From: wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 15, 2004
Dixit wrote:
> "Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com>
wrote:
>> Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> "Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com>
wrote:
>>>> God as first cause is not defeated
by any
>>>> argument that a first cause is unnecessary
...
>>>
>>> No argument to defeat it is necessary,
>>
>> Then it stands as is -- there may be a first-cause
God.
>
> Everything you hypothesize (all your speculative,
'might be' imagining) is
> true unless proven false? That's argument from
ignorance, old boy, logical
> fallacy you know.
>
> No argument to defeat is necessary, because you
cannot shift the burden of
> proof to the atheists. Atheists have nothing (no
thing) to demonstrate,
> you theists do.
>
> That said, still there is no possibility that there
might actually be such
> a thing as God, the theists' hypothetical first
cause/creator of
> everything, due to the fatal problem (special pleading)
inherent in the
> very idea of God, which Russell points out:
>
> "The argument that there must be a first cause
is one that cannot have
> any validity. If anything must have a cause, then
God must have a cause.
> If there can be anything without a cause, it may
just as well be the
> world [universe, everything that exists] as God."
-- Lord Bertrand
> Russell (1872 - 1970)
>
> It's a very simple problem for anybody who still
believes there might be
> one anyway. All they have to do is come up with
an argument for God, the
> hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe,
that does not run into
> this fatal problem inherent in the very idea of
it, which Russell points
> out.
>
> <cue the chirping crickets>
Sighhhhhh. Is this argument going to drivel on forever?
Can god do the impossible, the illogical, create a four
sided triangle,
a square circle? Or more to the point, are the laws
of the universe, its
logic its rule beyond god or created by god's will?
If yes, god could create a world where man has free
will and yet freely
chooses only to do moral good.
Obviously we do not live in such a world where moral
evil is rampant.
If god could do so and does not, all evil exists only
because god allows it
to and wills it to, he is the creator and sustaining
cause of all evil.
God is defined as omnibenevolent, without evil, without
moral defect, all
good. So, no god cannot do the impossible, the illogical.
To do so would make him evil contradicting theology's
omnibenevolent claim.
So no, god does cannot.
But if god cannot do the impossible, then the Universe,
with its rules is
beyond god. God cannot change these rules, laws, the
logic of the Universe
to banish evil, so this Universe must preceed god.
Otherwise he would have
been forced if he created it, to create it such as he
could do the
impossible to defeat evil.
Thus, he cannot have created the Universe at large,
it proceeded him.
With all its laws, rules and logic.
And thus god, who is claimed to be the creator of all
cannot be the creator
of all, most certainly not the Universe with its rules,
laws, and logic
that are so powerful evne god must obey its rules.
Thus falls the cosmological argument, the claim god
is the creator of the
Universe, and Russell becomes rather moot.
Argument over.
First cause argument is falsified.
Argument over.
Aquinas's 2nd and 5th arguments are debunked.
Argument over.
Theologicans state dogmaticaly that god is the greatest
thing that can be
concieved. But either god is unutterably evil, the
very fount of all evil,
or the universe with its laws, rules and logic preceed
him and are greater
than god.
So much for that argument god is the greatest that can
be concieved.
Which is the starting point of Anselm's ontological
proof which relies on
that statement.
So much then for Anselm and similar ontological proofs.
Argument over.
All arguments starting with the old Greek philospher's
claim god
god is perfect, allowing us to derive subperfections,
omnipotence,
omniscience, omnibenevolence, falsified, gone.
Argument over.
One simple little question and god unravels like a cheap
K-Mart sweater.
Argument over.
Problem of evil arguments rely on apologists dragging
in free will to
pretend that maybeism will save the day for god.
"Maybe there is a reason god allows evil so we
can have free will".
(Subtext - special pleading, you must disprove all possible
free will
statements we might make to claim a win, a subtle form
of
burden shifting and goal post moving.)
My argument guts the old free will dodge and other similar
ones.
All of these are now irrelevant.
All hidden variables of free will and god arguments
swept away.
Argument over.
Argument over.
Argument over.
Argument over.
"Can god do the impossible, the illogical?"
This is the most powerful opening statement an Atheist,
a hard Atheist, can make which results in ... argument
over.
Just run it out to its harshly logical conclusions,
which I did PARTIALLY
here. There is more. I leave that as an exercise to
the reader.
It also guts the methodology of theism.
Make assertion, not proven, make derived substatements.
Demand disproof.
Here!
Arguments over.
Now, go away.
And yes, I am writing the book.
--
Cheerful Charlie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rev. Ivan Stang" <stang@subgeniusNOSPUM.com>
The biggest logical fallacy of all is that it's worth arguing about.
I removed the crossposted ngs from this response because
I don't want
to argue with anybody about *whether* it's worth arguing
about.
--
4th Stangian Orthodox MegaFisTemple Lodge of the Wrath
of Dobbs Yeti,
Resurrected (Rev. Ivan Stang, prop.)
PRABOB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: drdark@37.com (DoktorDark)
Ahh, not just arguing about, but, even better, PERSECUTING
& KILLING
others about. 'Twas ever thus for Pink history, &
is more so now for
current events. The Xists can't get here soon enough
for me. I get
more Holocaustal every day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com>
Rev. Ivan Stang wrote:
> wbarwell wrote:
>> All hidden variables of free will and god arguments
swept away.
>>
>> Argument over.
>>
>> Argument over.
>> Argument over.
>> Argument over.
>>
>> "Can god do the impossible, the illogical?"
>>
>> This is the most powerful opening statement
an Atheist,
>> a hard Atheist, can make which results in ...
argument over.
>>
>> Just run it out to its harshly logical conclusions,
which I did PARTIALLY
>> here. There is more. I leave that as an exercise
to the reader.
>>
>> It also guts the methodology of theism.
>> Make assertion, not proven, make derived substatements.
>> Demand disproof.
>>
>> Here!
>> Arguments over.
>>
>> Now, go away.
>>
>> And yes, I am writing the book.
>
>
> The biggest logical fallacy of all is that it's
worth arguing about.
>
>
> I removed the crossposted ngs from this response
because I don't want
> to argue with anybody about *whether* it's worth
arguing about.
>
Its not. Anymore. I just showed why not.
Now if the xians would realize it and go away.
Cheerful Charlie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Cosby <joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com>
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
>Its not. Anymore. I just showed why not.
do you want an honest critique of your proof?
It wouldn't be pretty.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com>
I have laid this on a bunch of the usual
alt.atheist xian fanatic wankers who pester
AA for two years now, though I have
evolved to this form over the last year or so.
So far, I have had no critiques.
And the atheists have been silent too.
Its pretty air tight, so I can see why.
I am very surprised though. The xians didn't even
have any weak apologist style bather arguments
to apply to this.
So, if you wanna give it a crack, fine by me.
I was hoping somebody WOULD try.
Nobody has.
Actually, AA is but a shadow of itself.
5 or 6 years ago, we had some sharp people
there, but it is the intellectual equiqalent of
a high school, and not a very good high school at
that. Serious debate is unsual there now.
Hey, WWIVnet in the pre internet was better.
The xian groups are even worse for the most part.
Through the miracle of crossposting my argumment
has appeared widely, but nobody has taken a serious
crack at it.
If you want to try, please.
You would be the first with guts to try since I first
sprung it on a yawning world.
To tell the truth, I have about had it with AA.
Interesting threads die immediately. A stupid thread
will last forever.
I even tried it on a discussion list supposedly devoted
to
serious debate on the issue of god's existance.
It was worse than AA.
So far, nobody seems to know what to do with this.
Question, can god do the impossible, the illogical,
create a square circle, a four sided triangle?
The question really is, are the rules of the Universe,
its logic,
its laws, created by god or are they apart from god
and limit
god also, applying to god as well as us?
Your turn.
Note. This is one of two arguments I have been developing.
--
Cheerful Charlie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hellpopehuey@subgenius.com (HellPopeHuey)
Atheists are, by definition, full of crap, as they are
trying with
great vigor to prove a negative, or at least dilute
the dippy beliefs
of those who adhere to a puffy cloud of Hope. Fighting
to "prove"
something does not exist is a mega-chump game. Its a
sideways ipse
dixit, especially in a philosophical realm.
Besides, if there IS a God, He's a petty drunk. However,
if there is
a God, he also has a wicked sense of humor. Yep, laugh
while you
suffer, that's the Subgenius way, EIEIEIEIEI!!!!! Gimme
"Bob" over
that guy with the nail thing any day.
--
HellPope Huey
Just 'cause ya wear the fez don't make you a
Shriner
I don't deserve this award,
but I have arthritis and I don't deserve
that either.
- Jack Benny
"Welcome to the show America prefers
3-to-1 over pinkeye!"
- "Ka-Blam!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com>
HellPopeHuey wrote:
> Atheists are, by definition, full of crap, as they
are trying with
> great vigor to prove a negative,
The problem is, when an Atheists does succeed in disproving
god as demanded by a pugnacious glorp, said glorp disappears.
The net is ususally not a series of debates, but debates
that
turn into bitter flame wars on a personal level.
Not with my argument.
People realize they are losers. And flee\e.
Yes, it can be done.
or at least dilute the dippy beliefs
> of those who adhere to a puffy cloud of Hope. Fighting
to "prove"
> something does not exist is a mega-chump game.
Its a sideways ipse
> dixit, especially in a philosophical realm.
Is doable. Its done. Its did.
It disperses supserstitious fools like a van load of
cops
disperses the crack dealers on the corner.
> Besides, if there IS a God, He's a petty drunk.
However, if there is
> a God, he also has a wicked sense of humor. Yep,
laugh while you
> suffer, that's the Subgenius way, EIEIEIEIEI!!!!!
Gimme "Bob" over
> that guy with the nail thing any day.
If there is a god, he's either a rather petty, small,
limited god, or
unutterably evil, far worse than Dobbs, Cthulhu and
Allah put
together.
I have proven that and it makes people piss and flee
my presence when I unload on their truculent challenges
to prove their superstition is just that, a failed superstition
based on a non-existant sky pixie.
What is irritating is to continually succeed
but never ever get a well earned "You got me"
--
Cheerful Charlie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Cosby <joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com>
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
>Actually, AA is but a shadow of itself.
>5 or 6 years ago, we had some sharp people
>there, but it is the intellectual equiqalent of
>a high school, and not a very good high school at
>that. Serious debate is unsual there now.
>Hey, WWIVnet in the pre internet was better.
I first ran into alt.atheism when I was doing one of
my usual trolls
of Christian newsgroups. To me that's like squirrel
hunting, fun
especially when they're in season.
Somewhere along the troll it was x-posted to alt.atheism
and I was
just boggled by the level of stupidity. My first thought
was the same
as yours, it was like high-school-level flaming. So
out of some
twisted sense of honesty I turned around and lit into
the atheists
instead.
I'm not really religious but I'm not really an atheist
either. My
opinions about religion are simple enough but don't
really answer any
questions.
In my opinion to understand religion look at Woodstock.
Woodstock has become a religion of sorts. Once upon
a time it was a
very large concert with some very good musicians and
way too little
parking. It has evolved, apotheosized into an abstract
concept (some
of which was part of the original idea of woodstock).
Now it has become symbolic of a peace 'n love 'n flowers
past that
never existed in as pure a form as those who idealize
it want to
believe. It's become an Icon, like Jesus or God or
"Bob".
The "Woodstock II" concert a few years ago
was the first service of
the Church of Woodstock.
Really I mean that literally, I'm not drawing an analogy
between
religion and Woodstock, I think Woodstock -is- a religion.
A less
significant one than the biggies, but I think the ideal
of Woodstock
and how it's evolved really are an example of the formation
of a
modern religion. And it has the advantage of having
formed recently
enough that it's all familiar stuff to you.
Anyway the thing is, nobody who is part of the "Church
of Woodstock",
or very few of them, were actually THERE.
And that is central to any religion.
For those who were there, some of them, it probably
was a religious
experience, a moment when the whole universe seemd to
be aligned
behind the holy forces of peace and love and aquarius
that they were
raising. It wouldn't surprise me, they were doing a
lot of acid in
those days. And that's the heart of the religion, and
of any
religion, that MOMENT when all the tumblers of the universe
line up at
once and the door opens.
But for anybody who idealizes Woodstock after the fact,
all they will
ever really be able to do is -make reference to- the
original event.
They can, and did, try to recreate the magic of the
original, but that
failed miserably, and that's also common in religions.
To me, that's the whole of the dynamic of religion.
You have this
central germ, this numinous experience of one person
or very few
people, and the attempt to preserve and recreate that
forms the body
of the religion.
But everything after the original event is just dead wood.
Maybe there was never really an historical Moses. Or
maybe there was,
and he was mentally ill and hallucinated a bush that
"burns without
fire" talking to him on the mountain. Or maybe
something in the
machinery of the universe can and at that point did
open up for him.
Whether it was the one thing or the other just doesn't
matter.
Everything after that became a successively more and
more diluted
attempt to preserve and celebrate ... but mostly, to
PRESERVE ... that
original moment. And is so, by definition, a failure.
I do "believe" in those moments, those numinous
moments. I don't
really believe in believing but I've had enough of those
moments that
I have to conclude either that they are real or that
I have had some
extremely vivid, detailed hallucinations.
"God" per se though doesn't mean much of anything to me.
>Your turn.
>
>Sighhhhhh. Is this argument going to drivel on
forever?
>
>Can god do the impossible, the illogical, create
a four sided triangle,
>a square circle? Or more to the point, are the
laws of the universe, its
>logic its rule beyond god or created by god's will?
>
This is a false dilemma, and a weak one. Just because
it was funny
when George Carlin said it doesn't make it a good theological
argument. It's a variation on "could God create
a rock so big that
even he couldn't move it?"
It's really just playing a game with words. We detect
what seem to be
"logical" patterns which the universe normally
follows. We codify
them into a set of relational rules which are, really,
just laws of
language. "A square circle" is just a contradiction
of language. The
word "square" has a definition in our language
and the word "circle"
has a different definition and using the one as an adjective
to the
other creates a meaningless phrase.
This is then used to attack the idea of "omnipotence"
which is
presumed to be a characteristic of a God who could create
the
universe. You imply that "omnipotence" is
an inherently impossible
-concept-, because a task can be described which even
an omnipotent
being couldn't perform.
But:
A. This doesn't imply a lack of omnipotence in the
supposed being.
The task is meaningless because a self-contradictory
set of words has
been used to describe it. This doesn't imply that this
is a task
which potentially exists in the universe which the omnipotent
being
coudn't perform, and therefore doesn't say anything
about the
omnipotence of this being.
B. It depends on a fuzzy idea of the meaning of "omnipotence".
Omnipotence is inherently a vague idea, depending on
the idea of
"potency" or more modernly "power".
What exactly is power? The
ability to do something? What exactly would constitute
a failure of
power? The inability to do something?
So if we are assuming a God who has the power to create
things or even
to determine the laws of the universe, then "creating
a rock so heavy
even he couldn't lift it" comes within creative
powers. First we're
asking that he create a rock, then that he exercise
a power to lift
the rock, and defining the rock he must create as one
so heavy he
couldn't lift it.
So in turn if we are defining "omnipotence"
as an infinite ability to
create something like a rock, and also as an infinite
ability to carry
out tasks, then however heavy a rock God created he
would be able to
lift.
So the answer would be "no, God can't create a
rock so heavy he can't
lift it".
But that doesn't imply a lack of "omnipotence"
in God. Although we
can describe an act which God can't perform, there is
nothing in the
makeup of the universe which limits this. The "inability"
is purely
within the paradoxical nature of the task. Because
we are fuzzing the
ideas of "ability to create", "ability
to lift things", and "ability
to perform a described task" together under the
idea of "omnipotence",
this seems to imply a failure.
To put it another way, can you imagine yourself creating
a rock so
heavy you can't lift it? The answer of course is no.
It's a little
confusing but if you think it through the logical answer
is no. But
this does not imply a limit on your ability to imagine.
***
Granted:
1. I know I am rephrasing what you said. You didn't
specifically use
the word "omnipotence" and the task you described
wasn't lifting a
rock. I think they resolve the same logically though.
2. You seem to be concentrating more later on moral
questions, so the
above might seem to be on a tangent, but the crux of
the dilemma is
the contradiction in omnipotence.
>If yes, god could create a world where man has free
will and yet freely
>chooses only to do moral good.
Besides the false dilemma in the above, what relevance
does it have to
anything?
I mean, beyond it being another example of "a rock
so heavy God
couldn't lift it", what does it have to do with
anything?
I think you are preparing for the idea of God as being
"omnibenevolent" later but you don't draw
any direct support either
here or later.
Xtianity doesn't claim that man "has free will
yet freely chooses to
do only moral good" so the statement is meaningless,
even if it
weren't a false dilemma.
>Obviously we do not live in such a world where moral
evil is rampant.
>
"Moral evil" is as ill-defined a concept as
God. More to the point,
it is purely a convention of language and concepts dependant
on
language.
We can suppose the existance of a specific set of laws
or a general
set of principles ordained by God for man and that these
constitute
"moral good". But the phrase has no meaning
outside of how we define
it.
>If god could do so and does not, all evil exists
only because god allows it
>to and wills it to, he is the creator and sustaining
cause of all evil.
>
This is an old argument, "how can evil exist in
a good world unless
God allows it?"
>God is defined as omnibenevolent, without evil,
without moral defect, all
>good. So, no god cannot do the impossible, the
illogical.
>To do so would make him evil contradicting theology's
omnibenevolent claim.
>
>So no, god does cannot.
>
So your argument overall seems to be that God can't
create a universe
in which evil exists without contradicting either his
omnibenevolence
or his omnipotence.
First, although you took a shot at free will earlier,
you didn't hit
it. If God created man with free will then there is
no reason to
believe that man would always choose moral good and
nothing in that
which contradicts either omnipotence or omnibenevolence.
You seem to
imply that "always choosing moral good" is
a claim of religion, but it
isn't.
Second, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that
God being
unable to create a world which lacks "moral evil"
makes God evil.
Let's say, for instance, that man could not exist as
a conscious being
without the ability to choose between "moral good"
and "moral evil",
with "moral evil" being contradiction to the
laws of God. This seems
reasonable enough, a man without the ability to choose
would be a
robot or zombie and couldn't have consciousness as we
know it. The
greatest good that God could do then for man would be
to create him
with such a choice.
This is just to point out that the seeming paradox you
are trying to
create is meaningless. It's easy to dream up a case
where an
omnibenevolent God would create moral evil.
To say that means "God is evil" is just playing
with words again. I
have to use punishment sometimes to teach my cat that
some things are
not permitted, like pissing on the bed. The cat probably
perceives
that as evil, but does that mean I'm evil? From a broader
perspective
which the cat can't comprehend, I am doing the greatest
good for him.
If I hadn't taken him in, he would be dead by now.
So you could say that "I have evil in me",
-because- the cat perceives
my actions as evil. In a way that would be true, that
would be a
reasonable way to define evil.
But using it to contradict the idea of the greater good
I am doing for
the cat is just playing games with words.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.com/
West Bank to be redeveloped as Palestinian Heritage
Theme Park.
Original file name: Re- The problems fat#192F31.txt - converted on Saturday, 25 September 2004, 02:05
This page was created using TextToHTML. TextToHTML is a free software for Macintosh and is (c) 1995,1996 by Kris Coppieters