysical nihilism.
There is really then, only one choice to which we are driven
by logic and rationality.
God as creator of all, and omni-everything is impossible.
(End)
Uncle Vic
>> Bullshit. The buybull states that god himself *created* evil --
>> knowingly and willingly (being omniscient, he can't not do anything
>> knowingly or willingly)
>
> The Bible doesn't say that. God created the angels all good. Some chose
> to rebel. How is that "god *himself* created evil"? It's not. Evil
> created itself.
Idiot.
Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the
LORD do all these things.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Member: Intensional misspellingg club.
Ted King
"Joseph Geloso" <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Modal Existential Argument.
>
>
> LEVEL ONE: Ideaspace; First division of Ideaspace into possibilities
> and impossibilities.
>
> Ideaspace is the set of all ideas, including both notions and concepts,
> where notion means a loosely- or vaguely-defined idea, and concept
> means a fully- or clearly-defined idea.
>
> Ideaspace includes all that can possibly be talked about, since we only
> ever talk about what we think about (unless we're speaking in tongues
> or in the grip of some delerium or other).
>
> Since Ideaspace contains both notions and concepts, and since notions
> may possibly contain contradictions, and since reality can contain no
> contradictions, it follows that Ideaspace may contain some ideas which
> are impossibilities. An impossibility is a notion that contains a
> contradiction. Apart from containing a contradiction, I do not find any
> other condition that prevents possibility for an idea.
>
> So the whole of Ideaspace may be divided into possibilities and
> impossibilities.
>
> I would ask that the reader fully agree with everything on level one
> before proceeding to level two, and so on and so forth with subsequent
> levels. I expect that I will find it far easier to answer objections if
> this procedure is adhered to.
>
>
> LEVEL TWO: Further division of possibilities into existents and
> nonexistents.
>
> Of possibilties, not all ever become realities. There is nothing
> intrinsically impossible about a unicorn, for instance; nonetheless, I
> do not expect that any specimens will turn up any time soon, because
> they are most likely fictitious.
>
> So of all possibilities, some are instantiated in reality, and these I
> call existents, while others are not thus instantiated, and these I
> call nonexistents.
>
> In addition to those possibilities that happen to be nonexistent, there
> is also the entire set of impossibilities which contains only
> nonexistents. Since an impossibility cannot possibly exist, it follows
> simply that none of them do exist.
>
>
> LEVEL THREE: Further division of existents into contingent and
> necessary, and further commentary on nonexistents.
>
> Of the existents, some depend for their existence on certain
> conditions, and these existents I call contingent. The conditions
> themselves will always be particular configurations of other existents,
> which in their turn may be contingent on other conditions. Since there
> can be no infinite regress in the chain of contingencies, it stands to
> reason that there must be at least one necessary existent: I.e., the
> set of necessary existents is necessarily non-empty.
>
> So the existents may be divided into contingent existents and necessary
> existents.
>
> Now to turn for a moment to the nonexistents, these also may be divided
> into two groups, according to why they do not exist. Some nonexistents
> do not exist because they cannot possibly exist, i.e. they are
> impossibilities. Others do not exist because the requisite conditions
> for their existence simply have not as yet come about (nor need they
> ever necessarily come about). These possibilities whose conditions have
> not come about obviously must fall into the class of contingents, along
> with those contingents whose conditions have come about and which
> exist.
>
> The upshot is that all of ideaspace may now be divided into three
> categories: impossibilities, contingents, and necessary existents. The
> distinction between existent and nonexistent contingents is irrelevant
> in this discussion.
>
>
> LEVEL FOUR: God.
>
> God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that God
> necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He exists
> necessarily. It is impossible that God should exist contingently, so
> the only remaining possibilities are that He necessarily exists or that
> He is impossible. Consequently, if God is not impossible, then God
> exists.
>
> QED.
My philosophy skills are pretty rusty, but let me take a crack at this.
Assuming that if a set of propositions leads to an absurdity, then that
set of propositions do not yield valid arguments:
Let X:
- Be an entity which is posited in such a way that it has no
self-contradictory characteristics.
- One of X's characteristics is that entity X cannot exist if entity Y
exists.
- Be defined as as a necessary existent.
Let Y:
- Be an entity which is posited in such a way that it has no
self-contradictory characteristics.
- One of Y's characteristics is that entity Y cannot exist if entity X
exists.
- Be defined as as a necessary existent.
By the propositions given by you above, since entities X and Y both have
no self-contradictory characteristics, they both possibly exist.
Further, by your reasoning above, if X exists at all, then X exists
necessarily; and since X is not impossible, it follows that X exists.
Also, by your reasoning above, if Y exists at all, then Y exists
necessarily; and since Y is not impossible, it follows that Y exists.
Thus, given the propositions you provided above and the characteristics
of X and Y, we conclude that they both exist. But... a characteristic of
each is that if the second entity exists then the first entity does not
exist. Your argument has led to the absurdity that we must conclude that
both entities exist and they don't.
Since the argument leads to an absurdity, and given that a set of
propositions that produce an absurdity do not yield valid arguments, it
would appear that your argument is not valid.
I think if we take this apart and try to find why it produces an
absurdity, we would see that Joseph Balluch is correct - there is a
modal fallacy (citation below), and I believe it pops up right at the
end:
"God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that God
necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He exists
necessarily. It is impossible that God should exist contingently, so
the only remaining possibilities are that He necessarily exists or that
He is impossible. Consequently, if God is not impossible, then God
exists."
Let's consider the following:
-----
The statement, "God is defined as a necessary existent," could be
construed two different ways:
1. If God exists at all, then necessarily God exists. (Which follows
from the definition.)
As you say, this is not equivalent to:
2. Necessarily, if God is possible, God exists. (Which is *not* implied
by the definition.)
So, it is evident that you meant "God is defined as a necessary
existent," to mean 1 and not 2.
-----
There is an ambiguity with the statement: "It is impossible that God
should exist contingently..." What contingency is this talking about? Of
course, it is not possible to posit a God that has its existence
contingent on something else and not contradict the definition of God
given (God is a necessary existent). But, by statement 1. (which you
appear to assert) whether or not the characteristic of being necessarily
existent obtains *is* contingent on whether or not the God defined as
such actually exists.
-----
It appears to me that you have gotten confused. You seem to have
accepted the truth of "It is impossible that God should exist
contingently..." based on the former meaning - it is not possible to
posit a God that has its existence contingent on something else and not
contradict the definition of God given, and then gone on to take it to
imply 2. above - Necessarily, if God is possible, God exists - a
proposition you say at the beginning of the paragraph you are not
asserting. You cannot have it both ways. If you are not asserting 2.,
then you mean 1. But it is an implication of 1. that God as a "necessary
existent" *is* contingent on God existing.
IOW, by 2., if God is possible, then God exists. But you did not seem to
have posited 2 - you seem to have posited 1. All 1. is saying is that if
God exists as he is defined, then he will have the characteristic
"necessary existent". The characteristic of necessarily existing is a
relative necessity - it is relatively necessary *GIVEN* God exists. It
is not valid to conclude from the relative necessity of God existing,
*GIVEN* God exists as defined, that therefore it *must be the case* that
God exists.
One could ask if the statement, "God is defined as a necessary
existent," is meaningful at all if it is not taken to mean 2. How could
an entity have the characteristic of not possibly not existing and yet
this characteristic is contingent on it existing? Actually it is my
inclination to think that if the statement, "God is defined as a
necessary existent," is intended to mean 1., then it is actually
meaningless. If the statement is intended to mean 2., then I would agree
with another of Joseph Balluch's statements - "Possibility does not
establish necessity." The consequent does not imply the antecedent, and
I see no other basis for necessity as an antecedent in this case.
I think Droth's points about not accepting some of your propositions is
intriguing and may very well be correct, but I haven't mulled it over
enough yet to say much about it.
Ted
Citation for "modal fallacy":
http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/modal_fallacy.htm
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> He asked for evidence that the bible is inerrant, not for how many people
>> believe it, you moron.
>
> Shit-for-brains asked for evidence that
> the bible said something it did not.
He asked for evidence that the bible is inerrant, liar.
> DOES GOD EXIST? STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - NO.
>
> 1. OMNIGENESIS, DETERMINISM, FREE WILL,
> METAPHYSICAL CHAOS AND THEOLOGICAL NIHILISM.
>
> Omni - all, genesis - creation.
> Omnigenesis = creation of all.
>
> Here I shall coin a word for further discussion.
> Omnigenesis means creation of all, to the smallest
> physical detail.
Actually it doesn't. It means simply all creation. As thus, it doesn't
imply a god per se.
Also it doesn't imply anything beyond creation. Many native myths and
religions are also based on a creator god who is not omnipotent, omniscient,
and so on.
> If god is in any way omniscient,
> and creator of all, then he in fact creates all
Translation: If god creates all, god creates all.
Not terribly insightful, Mr. Barwell.
> , omnigenesis,
> to the smallest detail,
Non sequitur. God does not have to create the smallest detail of all things
in order to "create all." Even taking god completely out of the picture,
the big bang is one theory on how initial conditions could begin a process
that includes the present condition of the universe. It would be absurd to
assert that the big bang created all in the finest detail, although it would
not be absurd [if the big bang existed] to assert that the big bang created
all.
Your argument therefore fails at this point in the following manner.
1. God creates all.
2. God is omniscient.
3. If god creates all, god must create every detail of everything created.
The argument above does not follow logically.
all of creation to the smallest
> quantum level material, to the smallest Planck quantum
> distance, Planck quantum time, dimensions, fields,
> everything, all of it. All that is, was, and shall be and can be.
> At higher levels emergent qualities arising from these
> basics create our physical world and us. It creates us,
> our actions, our consciousness, feelings, nature, mental
> inclinations and surrounding environment. One man may
> be a lawyer in California, another an illiterate peasant
> in Bangladesh. One man may be good, another an evil
> psychopath. Omnigenesis means god creates all things
> and all of this and all men's actions and existance
> to the smallest details.
Since I've already demonstrated that the above is not a logical implication
of 'creation' as creation, the only thing you're left with is the "argument
by assertion," the fallacy that contends that an argument consists of merely
repeating unsupported or illogical assertions.
In other words, what you're really saying is God created everything down to
the finest detail because Barwell says that god created everything down to
the finest detail.
>
> It removes all possibility of free will.
Of course it doesn't. It doesn't remove all possibility of free will,
because it is not a logical consequence of creation.
At this point you're tacking free will as another assertion onto your
original argument by assertion.
Since your original argument is illogical and does not follow from the
initial premise, this additional conclusion does not follow either.
>
> 2. THE OMNISCIENT, CREATOR GOD
>
> God creates all, all our acts, inclinations, personalty,
> to the smallest detail. This is extreme determinism.
No it's not. Hard determinism does not require god at all.
> 3. Omnigenesis destroys free will utterly and totally.
As I've shown, that does not follow from your initial premise. A god that
creates all does not logically imply a god that creates every detail.
>
> This destroys compatibilism,
This could only be written by someone who has no understanding of
compatibilism. Even if your argument were valid, which it is not, classic
compatibilism does not deal with anything other than external constraint.
Unless your creator god restrains his creation physically from performing
actions, this god does not undermine classic compatibilism.
Therefore free will does not mean what you evidently believe it means,
because "will" is not effected by classic arguments of compatibilism and
determinism.
> the doctrine god creates
> all but we have free will, and even though god knows what
> we do, he does not interfere with our free will to choose
> what we do. Many people hold this doctrine is incoherent
> and impossible that knowing what we do destroys free will.
Another argument by assertion. "Many people" hold many things to be true.
Interested students should note that this is a recurring theme in weak
arguments. The proponent of the argument states that many people assert
that something is true and then attempts to move on, hoping that the
objection has been dealt with. It is in effect the Appeal to Popular
Opinion in one of its forms. Mr. Barwell, would have to actually explain
how these "many people" have made a valid argument to uphold his assertion.
As always, assertions are not arguments.
>
> But omnigenesis makes that argument moot anyway, we can
> have no sort of free will at all and thus no sort of
> compatibilism can be true. Compatibilism is now irrelevant
> and meaningless as a dodge to exlain way free will
> vs God's foreknowlege of the future.
But, as has been demonstrated before,
1. God or no god, compatibilism is problematic to modern notions of "free
will." Hence, god need have nothing to do with "free will"
2. Your entire argument to this point is flawed, hence, your so-called
"omnigenesis" has nothing to do with free will because there is no such
thing as omnigenesis as you've described it.
> God knows the future because he knowingly creates its every
> tinyest detail.
Unsupported and uncalled for assertion based on your own initial premesis.
>
> 4. THERE ARE 3 ASPECTS OF CREATOR GODS
> OMNIGENESIS FORCES US TO CONSIDER.
Since omnigenesis as it occurs in your argument is a fallacious concept, it
doesn't "force us" to consider anything.
>
> A. The Clock maker, determinate universe, and foreknowledge
>
> This is idea that god is omniscient, has foreknowledge
> of the future because the universe is determinate.
> That god somehow winds up the Universe and lets it go
> and it goes on unfolding in a determinate manner.
> Laplace's demon is said to be able to know the future
> relying on determinism like this. God is theorized
> as just a sort of Laplacian demon here. This god created a
> determinate Universe and knows the future since he can
> calculate the future state of the Universe from a starting
> state due specifically to the determinate quality of
> the Universe.
>
> But omnigenesis means there is no wind up universe
> that unfolds,
And omnigenesis is unproven because your argument is flawed, hence the
'deist' god of the clockwork universe is quite possible.
> B. God and omnipotence and time.
>
> If god is omnipotent,or even just magnipotent, greatly
> powerful, he is beyond being affected by mundane
> things. Time does not affect god,
What forces "Time" to be a "mundane thing" ?
If time is not a mundane thing, how is it that you can know that time cannot
effect God?
> But again its omnigenesis. God creates all. And there
> is no past, future all is now. Thus all is created at
> once, now, in all its finest details. We are back to
> omnigenesis as above.
And omnigenesis cannot be true according to your own initial premises.
>
> We are driven there
Only by your repeated assertions, not by logical necessity. That is why
your argument fails.
> C. Omnigenesis - Creator of all and Omniscience
> As seen above in 2., a god that is simple said to
> be creator of all and omniscient even with no
> particular theory how he knows all, out of time,
> or creates a determinate word that unfolds, no
> theory as to how he knows all, also dooms free will
> in the strongest manner possible. Just the fact this
> god is omniscience and creates all is sufficient
> to create omnigenesis and doom all free will.
But the doom of free will isn't necessitated by the existence of any kind of
god.
Here again, your argument fails to account for how god directly needs to be
involved in the failure of free will in a logical sense. Since it is not
necessary for god to create all particulars in order to create all, it is
not necessary for god to have anything to do with free will.
>
> D. Three theories of creation, omniscience
> 1. Deterministic, clock maker style Universe.
> The theoretical deterministic prime mover's world.
> 2. Omniscient - creator god.
> 3. Omnipotent god transcendent to time.
>
> All 3 theories lead to total omnigenesis.
Of course they don't. Your theory of omnigenesis is flawed. Therefore
nothing but your own flawed thinking "leads to it."
> 5. OMNIGENESIS AND METAPHYSICAL NIHILISM
>
> God is alleged all good, totally good, omniscient,
> creator of all. And the omni-everything creator
> class of gods including the gods of Judaism, Islam,
> Christianity and others have these attributes explicitly,
> and also have other attributes.
1. Your class of gods has already been proven not to exist in anything other
than your mind in many other essays.
2. Significant differences exist in the beliefs you list as to the
attributes of god.
3. Since your theory doesn't work concerning "omnigenesis," if follows that
your theory won't work for a class of gods anymore than it works for a
single god. It does not work for any single god, even the one you've
attempted to invent. Therefore, it does not work for any class of gods
other than the class of gods that contains exactly one god, which is the god
you invented.
> Heaven, hell, sin, salvation, damnation lose all
> coherent sense and meaning. Where is love in
> creating one man evil and many his victims?
> How can that be loving, merciful or just?
The above is a pale attempt at summoning the ghost of the Argument from
Evil. Nothing you've written above is implied by your flawed theory of
'omnigenesis' even if your theory was correct.
Again, you've essentially constructed an argument by assertion alone.
Arguments consist of more than assertion, Mr. Barwell.
> 6. SOULS
>
> And supposedly this god creates souls,
Which is also unnecessary from the premises leading to 'omnigenesis.'
Hence your remarks on souls do not follow from your premises.
> 7. CHAOS, NIHILISM, IRRATIONALITY, UNREALITY OF ALL
>
> We achieve then total, absolute, furious metaphysical nihilism.
Not in any fashion you've described.
1. Your argument does not imply nihilism as a conclusion.
2. God is not necessary for nihilism to exist.
> This is In the end, taken to their logical ends are all
> theology religion, and omni-everything, creator god class
> religion can possibly hope to achieve.
Actually, nothing that you've written implies these ends. Furthermore,
quite a few atheists end up embracing nihilism, Mr. Barwell. Your argument
does not speak to the rather evident truth that the emergence and growth of
nihilism parallels the historical lapse of belief in god in both Europe and
the United States.
Though I do not consider this historical fact an argument for religion in
general, it certainly cannot be construed as an argument for the salutory
benefits of anti-theism.
> Materialism must be true, the only truth possible.
You have not even begun to demonstrate that the above is true, Mr. Barwell.
Your omnigenesis argument, is hopeless flawed on its face. And you
certainly have not shown that materialism is the only alternative to a
belief in the god you've created for your argument.
In summary.
1. Your argument is flawed due to non-sequiturs [creation does not imply
creation of each and every particular element of reality] and the argument
by assertion [the assertion of omniscience, the assertion of freedom from
time, the assertion of the necessity of souls, and so on...none of which
have you supported with logical arguments].
2. Materialism is not the only alternative to your argument.
Hence, omnigenesis leads to nothing because omnigenesis as you've described
it does not exist. And materialism is not the only alternative to your
argument, hence it is not the only possible truth.
> In the end, we have two stark choices, sane materialism, or
> total metaphysical nihilsm. There is really then, only one choice.
A crowning end to your typical lack of rationality.
If we have indeed only one choice, we do not logically have a choice.
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> The numbers mount daily.
>
> Only 6 or 7 now.
The only 6 or 7 who even bother to respond to you, Barwell
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>> news:12evj5k...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:12ev3up...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>>> OMNISCIENCE PROOF TEXTS
>>>>
>>>> There are no omniscience proof texts.
>>>
>>> You have to be trolling.
>>
>> There is no proof of omniscience. Therefore there are no omniscience
>> proof texts.
>
> This has to go into my moron quotes
Your moron quotes are equivalent to anything you post, Barwell.
Ted King
<lodited-EC6B3C...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
Ted King <lod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <1156528878.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Joseph Geloso" <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > LEVEL FOUR: God.
> >
> > God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that God
> > necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He exists
> > necessarily. It is impossible that God should exist contingently, so
> > the only remaining possibilities are that He necessarily exists or that
> > He is impossible. Consequently, if God is not impossible, then God
> > exists.
> >
> > QED.
>
> My philosophy skills are pretty rusty, but let me take a crack at this.
>
> Assuming that if a set of propositions leads to an absurdity, then that
> set of propositions do not yield valid arguments:
After rethinking this, I'm not so sure about the argument I made here
about the propositions leading to an absurdity. What follows that still
seem correct to me, though.
From this point forward I still think my points are correct:
Ted
Ted King
"eyelessgame" <aa...@oro.net> wrote:
Somehow I missed this post before I sat down to write my babbling-on
post to this thread. I wish I had seen it. It would have saved me the
time I took to write my post. This beautifully hits the nail on the head
(erotic allusions not entirely unintended).
Ted
Enkidu
@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Joseph Geloso wrote:
>
>> The upshot is that all of ideaspace may now be divided into three
>> categories: impossibilities, contingents, and necessary existents. The
>> distinction between existent and nonexistent contingents is irrelevant
>> in this discussion.
>
> Right.
>
> Permit me to define an entity with the following six properties. It is
>
> - a human female,
> - nude,
> - sexually insatiable for all practical purposes,
> - physically identical to Cameron Diaz,
> - sitting on my lap right now, and
> - noncontingent.
Damned! On first reading, that came across as "noncontinent". Didn't
quite know why you'd want her on your lap.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
And if you believe in that supreme power, you have to believe that *it*
came from nothing? Which is harder: to believe that a super-simple
universe, emergent from nothing, iterating simple algorithms billions of
times, brought about all the wonderful complexity you see around you, or
that a super-complicated and mightily all-powerful God built a simple and
undignified little universe of pain and sorrow, leaving no coherent
explanation whatsoever?
Brian Fletcher
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 01:35:28 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
> <bria...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> - Refer: <AzNHg.18031$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>>
>>"Chris Johnson" <effi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1156536427....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Joseph Geloso wrote:
>>>> Modal Existential Argument.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He exists
>>>> necessarily.
>>>
>>> from this? How is the veracity of the Bible (if you believe it) proved
>>> as a corollary? How does this in any way imply that Jesus is somehow
>>> endorsed (setting aside familial relations) by this god?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Cultural programming. One of Aus's leading media men/jornalist, had , and
>>filmed, a very life changing experience for him (he used to be on the
>>board
>>of Australin sceptics.) Under clinical conditions, he witnesses a woman
>>who's brain activity was being monitored by a mri machine, showing a coma
>>state,adjudicated by a brain specialist who was not aware of the purpose
>>of
>>the monitoring. She was fully lucid, communicating to "entities" around
>>the journo.. Under the same clinical conditions, she demonstrated
>>'stigmata', nearly died, and then miraculously recovered.
>>
>>I have no doubt of the veracity of the report. He interpreted the event in
>>the only way he could, via that of his catholic upbringing.
>
> I take it that you are referring to this?:
> http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-08/082506yet.html#i3
I "just happened" to be in the U.S at the time (9yrs ago from memory) when I
had an urge to turn on the TV during the day. This was during a time of
quite amazing 'co incidents' at the time. On the Denton show, there was no
mention of the mri specialist overseeing the experiment.
To convince someone who's eyes are closed is futile, even when there is hard
evidence at hand.
The significant part of my thread was the last sentence regarding pre
conditioning and the basis of interpretation.
He's writing a book?......holy shit. And him being a writer and all ....
sacre bleu.
BOfL
>
>
>>When people have visions of Jesus, they usually report seeing a tall blue
>>eyed blond 'entity' with a beard.
>>
>>A case of mis-taken id-entity.
>>
>>This type of experience appears(first or second hand) to the healthy
>>sceptic, to validate certain dogmas, so finds is blocked by an apparent
>>contradiction.
>>
>>BOfL
Brian Fletcher
"Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44ef...@news.eftel.com...
> evidence to back it up.
>
> As far as serious skeptics are concerned about proving Willisee wrong, as
> opposed to automatically presuming it's fantasy, you may have missed this
> from fear of having to face the truth of these matters.
>
> MIKE WILLESEE: James Randi is a phoney. I mean he forgets that he once
> named me Investigative Journalist of the Year and sent me a trophy.
> Fortunately I threw it away, I didn't take it seriously.
>
>
>
> ANDREW DENTON: But, okay, put aside James Randi. Why not give it to
> somebody that's not carrying any strong religious belief to absolutely
> thoroughly investigate?
>
>
>
> MIKE WILLESEE: We were quite prepared to do that, but all the people who
> criticised us, not one person asked to see the footage, including all the
> footage that didn't go to air. Not one person asked to interview any
> witnesses. Not one critic made the slightest attempt at investigation, so
> now tell me who I hand it over to?
>
>
> [ Scientism and rational skeptics at their best. Just ignore it, throw a
> ton of mud, and hope it goes away. ]
greater answers and the power that came with them, I had to learn to respect
those who were yet to get those answers
A very tough call.... hehehehehehe....(grrrrrrrrrr :-)
BOfL
Michael Gray
What on earth are you dribbling about now?
I just posted a URL, and you are foaming at the mouth!
Michael Gray
<ever...@everywhere.net> wrote:
- Refer: <VMZHg.12870$w7.1...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>
Perhaps you should mention this to your mental health professional.
Michael Gray
- Refer: <1156619727.4...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>
Next time, read Isaiah all the way through.
Brian Fletcher
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:f760f2ps7rt6bvu4q...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 16:56:36 +1000, "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 01:35:28 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
>>> <bria...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>> - Refer: <AzNHg.18031$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>>>>
>>>>"Chris Johnson" <effi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1156536427....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> Joseph Geloso wrote:
>>>>>> Modal Existential Argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> God
>>>>>> necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He exists
>>>>>> necessarily.
>>>>>
> every post.
Thats easy. The operative word is "appear". Just apply the well known adage
of 'in the eye of the beholder" and you have "got it"...
BOfL
>
>
>>
Brian Fletcher
"Pastor Kutchie" <use...@heathens.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1156558099....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Joseph Geloso wrote:
>> Modal Existential Argument.
>>
>>
>> and impossibilities.
>>
>
> specialist knowledge.
>
> Grab a beer, it contains all you need to understand something so
> fundamental about the nature of consciousness - i.e. that it is
> principally an effect of a material cause - that it is simply dishonest
> to continue to entertain the idea that a consciousness without a
> material cause can be the first cause of everything. Thus the argument
> vis a vis the existence of God is settled without even needing to
> suggest a first cause of everything.
>
> Still don't get it? Have another drink.
It is true. There are "artifical" way to achive a shift in consciousness,
but like any drugged state, there is a "hell" of a cost.
BOfL
Brian Fletcher
"Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote in message
news:f8ednbdEi5ihz23Z...@aci.on.ca...> news:44f047e1...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> On 25 Aug 2006 11:01:18 -0700, "Joseph Geloso" <jose...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that God
>>>necessarily exists,
>>
>> possibility of nothingness. It has no ontological substance and
>> therefore cannot be used as the subject of any proposition.
>>
>
> essential characteristics of Being, not non-Being.
>
>> Being is necessary, not contingent.
>>
>>>but that if He exists at all, then He exists
>>>the only remaining possibilities are that He necessarily exists or that
>>>He is impossible. Consequently, if God is not impossible, then God
>>>exists.
>>
>> ontological circumstances for God not to exist.
>
> Wrong. There is not one single shred of evidence to support the myth the
> god exists, let alone exists necessarily. If god does not exist and the
> universe does exist then so much for your little play on words.
>
>>
>> That's the same as the separation of Realism from Idealism. That's the
>> separation of the Objective from the Subjective. That is the
>> separation of Real from Fantasy.
>>
>
> More Bob nonsense. You should buy yourself a dictionary and use it before
> you start playing with words, then you wouldn't sound like such an idiot.
> Ontology is a study, hence it implies an epistemology, unless of course
> it's Bob ontology, then you just need faith in a magic pixie.
All pixies are magic Tim. Look 'em up in the same dictionary :-)
BOfL
Sean
"Brian Fletcher" <bria...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:G67Ig.18503$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
You plagiarising criminal you! I already stole that phrase. Find your own.
hehehehe
>>
>>
>>>
>
>
Sean
I am neither dribbling nor foaming at the mouth. let me explain it to you,
as you appear to not grasp the obvious.
Denton asked a very sensible and logical question, and Willisee answered it
without missing a beat. I saw the program myself.
First, read this .....
Not one person asked to interview any
>>witnesses. Not one critic made the slightest attempt at investigation, so
>>now tell me who I hand it over to?
which equates to this ............
Scientism and rational skeptics at their best. Just ignore it, throw a ton
>>of mud, and hope it goes away.
Why?
Because the people, including the website which only half quoted what was
actually said, doing the criticising of what Willisee filmed and personally
investigated [ he used to be an office holder of the australian skeptics
society btw ] ignored all the eividence, refused to look at the evidence
when it was offered to them, refused to interview any other witnesses,
simply assumed it was bunkum based upon personally held beliefs not any
scientific evidence or investigation of what physically occurred. iow they
were just big mouths shooting the breeze about the primacy of science and
rational logic whilst not practicing it themselves.
iow they were and are full of shit, becasue they refuse to look
scientifically at things that are counter to their beliefs in their own
supremacy and God like wisdom.
They demand that nothing should be accepted without rigourous investigation,
except their own beliefs of what is or is not possible. That is not science,
it is Scientism a theoretical belief,-- it is not rational, it is illogical
and sign of intellectual dishonesty.
Willisee offered these people FULL FREE ACCESS to his material ........ all
refused to look at it. That is the issue I am pointing to.
Whether what happened occured as presented by Willisee is irrelevant, as is
whether or not is has anything to do with Biblical beliefs. either the
wounds appeared and were real, or they were not. But just saying it didn't
without any hard evidence, is the EXACT same thing as believing that Genesis
is a true and accurate record of life on Earth. These people are promoting
myths, not scientific analysis.
Now if you can't now understand what I am talking about, then there's is
nothing more I can add. And if you believe there is any foaming of the mouth
going on here, then I suggest you go look in the mirror. <G>
Sean
Yes. But I thought I was talking about scientific methodology and logic, and
the difference between those that practice it, and those that just talk
about it by insisting everyone should practice but themselves, in my own
colourful language. Seemed self evident in this example. ;-))
I wasn't getting into what Willisee may have concluded that the physical
wounds meant for him or anyone else, but whether or not they were physically
real or a con of some kind. That is surely within the bounds of science to
look at the evidence objectively.
Or were you referring to you mentioning this in the first place? hehehehehe.
either way, I do get the grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr though ;-))
>
>
word...@rocketmail.com
Uncle Vic wrote:
> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet (word...@rocketmail.com)
> made the light shine upon us with this:
>
> >> Bullshit. The buybull states that god himself *created* evil --
> >> knowingly and willingly (being omniscient, he can't not do anything
> >> knowingly or willingly)
> >
> > The Bible doesn't say that. God created the angels all good. Some chose
> > to rebel. How is that "god *himself* created evil"? It's not. Evil
> > created itself.
>
> Idiot.
If the best you can do is an ad hom attack, then you're not worth
talking to.
W
Uncle Vic
made the light shine upon us with this:
>
> Uncle Vic wrote:
>> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet
>> (word...@rocketmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>>
>> >> Bullshit. The buybull states that god himself *created* evil --
>> >> knowingly and willingly (being omniscient, he can't not do
>> >> anything knowingly or willingly)
>> >
>> > The Bible doesn't say that. God created the angels all good. Some
>> > chose to rebel. How is that "god *himself* created evil"? It's not.
>> > Evil created itself.
>>
>> Idiot.
>
> If the best you can do is an ad hom attack, then you're not worth
> talking to.
>
> W
>
>> Isaiah 45:7
>> I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil:
>> I the LORD do all these things.
>>
Nevermind that what you refused to respond to showed why you are an
idiot.
word...@rocketmail.com
I have. God allows darkness to tempt us for a greater good, but he
doesn't allow it to control us. We have to buy into it.
W
word...@rocketmail.com
Uncle Vic wrote:
> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet (word...@rocketmail.com)
> made the light shine upon us with this:
>
> >
> > Uncle Vic wrote:
> >> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet
> >> (word...@rocketmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
> >>
> >> >> Bullshit. The buybull states that god himself *created* evil --
> >> >> knowingly and willingly (being omniscient, he can't not do
> >> >> anything knowingly or willingly)
> >> >
> >> > The Bible doesn't say that. God created the angels all good. Some
> >> > chose to rebel. How is that "god *himself* created evil"? It's not.
> >> > Evil created itself.
> >>
> >> Idiot.
> >
> > If the best you can do is an ad hom attack, then you're not worth
> > talking to.
> >
> > W
> >
> >> Isaiah 45:7
> >> I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil:
> >> I the LORD do all these things.
> >>
>
> Nevermind that what you refused to respond to showed why you are an
> idiot.
I have responded. Look below. Btw, name calling is not debate.
W
Uncle Vic
Looking below. Don't see anything but my sig.
Uncle Vic
Oh, this is the "below" you refer to. LOL.
This is what the preachers have taught you, no doubt. And you obviously
believe them without further thought.
This is also one of the reasons the 15th century monks were so adamently
opposed to the printing of the Bible, making it available to anyone who
could read.
Read Isaiah 45:7 again and tell me it does not say that "god" created
evil.
FYI, I actually agree with you, evil created itself. God did not create
evil, because he doesn't exist, and the bible is a bunch of stone-age
superstitious nonsense.
Michael Gray
- Refer: <1156659679.1...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
>
>Uncle Vic wrote:
>> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet (word...@rocketmail.com)
>> made the light shine upon us with this:
>>
>> >> Bullshit. The buybull states that god himself *created* evil --
>> >> knowingly and willingly (being omniscient, he can't not do anything
>> >> knowingly or willingly)
>> >
>> > The Bible doesn't say that. God created the angels all good. Some chose
>> > to rebel. How is that "god *himself* created evil"? It's not. Evil
>> > created itself.
>>
>> Idiot.
>
>If the best you can do is an ad hom attack, then you're not worth
>talking to.
If you can't read the bible properly before commenting on it, then you
are not worth talking to.
Brian Fletcher
"Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f1...@news.eftel.com...
I was talking about the behaviour of the scientific fraternity.Ironically,
it proves you dont have to be intellectually bright to have an open mind.
Very reassuring :-)
BOfL
Sean
aha, ok I see now. But were you now saying i was not intellectually bright ?
pulling your leg .... . another example of those, looking *from* moments.
hehehehe
>
wcb
>
> I have. God allows darkness to tempt us for a greater good, but he
> doesn't allow it to control us. We have to buy into it.
>
God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
(James 1:13).
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
Malcolm
>
> My philosophy skills are pretty rusty, but let me take a crack at this.
>
> Assuming that if a set of propositions leads to an absurdity, then that
> set of propositions do not yield valid arguments:
>
Y to disappear. They also exist unless impossible, by the argument.
So if we can demonstrate X, Y is impossible, and doesn't exist.
I suspect that the answer to this conundrum is that you've set up a system
in which the complex (X OR Y) has the same characteristics as the non-self
contradictory necessary contingent.
Let X by the triune God of Chrisitianity and Y be the unitary God of Juadism
and Islam. Now we've got your system, with the characteristic that (X AND Y)
is self-contradictory.
Can you give an example where (X AND Y) is not self contradictory, X implies
(NOT Y), and Y is not a contingent proposition?
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
Sphere
Joseph Geloso wrote:
> Modal Existential Argument.
>
>
> and impossibilities
Are the impossibilities those which some particular
ideaspace subcollection posits as impossible?
> Ideaspace is the set of all ideas, including both notions and concepts,
> where notion means a loosely- or vaguely-defined idea, and concept
> means a fully- or clearly-defined idea.
Then there are only notions?
> Ideaspace includes all that can possibly be talked about, since we only
> ever talk about what we think about (unless we're speaking in tongues
> or in the grip of some delerium or other).
Hmmm.... Sounds like an idealization to me. How is
it that this ideaspace can possibly exist when it
would take an infinite amount of time to list all that
can possibly be talked about? We don't have an
infinite amount of time.
(We are thinking about those tongues, and are
always in some sort of delerium.)
> Since Ideaspace contains both notions and concepts, and since notions
> may possibly contain contradictions, and since reality can contain no
> contradictions, it follows that Ideaspace may contain some ideas which
> are impossibilities. An impossibility is a notion that contains a
> contradiction. Apart from containing a contradiction, I do not find any
> other condition that prevents possibility for an idea.
It isn't clear to me that this ideaspace contains
any concepts -- given your definition of concept.
Since I don't grant any reality beyond that which
I know, and what I know is at least part of reality,
I would posit that reality can indeed contain
contradictions. (I can't grant any reality beyond
that which I know because I do not know that
which I do not know -- very Rumsfieldian.)
>
> So the whole of Ideaspace may be divided into possibilities and
> impossibilities.
Um, not quite. It contains families of sets of
possibilities and impossibilities where each
family is based upon differing notions of what
it means to be real, and each member set of the
family is based upon a different set of assumptions
about said realness. It is not clear that any of
these families is a proper partition.
>
> I would ask that the reader fully agree with everything on level one
> before proceeding to level two, and so on and so forth with subsequent
> levels. I expect that I will find it far easier to answer objections if
> this procedure is adhered to.
No, and no.
1. I disagree with almost everything on level
one, and
2. I'll at least look at some of what follows.
>
>
> LEVEL TWO: Further division of possibilities into existents and
> nonexistents.
There is a family of notions about what it means to be
real for which it is possible to partition some subsystem
of ideaspace into notions of existents and non-existents...
>
> Of possibilties, not all ever become realities. There is nothing
> intrinsically impossible about a unicorn, for instance; nonetheless, I
> do not expect that any specimens will turn up any time soon, because
> they are most likely fictitious.
Aside from narwhales, the 'existence' of unicorns seems
to be becoming a possibility for modern genetics. Does
this make them real or unreal? Be careful in your assumptions
about the meaning of time in relationship to existence.
>
> So of all possibilities, some are instantiated in reality, and these I
> call existents, while others are not thus instantiated, and these I
> call nonexistents.
We still have the problem that there is amost nothing but
hydrogen, and even that is an epiphenomenal fiction of
leptons and hadrons (etc.).
>
> In addition to those possibilities that happen to be nonexistent, there
> is also the entire set of impossibilities which contains only
> nonexistents. Since an impossibility cannot possibly exist, it follows
> simply that none of them do exist.
We still have the problem that impossibility is a notion
within ideaspace and has no meaning outside ideaspace.
It doesn't even have meaning within an 'infinite' region of
ideaspace.
Basically, your 'reality' is just angels dancing upon
an imaginary pin.
>
>
> LEVEL THREE: Further division of existents into contingent and
> necessary, and further commentary on nonexistents.
>
> Of the existents, some depend for their existence on certain
> conditions, and these existents I call contingent. The conditions
> themselves will always be particular configurations of other existents,
> which in their turn may be contingent on other conditions. Since there
> can be no infinite regress in the chain of contingencies, it stands to
> reason that there must be at least one necessary existent: I.e., the
> set of necessary existents is necessarily non-empty.
First, there is no prohibition in an infinite ideaspace
against infinite regression -- however, that is not
what I think happens.
Causality is not linear. There is never a unitary one-to-one
relationship between cause and effect. Instead, causation
is always many-to-many. Conditions come together and
there are results. The relationship between wholes and
parts is not strictly hierarchical, and the whole participates
in the creation of its' parts. I cannot live without a liver,
but there would be no liver without a 'me' to have it.
As you go 'down' the network of 'existence' the distinction
between wholes and parts becomes less and less meaningful,
until eventually there is no distinction between whole and
part. Like the bottom of a muddy river, existence simply
peters away. As the Discordians like to say -- in a manner
too personalistic for my tastes -- fundamentally, existence
is pure chaos.
>
> So the existents may be divided into contingent existents and necessary
> existents.
Rejected.
>
> Now to turn for a moment to the nonexistents, these also may be divided
> into two groups, according to why they do not exist. Some nonexistents
> do not exist because they cannot possibly exist, i.e. they are
> impossibilities. Others do not exist because the requisite conditions
> for their existence simply have not as yet come about (nor need they
> ever necessarily come about). These possibilities whose conditions have
> not come about obviously must fall into the class of contingents, along
> with those contingents whose conditions have come about and which
> exist.
rejected.
>
> The upshot is that all of ideaspace may now be divided into three
> categories: impossibilities, contingents, and necessary existents. The
> distinction between existent and nonexistent contingents is irrelevant
> in this discussion.
Rejected.
>
>
> LEVEL FOUR: God.
(rejected.)
>
> God is defined as a necessary existent. This is not to assert that God
> necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He exists
> necessarily. It is impossible that God should exist contingently, so
> the only remaining possibilities are that He necessarily exists or that
> He is impossible. Consequently, if God is not impossible, then God
> exists.
Since we are restricted to ideaspace, God must be an
idea -- this is an idea with which I agree. (To the extent
there is a notion of God outside of ideaspace I am totally
disinterested. I am only interested in the idea of God, and
consider the idea of God the only notion of God worth
consideration -- as I come to the conclusion that God is a
bad idea, and like all bad ideas ought to be dropped
without considering the object of the idea. You do not
consider the object of a bad idea. You forget the bad idea
instead.)
The idea of God is a schoolyard bully who cannot play
well with others. It is basic to the idea of One God that
all other notions of divinity must be destroyed -- frequently
by killing the people who hold those other notions of
divinity. The idea of One God is a murderer of other ideas,
and cannot help but be evil. God is a bad idea, and ought
to be forgotten.
>
> QED.
Quod Erat Demonstratum.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
Sphere
wcb wrote:
> Lion Of Judah wrote:
>
> > Pretty cool. But why can't there be an infinite regress in a chain of
> > contingencies?
> >
> > Also why define God as necessarily existent?
> >
>
> Necessary existent means if, you define god as
> a first cause it must exist.
Might mean that, but it is wrong. This assumes that
causation is linear, and even a cursory inspection
will show that there are no known cases where a
single cause leads to a single result. In every instance
you can find it will be the case that there are multiple
conditions leading to multiple effects. It is just
convenient to ignore most of the conditions and
most of the effects.
>
> If there is a first cause it MUST exist to be first.
> It cannot have not been.
> Whether it is the biblical Yahweh or Hesiod's Theogony style
> chaotic void that emanated Gaia, the Earth that brought
> forth the Titan gods of Greek mythology matters not, both are
> necessary in that if there is a start, something must be first.
>
> Necessary being is theology jargon for first cause really.
>
> Or it could be the fields that are the real cause of
> virtual particals and the one that birthed our universe.
Sphere
bulkington63 wrote:
> Joseph Geloso wrote:
> > Modal Existential Argument.
> >
> >
> > LEVEL ONE: Ideaspace; First division of Ideaspace into possibilities
> >
> > Ideaspace is the set of all ideas, including both notions and concepts,
> > where notion means a loosely- or vaguely-defined idea, and concept
> > means a fully- or clearly-defined idea.
> >
> > ever talk about what we think about (unless we're speaking in tongues
> > or in the grip of some delerium or other).
> >
> > may possibly contain contradictions, and since reality can contain no
> > contradictions, it follows that Ideaspace may contain some ideas which
> > are impossibilities. An impossibility is a notion that contains a
> > contradiction. Apart from containing a contradiction, I do not find any
> > other condition that prevents possibility for an idea.
> >
> > impossibilities.
> >
> > before proceeding to level two, and so on and so forth with subsequent
> > levels. I expect that I will find it far easier to answer objections if
> > this procedure is adhered to.
> >
> >
> > nonexistents.
> >
> > intrinsically impossible about a unicorn, for instance; nonetheless, I
> > do not expect that any specimens will turn up any time soon, because
> > they are most likely fictitious.
> >
> > call existents, while others are not thus instantiated, and these I
> > call nonexistents.
> >
> > is also the entire set of impossibilities which contains only
> > nonexistents. Since an impossibility cannot possibly exist, it follows
> > simply that none of them do exist.
> >
> >
> > necessary, and further commentary on nonexistents.
> >
> > Of the existents, some depend for their existence on certain
> > conditions, and these existents I call contingent. The conditions
> > themselves will always be particular configurations of other existents,
> > which in their turn may be contingent on other conditions. Since there
> > can be no infinite regress in the chain of contingencies, it stands to
> > reason that there must be at least one necessary existent: I.e., the
> > set of necessary existents is necessarily non-empty.
> >
> > existents.
> >
> > into two groups, according to why they do not exist. Some nonexistents
> > do not exist because they cannot possibly exist, i.e. they are
> > impossibilities. Others do not exist because the requisite conditions
> > for their existence simply have not as yet come about (nor need they
> > ever necessarily come about). These possibilities whose conditions have
> > not come about obviously must fall into the class of contingents, along
> > with those contingents whose conditions have come about and which
> > exist.
> >
> > categories: impossibilities, contingents, and necessary existents. The
> > distinction between existent and nonexistent contingents is irrelevant
> > in this discussion.
> >
> >
> >
> > God is defined as a necessary existent.
>
> have now 'forced' this definition it only leads you to your mistaken
> conclusion.
>
> >This is not to assert that God
> > necessarily exists, but that if He exists at all, then He exists
> > necessarily.
>
>
> >It is impossible that God should exist contingently,
>
> claiming she exists.
Very good, however, you are straying into a part of ideaspace
he wishes to ignore.
>
> >so
> > the only remaining possibilities are that He necessarily exists or that
> > He is impossible. Consequently, if God is not impossible, then God
> > exists.
>
> But unfortunetly for you, she doesn't exist.
If this God doesn't 'exist' then I do not 'exist' either. (I'm
not claiming to 'exist'.) I am only a story told by trillions
of cells. This God is only a story told by millions of people.
This God and I have the same ontological status. That
is to say: I have not found any other than an extremely
contrived definition of 'exist' such that I exist and this
God does not exist -- although I will say that this God is
both a very good liar and is evil. I would not be able to
pull off the claim of omniscience and omnipotence
the way this God has.
>
> >
> > QED.
> LOL