XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.society.liberalism
From: gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com
"wcb" wrote in message
news:12cfa27pbm30l0d@corp.supernews.com...
> mush97 wrote:
>
>>
>> Atheists believe that the invention of the concept of God is the biggest
>>
>> fraud played on human beings by the self-styled of the prophets.
>>
>> How far is this correct ?
>>> IS THERE A GOD? NO.
>>> Strong Atheism's answer.
>>> Part 1.
>>>
>>> 1. First of all, this proof "God" does not exist
>>> is aimed at an entire class of gods, not particular
>>> gods.
>>
>> This remark alone is an explict admission that you've been lying up to
>> this point.
>
> No, its just an admission I underestimated the intelligence
> of SOME of my audience.
That's a lie. You explicitly stated originally that you had a simple proof
that no god can exist.
So now you're lying about it after failing to demonstrate such a proof.
>
>
>>
>>>This is the class of gods that are
>>> omni-everything and creator of all. If I can
>>> disprove an entire class of gods, all particular gods
>>> that belong to that class are collectively disproven
>>> too. This is an efficient, and sensible approach to
>>> disproving god, by which I mean the god of major
>>> religious and theological traditions.
>>
>> No, it is not. Since your argument aims at attributes of God, not at the
>> existence of god per se. The god of the major traditions might still
>> exist apart from the attributes the theologians have ascribed to that
>> god.
>>
>
> 1. Tom is a doctor.
> 2. Tom has never been to college and is illiterate
> 3. Since doctors are literate and have to attend college, Tom
> is obviously not a doctor as claimed.
So what?
1. Bill exists.
2. It is said that Bill never picks his nose.
3. But Bill does pick his nose.j
4. Hence Bill does not exist????
Your argument fails. No single attribute or group of attributes necessarily
implies existence would be possible were it proved those attributes were
false.
>
> What I do is point out that the class of omni-everything gods
> similarly contains claims that disprove each other.
When are actually going to do that? You've failed to prove, for example
that omniscience cannot exist without omnipotence.
You keep making claims about what you're going to do, but you never actually
do it.
>
> Naturally, all claim specific examples of that class likewise
> are impossible.
Do you even know what the above sentence means?
>
> A class of gods is said to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and
> creator of all.
Said by who? You? Who made you the decider of what a "class of gods" is
going to consist of.
And even if we give you your homegrown class of gods, you fail to prove
anything by it. The fact remains that any god within this class of gods
could still exist were it shown that one or a combination of the assertions
made about that god is not true.
Once again....
>> 1. Bill Smith exists.
>> 2. It is said by his admirers that Bill Smith always tells the truth.
>> 3. But Bill Smith cannot always tell the truth.
>> 4. Hence Bills Smith does not exist?????
> If god creates all, and is omniscient, he knows what his creations will do
> in the future. Any possible god must then examine each potential act and
> all it to come to pass or something else to be substituted. he and olny
> he creates or decides what is created.
Not necessarily. A creator god could know exactly what's going to happen in
a deterministic universe by simply knowing the beginning position of all
molecules and physical entities. That does not mean that god has to examine
each potential act and 'will it' to come to pass. Foreknowledge is not the
same as actively forcing everything to a particular end.
> Free will cannot exist for man. Man can decide exactly nothing at all.
So? The same holds true in the deterministic world of the scientific
materialist.
>
> Thus all evil is god's doing, personally and knowingly, all evils from
> greatest to smallest.
Absurd. Foreknowledge does not imply personal responsibility. You presume
that omnipotence has to be a part of the mix. It doesn't. There's no
logical law that insists that a creator god must be all powerful.
>
> Evil =/= omnibenevolent as explicitly claimed.
Claimed but nowhere proven. There's nothing about being all good that
implies that god can will evil out of existence. Again, you presume that
god must be omnipotent, but there's no logical necessity for this
conclusion.
>
> All gods that are said to be omniscient and creator of all are thus
> contradictory
Nope. You're utterly wrong. Omniscience nowhere implies creation, and both
together are not at all contradictory. You can assert it but you can't
prove it.
>
> Omnipotence. Omnipotence mean all powerful. That means not
> affected by other forces or powers. Time is does not affect god.
That presumes that Time is a "power." You have no justification in making
such a claim. Like most of your claims, it's rhetorical. Time could be
just as real for an omnipotent being as it is for any other being.
> God is outside and transcedent to time.
Why?
> Time does not affect god so
> theer is thus no past, present, future. To god all is now.
> Thus god created all at once in all its particulars to the smallest
> physical
> degree.
Not necessary and going way too far as a presumption. According to
materialistic determinism, the closest thing to a dogma in science, the only
thing necessary to bring all things to their present state is to arrange
them in a particular sequence at the beginning. Everything follows from
that. Hence God need not know the smallest physical particular of
everything, nor did everything have to be created at once.
> Thus again, there is no free will and all evil acts are thus god's
> doing.
There may in fact be no free will, but that is not necessarily god's doing.
All things that occur happen because of the initial state. If god is not
omnipotent, god is as powerless to prevent evil as anyone else. God may in
fact have foreknowledge, but that does not imply control.
>
> Thus the class of all gods that are said to be omnipotent, are thus
> transcedent to time, not bound by time, and thus free will cannot exist
> mthus evil is all god's doing.
You haven't shown this. Omnipotence does not imply transcendence to time
because you haven't shown how time is a "power."
You fail again.
Do you see where you're going wrong yet?
> All gods of the class of god that are omnipotent are thus all evil.
That may be true, but you haven't actually addressed the issue. You've
talked about the supposed contradiction of omnibenevolence and omniscience
while leaving omnipotence essentially untouched.
>
> Thus the concept of a class of creators gods that are
> omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent is impossible.
You haven't shown that.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
