XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, alt.atheism
From: psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 17:03:26 -0500, Dreamer In Colore
wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 10:03:55 -0800, Paul S Person
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:43:54 -0500, Dreamer In Colore
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:54:47 -0500, Jonathan wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 1/29/2021 12:06 PM, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit,
>>>>> you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false
>>>>> promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No
>>>>> contest. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story
>>>>> ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced
>>>>> people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who
>>>>> watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And
>>>>> the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does
>>>>> not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things,
>>>>> he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning
>>>>> and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and
>>>>> suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and
>>>>> ever 'til the end of time. But He loves you!"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> George Carlin, Dec 23 2005
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Honestly, you get your opinions on the nature of existence
>>>>from George Carlin?
>>>>
>>>
>>>George Carlin was funny. And his humour is based on the rational
>>>analysis of something invisible, immanent, and unobservable.... and
>>>you seem to think that the nature of existence depends on a
>>>supernatural entity. Why is that?
>>>
>>>>Mainstream religious philosophy does NOT hold there's an
>>>>invisible man out there waving a magic wand.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sure it does. Have you not read your bible or other ancient tome?
>>
>>Sadly, the Bible is not what he is referring to.
>>
>>>>That's what is taught to children and others that can't handle
>>>>anything more than simple stories.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Exactly my point. Glad we could agree on that.
>>>
>>>>Only those that have never read a single line of religious
>>>>philosophy could believe that's the definition of God.
>>>
>>>To be honest, I'm not interested in what mainstream religious
>>>philosophy says because I can read that for myself. I'm interested in
>>>what your particular brand of this is.
>>
>>Well, you can if it actually exists.
>>
>>Don't be surprised if it turns out to be ... very mushy.
>
>It's ok. I can handle mushy.
>
>>
>>>>And those that haven't read a single line of religious
>>>>philosophy are hardly capable of rendering an intelligent
>>>>criticism of religious beliefs.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Leaving aside the obvious insult there, I defer to the ultimate and so
>>>far indestructible rebuttal of Epicurus.
>>>
>>>“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not
>>>omnipotent.
>>>Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
>>>Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
>>>Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
>>>
>>>>Can you relate, say, how the Catholic Church defines God?
>>>
>>>Can you relate, say, why the Catholic Church diverges from the other
>>>branches of Christianity? Isn't the whole point of God to be
>>>omniscient and omnipotent?
>>
>>Only in philosophy. And philosophy-influenced theology. Except
>>Plotinus, of course; in Plotinus, the One provides only one service:
>>existence.
>
>Now that's an interesting statement. The Christian God is supposed to
>be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and that's regardless
>of philosophy. Those are foundational principles for that particular
>deity, or did I miss something?
It would appear that you missed /the entire Bible/, for starters.
And the people I have run into who believe that "supposed to" applies
to "the Christian God" tended to be atheists pursuing a Straw God
Argument.
>>And, BTW, both "omniscent" and "omnipotent" have wildly divergent
>>alternate meanings.
>
>Also an interesting statement. What alternate meanings can you
>ascribe, when "omni" means "All"?
Omniscence:
-- God knows everything that happens because it happens
-- everthing happens because God knows it happens
the second, of course, leads to predestination, among other
abominations.
Omnipotence:
-- God can do anything He wants
-- God has power over each and every thing (excludes logical
paradoxes, which are not "things")
-- God powers everything
Aquinas died before finishing the /Summa/, so some earlier works
appear at the end. One of these explains that the World will end when
God stops turning the crank that makes the outermost sphere rotate.
Since each sphere is powered by the sphere above, all the spheres will
stop and, eventually, all motion will stop.
How literally this was intended to be taken I have no idea, but it
graphically illustrates the second meaning.
I should also point out that "omnipotence" is the Latin term. The
Greek term, "pantokrator" is a /political/ term ("God is the ruler of
all"), as the ending shows (it appears in "aristrocrat" and
"plutocrat" as "ruler" and in "aristocracy", "plutocracy", and
"democracy" in a slightly different form to designate political
systems). In the OT, it is "El Shaddai" ("God Almighty"), which
appears to stress physical strength.
"omnibenevolence" I have rarely enountered, except from atheists as
part of a Straw God Argument. And you forgot "impassivity", also used
mostly by atheists on the attack.
Still, it looks like you are well-read in the atheist religious
philosophers, at any rate.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
