Re: Attn: religious trollers: THERE IS NO GOD.
wbarwell
> wbarwell <wbar...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> news:<41301fdc$0$171$811e...@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
>> > This is a positive assertion. Does the rule "he who asserts must
>> > prove" apply in alt.atheism? Or is that only for theists?
>> >
>> >> This newsgroup is for the discussion of atheism.
>> >
>> > So then I would imagine discussion about the veracity of theism or the
>> > evidence of a positive affirmation of atheism is relevant. A
>>
>> Can god do the impossible, the improbable?
>> Can god create a square circle or a four sided
>> triangle?
>> That is, does god make the rules the laws, the logic
>> of the Universe or not?
>
> Theists and philosophers of religion have been split on this issue,
> but if I am not mistaken, most now side with the position that God's
> omnipotence only entails doing anything which is logically possible
> (though I'm certain there are theists who take the opposite position).
> Where do we go from here?
Does god make the rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe or not?
Aquinas and others have argued god cannot go against his nature,
thus god cannot do evil, being omnibenevolent. But since that is
simply not in his nature, it does not count against the claim god
is omnipotent. This is what you are hinting at above when you say
"philosophers of religion have been split on the issue".
The old chestnuts, can god do evil or can god commit suicide and
if so then is god no longer omnipotent?" Medieval arguments.
Now, can god do the impossible? Does god make the rules of the
Universe, its logic its laws?
If so, god could create a world where man has free will, yet like
god has a good nature and thus freely choses only to do moral good.
This would no more count against man having free will than god's nature
would prevent him from being omnipotent simply because he does not
do moral evil. The old dodges that allow god to retain omnipotence yet
being unable by nature to do evvil, or commit sudicide, also work for
man, he may have free will, yet by nature could be created to be
naturally good and incapable of moral evil.
Thus the old free will dodge to avoid sticking god with being
responsible for evil does not work here.
Its moot.
If god makes the rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe, he could
easily make a Universe where man is totally good and thus choses only
to do moral good yet has free will.
If god could do this and does not create such a Universe then
god is the creator and sustaining cause of all evil. All moral
evil that ever was, is and ever will be. God is thus, being directly
and personally responsible for the existance of all evil, not
omnibenevolent as claimed, but omnimalevolent. Totally evil.
"Where do we go from here" you rhetorical respond?
We go to the obvious response above.
If god creates all the rules and the laws and the logic of the
Universe, he is not omnibenevolent, but omnimalevolent,
totally evil responsible personally and directly for all evil.
The claim of theologians has long been, god is omnibenevolent,
but we see here, if we allow that god creates the rules of the
Universe he must be evil. Actually and literally the ONLY evil
entity in existance, since all evil results from his allowing evil to exist.
There can be none evil except god.
"Where do we go from here"?
Well, now, I suppose you will then deny god can create the rules,
the laws and the very logic of the Universe to save god from the
distinct embaressment of being the only cause of moral evil.
From being the creator of all evil and its sustaining cause.
To perserve the theological a priori claim god is omnibenevolent.
OK, fair enough.
Now, where do the laws and rules and logic of the universe
come from and what are they and how does all of that work?
Now we know, having abandoned the claim that god creates
these things, that god is not as claimed by theology, the most powerful
thing imaginable, the Universe with its laws and rules and logic
even god must obey is far more powerful than god.
So much for Anselm's ontological proof and other similar proofs
that start by stating god is the most powerful thing that can
be imagined.
To save omnibenevolence that is given up.
And since the Universe and its logic and rules and laws
are beyond god, and limiting god, they must be beyond god,
outside of god outside his reach and thus preceed him or parallel
him, not created by him.
After all, if we say god created that Universe and chose to
make it binding on him with the rules so created, he'd (being
omniscient) know it would limit him and force a Universe where
moral evil exists to so exist with all moral evil, and he is back
to being omnimalevolent and willfully so.
So he'd be duty bound to create a world most different from
this one or one where he does indeed make the rules and laws
and logic, or where man has free will yet a nature where he can only choose
to do moral good.
Thus god does not create this world or is unutterable and
totally evil.
So god is obviously not the creator of the universe with its
rules and laws and logic.
So the theological claim god created all is dead and gone.
And with it the Kalam proof which is basically the cosmological
proof of Aquinas, a mere variation there of.
And with all of this, omnipotence disappears. God is not
omnipotent, he is limited by the laws and rules and logic of
the Universe. And just what can god do and not do?
Since theology has paid no attention to this problem, theology
has no answers.
We note here that the long standing a priori claims of
theology are falling like houses of cards left and right.
Obviously, they were weak to begin with, yet my little
train of thinking here that shows them to be worthless
exercises in wishful thinking have escaped theologians for
millenia.
That is to say, theological methodology is deeply flawed,
wrong, useless and provably so.
And what are the methods that theologians used to come
up with these obviously false claims?
A priori reasoning, making empty assertions, mere claims
for one. For example positing a perfect god and then deriving
subperfections such as omnipotence, and omniscience from
that claimed but unproven assertion of perfection.
Failure to adequately and honestly deal with issues such
as I have done due to preconceptions and bias.
Logic chopping and word games.
Now we get down to other issues.
What are the rules and logic and laws of the Universe and
where do they come from? All we know is they cannot come
from any supposed god
The claim god exists is a burden of proof on the believer's
shoulders. Yet the believers seem to have the view that somehow
the claims of god are so old and established they have been
grandfathered from having to be proven, from being the burden
of believers to prove. the burden of evidence has been subtly shifted
to the Atheist to prove Atheism. Lack of god's existance.
As I have shown you, the claims are faulty, and so is the theological
methodology that created them.
The believers have nothing and have to start from scratch.
The burden is on you, and not us the non-believers as I have
shown we can easily destroy theological claims and methodology
I have taken the burden, illicitly shifted to my shoulders by making
naked and unproven assetions, and I have show these assertions
cannot be true. So the burden now shifts back to theology but in a
different manner.
The old methodology is no longer acceptable.
No more A Priori statements, assertions, unproven claims.
Givens we must deal with.
The Universe exists and we can see it all around us.
God is not seen to exist and the 'evidences' given to suppose a
god exists are failed, god is shown not to exist as claimed.
Its a given that the Universe has its rules and laws and logic not created
or accessible to any possible imaginable god, unless you want a god that is
omnimalevolent and creator of all evil, in fact the only evil entity in the
entire Universe, which is not what theology has told us for 4000 years.
And isn't about to accept.
And what are the rules and laws and logic of the Universe?
Physics and chemistry, quantum mechanics, fields, space and time.
So far physics shows us that no supernatural entity that has will and
intelligence can exist that is not made of matter and energy and subject to
the laws and rules of time, space and phsyics.
This is the basic reality that has been tested and understood.
The burden of proof to show otherwise is on the theolgians shoulders,
and the old methodologies of making bold statements a priori
do not work and are no longer acceptable methodology.
Theology no longer gets to make assertions, "god exists" or "god is
omnipotent" or "god is perfect" except as an unsupported assertion that
needs to be supported by hard evidence. Science is in the business of
trying to understand the hard mechanism by which the Universe actually
exists and how it does what it does in the way it does.
Theology has never attempted to do similar, to show the mechanism of
a supposed supernatural world or entities, instead it has made dogmatic
statements with no supporting evidence for them and in fact has long
ignored disconfirming statements.
Science started bottom up, the ancient Greeks asking how does the
Universe really work? The baker bakes bread, we smell that down
the street. What is it we sense? Particles? How does this work?
A coin is old and worn, where does the metal go? Is it a substance,
indefinitely divisible, or particles of a size and shape?
Starting with such basic bottom up questions, science has created
a successful model for discovery and explanation.
Galileo, a physics professor at the University of Pisa knew
physics of his day was inadequate and flawed in methology.
He threw out all pysics as it was known then and started from
scratch, bottom up, rolling objects down planks and simple
experiments, starting froms scratch and inventing science as
we know it.
Dogmatic statements were unaceptable, only tested claims were
allowed to be said to be true.
Theology, like physics in Galileo's day is a failure.
The burden of proof is on theology to prove its case and the
methods of theology, assertions and word games is inadequate
to the task and no longer allowable.
To even begin with proving any sort of god theology would have to
create a new discipline a science and biology of the supernatural
before it can even be allowed to say anything about god, and
like Galileo, it would have to start from scratch and consider not
assertions or claims, but only demonstratable and repeateable
experimental facts, which for supernatural phenomenon, do not
exist at all.
There are no supernatural entities, no supernatural realm, no
equivalent to physics or biology in the actual world.
All theology is is the making of assertions and ignoring the fact
that they are failures.
"Where do we go from here"?
We admit theological claims for god are false and untrue.
We admit that theological methodology is failed and cannot
show us anything.
We admit that the old ways of making empty assertions
does not work.
That deriving subclaims from a priori claims is a failed
methodology.
That there is no know sign of any supernatural entities.
That there is no sign of any supernatural realms where
such entities could exist.
That only by dealing with the supernatural realms in a manner
equivalent to physics can anything possibly be proven.
We admit that its not adequate to claim that a god may exist,
but that its only adequate to show in a truely scientific manner based
on hard evidence that such a thing can possibly exist and that possibility
is not good enough, we need hard evidence of specific things.
We must show how they exist and the laws and rules and underlying
phenomenon that allow such an existance and how they control
such an existance in the manner in which such things do exist.
We must admit theology cannot do any such thing.
Where do we go from here?
We admit god is a failed concept based on a faultly methodology
and wishful thinking, bad habits of thinking, empty bias, failed
ideas that are old and outgrown. Based on mythology and primitive
ways of thought.
Probably based on such things as Near Death Experiences, schizophrenic
pathologies, and other now understood psychological phenomenon that
have mislead man for millenia.
We must accept there is no evidence of any gods or similar
things is forthcoming anytime soon in a scientific fashion, that
is based on testable, hard evidence.
Strong Atheism, using theology's own tools, A priori statements, has
destroyed theology and theological methodology and shifted the burden of
proof and the nature of that proof on theology's shoulders.
Hard evidence talks, mere assertions walk.
--
Senator Waxman's searchable database of iraq war lies.
www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
A good portal to more lies and Bush stupidity is to be found at
www.failureisimpossible.com - Go to the index and go to
"L" for lies. All you need to know about Bush when you
step into the voting booth. Bush is a liar and surrounds
himself with fellow liars.
Cheerful Charlie
Nico Demusopelous
> >> > This is a positive assertion. Does the rule "he who asserts must
> >> > prove" apply in alt.atheism? Or is that only for theists?
> >> >
> >> >> This newsgroup is for the discussion of atheism.
> >> >
> >> > So then I would imagine discussion about the veracity of theism or the
> >> > evidence of a positive affirmation of atheism is relevant. A
> >>
> >> Can god do the impossible, the improbable?
> >> Can god create a square circle or a four sided
> >> triangle?
> >> That is, does god make the rules the laws, the logic
> >> of the Universe or not?
> >
> > Theists and philosophers of religion have been split on this issue,
> > but if I am not mistaken, most now side with the position that God's
> > omnipotence only entails doing anything which is logically possible
> > (though I'm certain there are theists who take the opposite position).
> > Where do we go from here?
>
> Does god make the rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe or not?
I would imagine that, under the interpretation alluded to above, where
the deity can only do that which is possible, the deity (or deities)
is (or are) subject to or limited by the laws of logic. While this
does not neccesarily entail that the deity in question did NOT create
the laws of logic (because, it is at least conceivable that a deity
creates laws and then makes himself/herself/itself subject to them), I
would imagine that such a scenario would at least allow us to answer
the above question in the negative.
> If god makes the rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe, he could
> easily make a Universe where man is totally good and thus choses only
> to do moral good yet has free will.
>
> If god could do this and does not create such a Universe then
> god is the creator and sustaining cause of all evil.
One might argue that a deity that serves as the ultimate first cause
of all things, would, therefore, be the ultimate cause of evil acts or
beings. Of course, this begs the question of what counts as "evil".
How do we define evil?
> "Where do we go from here" you rhetorical respond?
> We go to the obvious response above.
>
> If god creates all the rules and the laws and the logic of the
> Universe, he is not omnibenevolent, but omnimalevolent,
> totally evil responsible personally and directly for all evil.
How does ultimately being the cause of all evil beings make one
omnimalevolent?
> The claim of theologians has long been, god is omnibenevolent,
> but we see here, if we allow that god creates the rules of the
> Universe he must be evil.
I don't agree. I would agree that God could, in a sense, be designated
as the ultimate cause of all things that are "evil", but so too he
could be designated as the ultimate cause of all things that are
"good". I, however, don't see how we make the leap to the conclusion
that God is therefore "evil".
> Now, where do the laws and rules and logic of the universe
> come from and what are they and how does all of that work?
I don't know. Do you? I would imagine that it is at leats possible
that they are simply given. Exempli gratia - if you have one stone,
you have one stone. It is simply a given fact of reality, and much of
logic extends from that as nothing more than a reflection of the
actual state of affairs.
You've basically explained why you think God is either "evil" or
subject to the rules of logic. Of course, this simply avoids the goal
you set, which was to demonstrate the truth of the statement "there is
no God." The following statements are not logical truths:
(1) If being X is "evil," then being X does not exist.
(2) If being X is subject to logic, then being X does not exist.
You have, therefore, failed to demonstated the non-existence of any
and all deities (which I imagine is the goal of an attempt to prove
the statement "there is no God" true).
wbarwell
Why is it when pressed on obvious problems with teh claims for god, it
always seems when we come to the problem of evil, believers abandon
absolutism, and any notions god has any thing to say about evil?
If a man does evil ,he is to be punished into eternmnity, so
saith the bible, the Quran and other books.
For such things as worshipping the wrong god, denying the holy ghost not
visiting those in prison, and helping those who are poor or ill, see
Matthew 25 for example.
Don't play coy with me. You know what I mean!
And it does not matter anyway what evil is if god could
create a world where the rules are, no man may do moral evil.
If we live in that world where god has created a perfect world
where moral evil exists, he is either evil or moral evil does not
exist and whatever we do is OK.
But the Bible speaks of evil and hell.
If god can create teh riules and laws, he is evil, he is omnimalevolent,
evil exists soely because of his, whatever that evil is.
>> "Where do we go from here" you rhetorical respond?
>> We go to the obvious response above.
>>
>> If god creates all the rules and the laws and the logic of the
>> Universe, he is not omnibenevolent, but omnimalevolent,
>> totally evil responsible personally and directly for all evil.
>
> How does ultimately being the cause of all evil beings make one
> omnimalevolent?
OK, you are now on my list of theological dumbasses.
A man who wil not use logic in a debate on theology.
A man who seeks to 'win' at all costs even to teh point of
abandoing all intellectual honesty, all logic, reason and
rationality.
If a god can create the rules where all men have free will, yet have a
nature where they only do moral good, and moral evil does not exist, and
chooses not to do so, that god is responsible for all moral evil that
cannot exist without his allowing all evil to exist.
He is responsible for all evil that was, all evil that is and will be.
This is obvious.
Don't play stupid. I have popped this argument on several loud mouths
and all of them at some part or the other of this argument, start playing
stupid.
>
>> The claim of theologians has long been, god is omnibenevolent,
>> but we see here, if we allow that god creates the rules of the
>> Universe he must be evil.
>
> I don't agree.
Youi played stupid. You quit thinking.
Your opinion does not matter.
Argument over.
I am not going to waste time on another asshole who
refuses to 'play the game', who quits being rational, quits reasoniong,
stops being honest, stops being rational for the specific reason of
avoiding having to admit to facts.
Argument over.
You have lost spectacularly
You are a bad sophist and intellectual dishonest and I am calling
you on it. Argument done, and over, by failing to stick with rational
debate, you lost above when you tried to make the issue disappear
in a sophist's thoroughly dishonest rhetorical question.
The argument from here on will be trying to get you to be honest and
reasonable, but your kind never do and its a waste of time to try with
people like you.
And at bottom, this is all religion is.
Irrational and intellectually dishonest game playing.
Cheerful Charlie
Nico Demusopelous
> >> If god makes the rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe, he could
> >> easily make a Universe where man is totally good and thus choses only
> >> to do moral good yet has free will.
> >>
> >> If god could do this and does not create such a Universe then
> >> god is the creator and sustaining cause of all evil.
> >
> > One might argue that a deity that serves as the ultimate first cause
> > of all things, would, therefore, be the ultimate cause of evil acts or
> > beings. Of course, this begs the question of what counts as "evil".
> > How do we define evil?
> >
>
> Why is it when pressed on obvious problems with teh claims for god, it
> always seems when we come to the problem of evil, believers abandon
> absolutism, and any notions god has any thing to say about evil?
WOW! Is that an attempt at poisoning the well? In order for me to
"abandon absolutism," I have to first side with absolutism, don't I?
Can you point to a post where I take an absolutist position?
> And it does not matter anyway what evil is if god could
> create a world where the rules are, no man may do moral evil.
Who is being coy here? Your argument is essentially that the deity
posited by traditional theists should be able to do away with evil,
yet evil nonetheless exists. This begs the question of what
constitutes evil. How do you, as an atheist, define evil, and why?
> But the Bible speaks of evil and hell.
> If god can create teh riules and laws, he is evil, he is omnimalevolent,
> evil exists soely because of his, whatever that evil is.
I don't see how this follows. Suppose a hypothetical world (and here I
mean world in the sense of logical space) where a single deity (named
Gott) exists, and in this world "evil" is defined as whatever Gott
calls "evil". So if Gott says watching re-runs of the popular sit-com
"Friends" or wearing polyester of Wednesdays is "evil", then those
actions are "evil". Furthermore, Gott has set it up such that
individuals can either follow his rules or choose to break them. Thus
far, I see nothing logically incoherent about such a scenario,
therefore I don't see how a world in which one can break the rules
allegedly laid down by a deity implies the deity in question does not
exist. Furthermore, I don't see how allowing people to break the rules
makes the deity omnimalevolent.
> >> "Where do we go from here" you rhetorical respond?
> >> We go to the obvious response above.
> >>
> >> If god creates all the rules and the laws and the logic of the
> >> Universe, he is not omnibenevolent, but omnimalevolent,
> >> totally evil responsible personally and directly for all evil.
> >
> > How does ultimately being the cause of all evil beings make one
> > omnimalevolent?
>
> OK, you are now on my list of theological dumbasses.
I'm fine with that.
> A man who wil not use logic in a debate on theology.
I think I'm keeping this within the realm of logic, however.
> A man who seeks to 'win' at all costs even to teh point of
> abandoing all intellectual honesty, all logic, reason and
> rationality.
This certainly does not apply to me.
> If a god can create the rules where all men have free will, yet have a
> nature where they only do moral good, and moral evil does not exist, and
> chooses not to do so, that god is responsible for all moral evil that
> cannot exist without his allowing all evil to exist.
> He is responsible for all evil that was, all evil that is and will be.
There is still a free will issue here, however. I don't see why the
responsibility for "evil" should not fall on the shoulders of those
who committed acts that are "evil".
> Argument over.
The argument is far from over. You were attempting to demonstrate that
no deity exists (i.e. demonstrate the truth of the assertion that
"THERE IS NO GOD"). As you were told previously, the proposition
"being X is responsible for evil" does not imply "being X does not
exist." Furthermore, as was noted above, there is nothing logically
incoherent about a scenario where a deity creates a world in which it
defines what is "evil" and then gives humans the ability to choose
whether or not to take part in actions which it defines as "evil." So
thus far you have failed to demonstrate the truth of the proposition
uttered in the title of this thread. I have shown the logical problems
that exist when one tries to make the leap from your points to
concluding that the proposition asserted in the title of this thread
is true. In response, you have become hyper-emotional.