What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: Tom on 2 Apr 2005 13:52 "Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob(a)sob.com> wrote in message news:424e2c57.53935665(a)news-server.houston.rr.com... > On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:59:21 -0800, Earle Jones > <earle.jones(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >>How does one "indulge in atheism"? > > By being stupid. Is worshipping a mythical deity, intelligence??? Bullshit! >>What does it hinder? > > The ability to see Truth and Beauty in the Universe. The ability to play 'pretend' as all children do.
From: SOB) on 2 Apr 2005 15:16 On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 13:49:30 -0500, "Tom" <mmman_90(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> I use the word Universe with a capital "U" to mean the totality of >> physical reality. Our universe is but a part of the Universe. Cf. >> Brian Green (op. cit.) for the latest. >Yeah SOB, I now see that you are spreading much Bullshit that I must >capitalize the word 'bullshit' to separate it from that of a reasonable >person. Glad to see you understand. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html "If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life."
From: SOB) on 2 Apr 2005 15:18 On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 13:52:27 -0500, "Tom" <mmman_90(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>How does one "indulge in atheism"? >> By being stupid. >Is worshipping a mythical deity, intelligence??? Bullshit! Who said anything about worshipping a mythical diety? I have stated several times that I am not discussing religion. >>>What does it hinder? >> The ability to see Truth and Beauty in the Universe. >The ability to play 'pretend' as all children do. Are you talking about Religion or Metaphysics? -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html "If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life."
From: Tom on 2 Apr 2005 16:23 "Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob(a)sob.com> wrote in message news:424efda3.50871829(a)news-server.houston.rr.com... > On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 13:49:30 -0500, "Tom" <mmman_90(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> I use the word Universe with a capital "U" to mean the totality of >>> physical reality. Our universe is but a part of the Universe. Cf. >>> Brian Green (op. cit.) for the latest. > >>Yeah SOB, I now see that you are spreading much Bullshit that I must >>capitalize the word 'bullshit' to separate it from that of a reasonable >>person. > > Glad to see you understand. Hey man, I retired from the business world eight years ago and I still have vivid memories of what (B)bullshit is.
From: wcb on 2 Apr 2005 18:52
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB wrote: > On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:59:21 -0800, Earle Jones > <earle.jones(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >>How does one "indulge in atheism"? > > By being stupid. > >>What does it hinder? > > The ability to see Truth and Beauty in the Universe. > > Here's truth. Something you don't know anything about. ************************************************** God disproven #1 Short Version W.C. Barwell 3-9-05 ************************************************** By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology, the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the most powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having conciousness, and will. I mean this in the general overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. 1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or a 4 sided triangle? 2. That really asks the question, does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large? And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason? 3. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try answering yes. 4. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good. 5. But in this world we see that man often does moral evil. 6. If god could create such a word since he creates the Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively the creator of all evil, past, present and future. Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do moral good. 7. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent, rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent. 8. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes him overtly evil. 9. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or the logic of the Universe. 10. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist. But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim, then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim is obviously not true. 11. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of ontological proofs are all thus falsified. 12. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic, obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma. 13. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe, they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created all is false also. 14. One dodge here might be to claim god created the Universe in the manner that limits him, but god, being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent would have known that by creating such a Universe, he was creating a Universe tht contained evil only because he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge fails. 15. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil in 250 BCE. If the gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent, yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or omnipotent or possible neither. 16. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous traditions has failed to see this god as shown above, cannot exist as claimed. 17. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed methodology and its basic method, making overarching assertions without evidence is a failed methodology. 18. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of the Universe? And what can we say about them? 19. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things are made up of matter and energy, operating in a framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other sciences. 20. There is no room in these laws and rules of the Universe for disembodied gods or entities that have will and who act. Thinking beings are made of matter and energy and subject to rules of chemistry and physics. 21. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence that a god or other supernatural entity can exist. And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand God of theological tradition has actual and real existance. 23. The failed theological methodology of making unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims is not an acceptable method for doing theology, since as demonstrated above, that has proven to be a total failure as a methodology. (END) -- When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing! Cheerful Charlie |