|
Sports » rec.sport.pro-wrestling » Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way
| Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way [message #1084537] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 04:51 |
|
Let me get this straight...
Claim that white 15 year old guys kill their parents 'all the time' is
hyperbole, but your suggestion that black men dating white girls do so
isn't?
Hypocrisy, thy name is bigotry.
"Panzerfaust" <utahraptor88 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i5cga2940gt0mmpqber3mic5603l1d7udb [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 14:49:46 -0700, "Brandon Hex"
> <Brandon_Hex [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>While i liker yer attempt at fueling the flames of racial hate...
>>
>>
>>... this really goes onto just men in general. I mean 15 year old white
>>boys
>>kill their parents all the time.
>
> All the time? Abit with the hyperbole don't you think?
>
>
>>
>>This has nothing to do with race. Just a story ofa dumb gullable girl who
>>let a man kill her parents for a few bucks befor they both went to jail.
>>
>>
>>It's the classic American love story.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Today's liberalism is a mental disease. It's primary
> cause is the cowardice born of extreme self-centerdness
> . Too afraid to admit the existence of the forces of
> evil which will stop at nothing less than genocide,
> the liberal deludes himself into the comforting fantasy
> that these forces of evil are merely victims and that
> they can be brought around by 'right action' on the
> part of the US. The liberal then blames the US and
> patriotic Americans for the state of affairs. The
> liberal further comforts himself by believing that,
> in attacking America, he is battling the forces of
> evil like a true hero.
>
> Anyone who points to the factual errors in this mode
> of thinking is forcing the liberal to confront his own
> cowardice and irrationality. That's why they react
> with such hatred to anyone who disagrees with their
> dogma.
>
> As this dogma gets reinforced through decades of
> repetition in the media, it gets more and more
> pronounced. Today's liberals have thus become traitors
> whose cowardice has led them to make common cause
> with the enemies of America. They have willingly
> become enemies of America.
|
|
|
| Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way [message #1084560 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 06:30 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way [message #1084563 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 06:36 |
|
Hopefully, you'll be 'fixed' before you have kids.
"Mr Bigun" <BIGUN [at] yourtonsils.net> wrote in message
news:uqrgb21qfm62ra3869vb0gml5vifefb6jq [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:51:04 GMT, "Jerry Camp" <jcamp [at] midsouth.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Let me get this straight...
>>
>>Claim that white 15 year old guys kill their parents 'all the time' is
>>hyperbole, but your suggestion that black men dating white girls do so
>>isn't?
>>
>>Hypocrisy, thy name is nigger
>
> FIXED
> .
>>
>>"Panzerfaust" <utahraptor88 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:i5cga2940gt0mmpqber3mic5603l1d7udb [at] 4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 14:49:46 -0700, "Brandon Hex"
>>> <Brandon_Hex [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>While i liker yer attempt at fueling the flames of racial hate...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>... this really goes onto just men in general. I mean 15 year old white
>>>>boys
>>>>kill their parents all the time.
>>>
>>> All the time? Abit with the hyperbole don't you think?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>This has nothing to do with race. Just a story ofa dumb gullable girl
>>>>who
>>>>let a man kill her parents for a few bucks befor they both went to jail.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's the classic American love story.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Today's liberalism is a mental disease. It's primary
>>> cause is the cowardice born of extreme self-centerdness
>>> . Too afraid to admit the existence of the forces of
>>> evil which will stop at nothing less than genocide,
>>> the liberal deludes himself into the comforting fantasy
>>> that these forces of evil are merely victims and that
>>> they can be brought around by 'right action' on the
>>> part of the US. The liberal then blames the US and
>>> patriotic Americans for the state of affairs. The
>>> liberal further comforts himself by believing that,
>>> in attacking America, he is battling the forces of
>>> evil like a true hero.
>>>
>>> Anyone who points to the factual errors in this mode
>>> of thinking is forcing the liberal to confront his own
>>> cowardice and irrationality. That's why they react
>>> with such hatred to anyone who disagrees with their
>>> dogma.
>>>
>>> As this dogma gets reinforced through decades of
>>> repetition in the media, it gets more and more
>>> pronounced. Today's liberals have thus become traitors
>>> whose cowardice has led them to make common cause
>>> with the enemies of America. They have willingly
>>> become enemies of America.
>>
|
|
|
| Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way [message #1084630 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 10:12 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way [message #1084676 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 15:19 |
|
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:51:04 GMT, "Jerry Camp" <jcamp [at] midsouth.rr.com>
wrote:
>Let me get this straight...
>
>Claim that white 15 year old guys kill their parents 'all the time' is
>hyperbole, but your suggestion that black men dating white girls do so
>isn't?
>
>Hypocrisy, thy name is bigotry.
Feel free to refer to the posting of me stating that. You can't.
Game set match
--
Check out the AFN FAQ website at...
http://niggermania.com/afnfaq/
Here's the TRUTH about black-on-White crime...
http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html
Niggers "were over 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2002".
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
Niggers are four times as likely as Whites to Kill their children...
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.txt
18.6% of nigger bucks go to jail, vs. 3.4% of White males
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm
Black bastards! 68.7% of niggers are born out of wedlock!
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf
62% of ALL nigglet births are paid for by the government.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm
56% of sow niggers have genital herpes!!! See page 21 of...
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf
Though only 12% of the population, more niggers are on
welfare than are Whites! See Figure B of...
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter10/ chap10.htm
|
|
|
| Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way [message #1084855 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 21:19 |
|
Inference, dude, inference...you call 'hyperbole' on the comment that white
15 year olds kill their parents all the time (which it is), but then make no
such comment concerning the comments of one Mr...ahem...Bigun (yeah, right)?
But, I take you feel that your hatred of 'niggers' isn't hyperbolic?
"Panzerfaust" <utahraptor88 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6qqhb2tvs0csnm5galkqssbn29uvp7o4qq [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:51:04 GMT, "Jerry Camp" <jcamp [at] midsouth.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Let me get this straight...
>>
>>Claim that white 15 year old guys kill their parents 'all the time' is
>>hyperbole, but your suggestion that black men dating white girls do so
>>isn't?
>>
>>Hypocrisy, thy name is bigotry.
>
> Feel free to refer to the posting of me stating that. You can't.
>
> Game set match
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Check out the AFN FAQ website at...
> http://niggermania.com/afnfaq/
>
> Here's the TRUTH about black-on-White crime...
> http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html
>
> Niggers "were over 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in
> 2002".
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
>
> Niggers are four times as likely as Whites to Kill their children...
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.txt
>
> 18.6% of nigger bucks go to jail, vs. 3.4% of White males
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm
>
> Black bastards! 68.7% of niggers are born out of wedlock!
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf
>
> 62% of ALL nigglet births are paid for by the government.
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm
>
> 56% of sow niggers have genital herpes!!! See page 21 of...
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf
>
> Though only 12% of the population, more niggers are on
> welfare than are Whites! See Figure B of...
> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter10/ chap10.htm
|
|
|
| Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way [message #1084860 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 21:26 |
|
Nope, my mammy had three boys, all conservatives, who don't need your kind
of bigotry to address the issues caused by blacks' poor decision not to
assimilate into American culture. They're joined by illegal aliens in that
faulty way of thinking led by a bunch of corrupt racists who concurrently
teach that 'The Man' is out to get you, but 'The Man' is the only way to
assure success through bogus welfare and social spending on the backs of the
successful.
Ask yourself, how did the Irish, Italians, and Chinese (and others) become
successful in the New World, when they came over penniless and in many
cases, in the slavery of indentured servitude?
"Mr Bigun" <BIGUN [at] yourtonsils.net> wrote in message
news:tp8hb2dkt0cjf1jvv4gm2aet6g8get6j3l [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 04:36:41 GMT, "Jerry Camp" <jcamp [at] midsouth.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Hopefully, you'll be 'fixed' before you have kids.
>
> Too bad the trash that you call mammy, and every one else calls
> crackheaded ho, wasn't fixored b4 u came out.
>>
>>"Mr Bigun" <BIGUN [at] yourtonsils.net> wrote in message
>>news:uqrgb21qfm62ra3869vb0gml5vifefb6jq [at] 4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:51:04 GMT, "Jerry Camp" <jcamp [at] midsouth.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Let me get this straight...
>>>>
>>>>Claim that white 15 year old guys kill their parents 'all the time' is
>>>>hyperbole, but your suggestion that black men dating white girls do so
>>>>isn't?
>>>>
>>>>Hypocrisy, thy name is nigger
>>>
>>> FIXED
>>> .
>>>>
>>>>"Panzerfaust" <utahraptor88 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:i5cga2940gt0mmpqber3mic5603l1d7udb [at] 4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 14:49:46 -0700, "Brandon Hex"
>>>>> <Brandon_Hex [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>While i liker yer attempt at fueling the flames of racial hate...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>... this really goes onto just men in general. I mean 15 year old
>>>>>>white
>>>>>>boys
>>>>>>kill their parents all the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the time? Abit with the hyperbole don't you think?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This has nothing to do with race. Just a story ofa dumb gullable girl
>>>>>>who
>>>>>>let a man kill her parents for a few bucks befor they both went to
>>>>>>jail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's the classic American love story.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Today's liberalism is a mental disease. It's primary
>>>>> cause is the cowardice born of extreme self-centerdness
>>>>> . Too afraid to admit the existence of the forces of
>>>>> evil which will stop at nothing less than genocide,
>>>>> the liberal deludes himself into the comforting fantasy
>>>>> that these forces of evil are merely victims and that
>>>>> they can be brought around by 'right action' on the
>>>>> part of the US. The liberal then blames the US and
>>>>> patriotic Americans for the state of affairs. The
>>>>> liberal further comforts himself by believing that,
>>>>> in attacking America, he is battling the forces of
>>>>> evil like a true hero.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone who points to the factual errors in this mode
>>>>> of thinking is forcing the liberal to confront his own
>>>>> cowardice and irrationality. That's why they react
>>>>> with such hatred to anyone who disagrees with their
>>>>> dogma.
>>>>>
>>>>> As this dogma gets reinforced through decades of
>>>>> repetition in the media, it gets more and more
>>>>> pronounced. Today's liberals have thus become traitors
>>>>> whose cowardice has led them to make common cause
>>>>> with the enemies of America. They have willingly
>>>>> become enemies of America.
>>>>
>>
|
|
|
| Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way [message #1084907 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 23:30 |
|
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:19:10 GMT, "Jerry Camp" <jcamp [at] midsouth.rr.com>
wrote:
>Inference, dude, inference...you call 'hyperbole' on the comment that white
>15 year olds kill their parents all the time (which it is), but then make no
>such comment concerning the comments of one Mr...ahem...Bigun (yeah, right)?
I was not addressing the other poster.
>
>But, I take you feel that your hatred of 'niggers' isn't hyperbolic?
My hate is from a lifetime of seeing them, dealing with them in law
enforcement and the plain out fact one killed my mom and tried to kill
me. Except for a small group of blacks, I wish I could I kill them
all for which I would gladly suffer eternity in hell.
>
>"Panzerfaust" <utahraptor88 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:6qqhb2tvs0csnm5galkqssbn29uvp7o4qq [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:51:04 GMT, "Jerry Camp" <jcamp [at] midsouth.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Let me get this straight...
>>>
>>>Claim that white 15 year old guys kill their parents 'all the time' is
>>>hyperbole, but your suggestion that black men dating white girls do so
>>>isn't?
>>>
>>>Hypocrisy, thy name is bigotry.
>>
>> Feel free to refer to the posting of me stating that. You can't.
>>
>> Game set match
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Check out the AFN FAQ website at...
>> http://niggermania.com/afnfaq/
>>
>> Here's the TRUTH about black-on-White crime...
>> http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html
>>
>> Niggers "were over 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in
>> 2002".
>> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
>>
>> Niggers are four times as likely as Whites to Kill their children...
>> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.txt
>>
>> 18.6% of nigger bucks go to jail, vs. 3.4% of White males
>> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm
>>
>> Black bastards! 68.7% of niggers are born out of wedlock!
>> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf
>>
>> 62% of ALL nigglet births are paid for by the government.
>> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm
>>
>> 56% of sow niggers have genital herpes!!! See page 21 of...
>> http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf
>>
>> Though only 12% of the population, more niggers are on
>> welfare than are Whites! See Figure B of...
>> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter10/ chap10.htm
>
--
Check out the AFN FAQ website at...
http://niggermania.com/afnfaq/
Here's the TRUTH about black-on-White crime...
http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html
Niggers "were over 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2002".
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
Niggers are four times as likely as Whites to Kill their children...
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.txt
18.6% of nigger bucks go to jail, vs. 3.4% of White males
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm
Black bastards! 68.7% of niggers are born out of wedlock!
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf
62% of ALL nigglet births are paid for by the government.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm
56% of sow niggers have genital herpes!!! See page 21 of...
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf
Though only 12% of the population, more niggers are on
welfare than are Whites! See Figure B of...
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter10/ chap10.htm
|
|
|
| Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way [message #1084908 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 23:40 |
|
One of them? I realize there are those who don't believe that dark skinned
people of negro descent are human, but let's not assume such hatred for a
skin tone based on the actions of a relative few. Lord knows, I wouldn't
want my little corner of the human race based on the actions or words of
good ole white folks like Tim McVey, Ward Churchill, or Fred Phelps.
"Panzerfaust" <utahraptor88 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ihnib2hgits95h2fk2b5im5asp8c3b1iea [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:19:10 GMT, "Jerry Camp" <jcamp [at] midsouth.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Inference, dude, inference...you call 'hyperbole' on the comment that
>>white
>>15 year olds kill their parents all the time (which it is), but then make
>>no
>>such comment concerning the comments of one Mr...ahem...Bigun (yeah,
>>right)?
>
> I was not addressing the other poster.
>
>>
>>But, I take you feel that your hatred of 'niggers' isn't hyperbolic?
>
> My hate is from a lifetime of seeing them, dealing with them in law
> enforcement and the plain out fact one killed my mom and tried to kill
> me. Except for a small group of blacks, I wish I could I kill them
> all for which I would gladly suffer eternity in hell.
>
>
>>
>>"Panzerfaust" <utahraptor88 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:6qqhb2tvs0csnm5galkqssbn29uvp7o4qq [at] 4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:51:04 GMT, "Jerry Camp" <jcamp [at] midsouth.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Let me get this straight...
>>>>
>>>>Claim that white 15 year old guys kill their parents 'all the time' is
>>>>hyperbole, but your suggestion that black men dating white girls do so
>>>>isn't?
>>>>
>>>>Hypocrisy, thy name is bigotry.
>>>
>>> Feel free to refer to the posting of me stating that. You can't.
>>>
>>> Game set match
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Check out the AFN FAQ website at...
>>> http://niggermania.com/afnfaq/
>>>
>>> Here's the TRUTH about black-on-White crime...
>>> http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html
>>>
>>> Niggers "were over 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in
>>> 2002".
>>> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
>>>
>>> Niggers are four times as likely as Whites to Kill their children...
>>> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.txt
>>>
>>> 18.6% of nigger bucks go to jail, vs. 3.4% of White males
>>> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm
>>>
>>> Black bastards! 68.7% of niggers are born out of wedlock!
>>> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf
>>>
>>> 62% of ALL nigglet births are paid for by the government.
>>> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm
>>>
>>> 56% of sow niggers have genital herpes!!! See page 21 of...
>>> http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf
>>>
>>> Though only 12% of the population, more niggers are on
>>> welfare than are Whites! See Figure B of...
>>> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter10/ chap10.htm
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Check out the AFN FAQ website at...
> http://niggermania.com/afnfaq/
>
> Here's the TRUTH about black-on-White crime...
> http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html
>
> Niggers "were over 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in
> 2002".
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
>
> Niggers are four times as likely as Whites to Kill their children...
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.txt
>
> 18.6% of nigger bucks go to jail, vs. 3.4% of White males
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm
>
> Black bastards! 68.7% of niggers are born out of wedlock!
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf
>
> 62% of ALL nigglet births are paid for by the government.
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm
>
> 56% of sow niggers have genital herpes!!! See page 21 of...
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf
>
> Though only 12% of the population, more niggers are on
> welfare than are Whites! See Figure B of...
> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter10/ chap10.htm
|
|
|
| The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1084913 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 00:00 |
|
Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
are smarter than these people?
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1084918 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 00:15 |
|
"no" <no [at] stopit.no> wrote in message news:e9bop5$1jd$2 [at] nntp.aioe.org...
> Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
> Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
> Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
> Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
>
> Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come to
> be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you are
> smarter than these people?
From the obvious fact that the second conclusion contradicts your first
premise and first conclusion.
Start again.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet [at] io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1084921 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 00:19 |
|
no wrote:
> Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
> Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
> Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
> Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
>
> Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
> to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
> are smarter than these people?
Who put together the thousands of creator-gods?
Other creator-gods?
Interesting that you posted to a pro-wrestling site because
religion and pro-wr. are twins.
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1084924 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 00:25 |
|
no wrote:
> Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
> Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
> Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
> Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
>
> Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
> to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
> are smarter than these people?
Because they were not that smart in this regard.
The problem is the omni-everything class of creators
gods is easily debunked. Leaving no god as a first cause.
And it is not true that theer cannot be an infinite chain of cuases,
that is simply false. It is special pleading.
Plato and Aristotle argued that there had to be a prime
mover to give motions to things in the universe, mainly
planets et al. But the big Bang expanded and eventually
became a ball of hot expanding gases as atoms formed.
Classical turbulence gave rise to motion, no god or prime
mover, a being with intelligence is needed. Pure phyics
does the trick and has been shown to have been part of the
physics long ago that gave us the Universe we have now.
------
The omni-everything creator gods debunked for tour
reading, pleasure, this essay has been cleaned up
and edited to be concise and hard to argue away.
IS THERE A GOD? NO. STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER
- PART 1.
1. In this essay, proof "God" does not exist
is aimed at an entire class of gods, not
particular gods. This is the class of gods that
are omni-everything and creator of all gods.
Hereafter OEC, that is, omni-everything, creator
gods or OEC class of gods).
If an class of gods can be disproved, all particular
gods that belong to that class are collectively
disproven too. This is an efficient, and sensible
approach to disproving god, by which the
god of major religious and theological traditions.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Brahamanistic
Hinduism and other claimed gods of this class
are meant. But it would also disprove any
other particular gods, known or unknown who
have the characteristics placing them in this
class of gods.
This of course does not disprove all possible
gods, nor is Part 1 alone meant to do that, it
is meant only to deal with the OEC gods that are
the main problem for this world, the gods of
4 1/2 billion believers. The OEC gods that are the
source of fundamentalism, bigotry, fanaticism,
anti-intellectualism and various kinds of
backwardness.
There are a number of other classes of gods but
comparatively speaking far fewer people believe
in these other classes of gods, these believers
are not very numerous or very important.
Animist gods, such as found in Voodoo, nature
gods and the like. It is possible to sort other
kinds of gods into a number of classes of gods
and likewise disprove each class. That shall be
considered in later parts.
Here I am primarily looking at the class of
Omani-everything creator gods. This should not be
taken to mean other classes of gods cannot also
be likewise disproven.
Or that such secondary classes are totally
unimportant. But basically the Omani-everything
class of gods is so far above any other god that
once it is debunked, its hard to step down to
distinctly second rate gods. Its like stepping
down from a Cadillac to a bicycle. If we can
thus disprove that class, we have done most
of strong Atheism's work.
No other class of gods, a lessor kind of god,
can plug the hole left by the debunked OEC gods,
the omni-everything creator gods of classical
major religions and theological systems, either.
These systems have all based themselves on a set
of claims about god that lessor classes of god
cannot fulfill. No lesser class of gods can save
the religions based on this class of gods if the
'class proves vulnerable.
2. A BASIC DEFINITION THE CLASS OF
OMNI-EVERYTHING AND CREATOR-OF-ALL GODS.
A. We will start with 8 assertions drawn from
the major religions Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism,
and Islam. Other religions may fit here too.
3. NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD
A. There is no evidence whatsoever god. One may
search the best textbooks of the best divinity
schools and seminaries and philosophy departments
of the best universities in vain for evidence.
2500 years of philosophy and theology have produced
no good hard, undeniable evidence at all.
4. ALL WE HAVE TO WORK WITH IS ASSERTIONS
A. All we have to work from then, is claims, or
assertions made about god. I have chosen the
following 8 assertions as they are all part of
all great and large religions and theological
traditions of the world. Most of 4 1/2 billion
believers will agree with most of these, and these
are all dogmatic to most main stream religions.
B. If we can show these create contradictions, we
can show that the class omni-everything creator
gods, the Grand God, cannot exist. All we have to
work with are assertions and logic, but this is
all we need. I need not use anything more to
achieve my goal.
C. All these claims are derived from claimed
revelations, taken from the Bible, Quran, Vedas
and other revealed books.
5. THE 8 MAJOR ASSERTIONS I WILL WORK WITH
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and
consciousness.
B. God is intelligent
C. God has free will.
D. God is the creator of all.
E. God is omnipotent.
F. God is omnibenevolent.
G. God is omniscient.
H. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism. I have chosen the
specifically because they are in fact assertions
made about god traditionally by these religions
and are all that is needed to show this class of
OEC class of gods cannot exist.
A.- C.show god is a personal god, not a mere
force of nature or another name for for nature.
Omniscience are actually logically derivable from
the claimed attribute of omnipotence and so aren't
not truly independent attributes, and may be considered
a special aspect of omnipotence.
6. WE CAN THUS ABSTRACT A GENERAL CLASS OF
OMNI-EVERYTHING GOD FROM THESE 8 GENERAL
ASSERTIONS.
A. We can abstract a class of gods,
omni-everything, creator gods from these 8
characteristics. We could probably drop G. and
collapse B. into A.
We can initially ignore other claims though such
claims as god's mercy, justice and love. These are
also affected and could be used to strengthen the
argument. Many of these are destroyed by considering
assertions A. - G and the resulting contradictions
these cause. But the idea is to use minimal number of
basic claims found in all major religious and
theological traditions. If these do the job of
disproving this class of gods, that is all we
need. Anything else is a luxury.
B. There are other attributes of god, that god is
eternal, infinite, that god is simple and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary. Some
claims can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above or are destroyed by
discussion of the 8 attributes discussed above.
C. It does not mean we cannot later consider
such secondary claims as many are also rather
useful at showing this class of gods is
impossible. Some are rather amusing in this
regard. But they are secondary and not critical
for the main argument here. But some are peculiar
to one religion, for example Christian theologians
alone have the doctrine of god's simplicity.
7. CLASSES OF GODS
A. It is important to note here in 2., that this
is a definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods. This is key to this
disproof which is designed to be general in nature.
B. If we disprove the entire class of gods by
examining the logical implications of a few
claims, all secondary claims are also destroyed.
We need not examine claims of god's simplicity or
whether god is immanent or transcendent or other
similar claims. We need not break down
omnibenevolence into secondary associated claims
such as such as mercy, justice, or implied claims,
though we might mention their destruction
in passing when appropriate, and damage done to
such concepts of damnation, or punishment or sin.
C. If we disprove a class of gods, those particular
gods belonging to that class are also disproven.
God of the bible, Allah, Hindu Ishvara.
If the class of omni-everything creator gods is
disproven these gods are disproven if we succeed.
All known gods and possible new or obscure gods
are all dealt with, we need not worry about a god
we have never heard of it it is of this class.
D. Tertiary claims are also likewise disproven.
Mohammad is not a prophet of god and Jesus was not
son of god. Moses did not meet god on the
mountain, God did not promise all of Canaan to
Abraham. God did not part the Red Sea. God does
not speak to prophets. Creationism based on Genesis
claims People's of the Book are to be subdued, or
that Allah sent revelations to Mohammad via angel
Gabriel are all irrelevant no.
E. Thus taking a general approach of disproving
classes of gods is efficient and far more effective
than trying to disprove particular god's one by one.
8. THE PROBLEMS OF AN OMNI-EVERYTHING, CREATOR GOD
The most basic problems are the problems of evil, and
free will. These start the collapse of the OEC class
of gods.
9. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
It is found in Christian writer Lactantius's
"Treatise on the Anger of God".
A basic formulation is:
A. God is defined as powerful
B. God is defined as as good.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not powerful as claimed.
E. Or God is not good as claimed.
F. Or god is neither powerful or
good.
G. Or god is not existent.
It should be noted the original version as found
in Lactantius's "Treatise of the Anger of God" does
not use the words omnipotent or omnibenevolent,
these are much later restatements of the original
problem of evil which works just as well without
these terms. Later versions come basically from
David Hume's "Dialogues on Natural Religion"
posthumously published in 1779.
10. THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
A. The free will defense of the problem of evil
goes back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It
is still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by many other
theologians, old and modern.
B. God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to
do evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
11. THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DISPROVEN. FIRST WAY
God has free will.
God is has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god-like
free will and a god-like good nature.
D. Inability then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
good.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So god can have free will and a good nature and
still be said to have free will despite never
doing evil. Man can thus also have this and
inability to do evil is not a sign of lack of free
will. We both would have potential to do evil, but
simply don't. Here, the free will defense fails,
the problem of evil remains.
13 OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
FREE WILL DISPROVEN, SECOND WAY.
God is defined as creator of all in these
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent. A contradiction of assertions
about the nature of god.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
14. OMNI-EVERYTHING GODS HAVE THUS SELF
DESTRUCTED.
A.The OEC class of gods is thus self destructive,
it is incoherent and contradictory as a theory
and such a god is impossible.
B. Further more such a situation makes god a
problematic idea. If there is no free will and if
thus god makes all decisions to the smallest
physical extent possible, at all times, then not
only is this god not good, but evil, a contradiction,
and it destroys all of this purported god's secondary
attributes. In such a universe, mercy, justice, god's
alleged love of mankind are all incomprehensible
nonsense. It makes no sense to create a man to do
evil acts and condemn him to eternal torment forever for
something god decided, not that man.
C. Any system of theology that claims god created
all and that god is omniscient, knowing the
future, faces this problem and dissolves into
total incoherent nonsense, a reductio ad absurdum
that makes a mockery of all religions based on a
god that is allegedly creator of all, and
omniscient, knowing the future. As we will see,
omnipotence, time and creation will combine
(in future parts) to create a far more powerful
disproof of this class of gods.
15. THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
6. This destroys all other claimed secondary and
good attributes of god, mercy, justice, love.
16. GOD AND TIME.
A. Both Augustine and Boethius described god as
being transcendent to time, outside and beyond it.
Thus there is no past, present, or future to god,
all is now. Since all is now, god must have
create all things at once at once. Including
again, our every act, thought and inclination.
God is said to be out of time because otherwise he
must affected by time, which would mean he is not
as defined, all powerful or omnipotent. But this
means he is omniscient and again, we have no free
will.
B. As seen, explicit claims of omniscience, and
creatorship of god doom free will and more. Any
claim god is outside of time forces us to the
claim god is effectively omniscient.
C. But if we drop claims god is out of time and
now is affected by time, god cannot be as claimed,
omnipotent. And since omniscience, foreknowledge
of the future is important to the concept of
prophecy, that secondary assertion fails too.
Prophecy is a key concept of traditional religions
and theologies of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
17. MANY SECONDARY AND LESSOR ATTRIBUTES ARE
DOOMED BY THE CONCEPT OF OMNIPOTENCE AND
CREATORSHIP OF GOD
A. If evil exists, god is evil. We have no free
will which means secondary attributes of God such
as mercy, love, justice are pretty meaningless
in face of a god that creates many of us morally
evil. Heaven, hell, damnation, sin, punishment,
salvation, nothing much makes any sense with such an
omniscient god. Augustine's free will defense of
God in face of Epicurus's problem of evil is
utterly undone by his claim god is sovereign over
time because he is all powerful, or omnipotent.
B. Besides these attributes being destroyed, this
destroys all religions that dogmatically claim
god is omniscient, creator of all and has these
secondary tributes.
C. This all calls all claims of revelation
in regard to revealed books into question.
18. TIME CONTRADICTS GOD'S CREATION OF ALL.
A. If we say god is omnipotent, all powerful, he
is outside of time then free will is impossible
and all else is simply an Universe utterly alien,
incoherent and mad and most certainly not anything
the great theological traditions tell us it is.
B. To avoid this, if we say god is not outside
of time, this then implies time is outside and
beyond god and he cannot have created it. Thus
contradicting claims of being the creator of all.
Especially ex nihilo as many religions claim.
C. Thus the another contradiction pops up
dooming a major claim, god created all. Theology
cannot keep the claim god is outside of time or
keep the claim god is subject to time, as then
they lose omnipotence and creatorship of the
entire universe as dogmatic claims.
19. Here, the OEC class of gods has collapsed.
As has theology and revealed religion itself as a
methodology. As pointed out, this destroys the
claims and viability of an entire class of
possible gods, all secondary and tertiary
claims for such a god of this class also
fail, as do dogmas or secondary or tertiary
claims based on real existance of this class
of gods in any way.
19. If this entire class of omni-everything
creator gods cannot exist as defined, specific
gods cannot, nor can claims such as this or that
Grand God sent this or that revelation to man or
some prophet or did this or that. This there are
no grounds to use these religions to deny rights
to say, homosexuals, or to claim Genesis myths are
true since they are god's word and thus evolution
must not be taught in schools.
20. This OEC class of gods is thus disproven and is
utter irrelevant to anything real and existant.
And this is not the last of the problems of the
class of Omni-everything gods that are creators
of all.
And there are more problems that will be
considered in other parts to come. Such as the
nature of logic, and the rules and laws of the
Universe.
(End of Part 1)
*************************************************
--
"Laughter is not a sin intrinsically, but it produces sin"
"Homilies - Adversus ebriosos et de resurrectione domini
nostri Jesu" - St. John Chrysostom
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1084931 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 00:55 |
|
In our last episode,
<e9bop5$1jd$2 [at] nntp.aioe.org>,
the lovely and talented no
broadcast on alt.atheism:
> Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
> Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
> Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
> Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
Contradicts the first premise, therefore the whole is invalid.
> Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
> to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
> are smarter than these people?
Because I am, and so is nearly every educated person on this planet.
Aristotle, for example, believed the Sun revolved around the Earth.
Each of these guys believed crap that we know to be completely untrue.
--
Lars Eighner *Atheist #1965* usenet [at] larseighner.com <http://larseighner.com/>
"Dear friends, -- Man has created God, not God man. Yours ever, Garibaldi."
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1084935 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 00:59 |
|
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:00:46 -0700, no <no [at] stopit.no> wrote:
>Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
>Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
>Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
>Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
One might note that all "first cause" arguments presuppose that
causality was somehow "pre-existent" to the universe when there are
excellent grounds for supposing that causality is a property of the
universe rather in the way that the physicists tell us that space and
time are. And if causality is a property of the universe, how can the
universe have been caused?
>Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
>to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
>are smarter than these people?
I dunno about smarter, but we certainly have the benefit of several
hundred, if not thousands of years of human thought on the subject,
and they did not. Aristotle, for example, thought that heavier objects
fell faster that lighter one. Galileo demonstrated that he was wrong.
Does knowing this make me smarter than Aristotle?
--
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
attrib: Pauline Réage. Cine To DVD? http://www.video2cd.co.uk
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1084952 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 01:15 |
|
"no" <no [at] stopit.no> wrote in message news:e9bop5$1jd$2 [at] nntp.aioe.org...
> Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
> Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
> Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
> Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
>
> Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
> to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
> are smarter than these people?
>
don't make me get out my Jowett and whup you.
|
|
|
| Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way [message #1084953 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 01:15 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way [message #1084955 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 01:17 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1084960 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 02:37 |
|
no wrote:
> Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
> Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
> Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
> Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
If everything has a cause what is the cause of the First Cause. The
assumption that everything has a cause implies a circle or a regress.
>
> Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
> to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
> are smarter than these people?
Just about everything Aristotle says about motion in wrong. His
-Physics- is a disaster and besides which, he very rarerly checked his
conclusions empirically.
Bob Kolker
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1084962 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 02:41 |
|
Lars Eighner wrote:
> In our last episode,
> <e9bop5$1jd$2 [at] nntp.aioe.org>,
> the lovely and talented no
> broadcast on alt.atheism:
>
>
>>Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
>>Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
>>Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
>>Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
>
>
> Contradicts the first premise, therefore the whole is invalid.
>
>
>>Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
>>to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
>>are smarter than these people?
>
>
> Because I am, and so is nearly every educated person on this planet.
> Aristotle, for example, believed the Sun revolved around the Earth.
> Each of these guys believed crap that we know to be completely untrue.
We know that to be untrue because we have telescopes. Galileo observed
the following:
1. The phases of Venus, unseeable with the naked eye.
2. The moons of Jupiter, unseeable with the naked eye.
Given the lack of telescopes at the time, geocentrism is a very
reasonable hypothesis. The phases of Venus can not be seen with the
naked eye. Futhermore if the earth move, the Greeks assumed there should
be stellar parallax. None was observed. That is because the stars are
much father away than the Greeks assumed. The Greeks were not stupid.
They were careful observers, and given what they could observe at the
time, the geocentric hypothesis made perfectly good sense. Do not
underate the Greek thinkers, even with their errors. They invented
mathematics as we know it.
Bob Kolker
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1084964 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 02:45 |
|
Therion Ware wrote:
>
> I dunno about smarter, but we certainly have the benefit of several
> hundred, if not thousands of years of human thought on the subject,
> and they did not. Aristotle, for example, thought that heavier objects
> fell faster that lighter one. Galileo demonstrated that he was wrong.
> Does knowing this make me smarter than Aristotle?
This is one that counts against Arisotle. A very simple experiment of
dropping two similarly shaped heavy items but one considerable heavier
than the other would have shown Aristotle that heavier objects do not
fall faster than light objects (unless air resistance is a significant
factor). In matters of motion, he was an a priorist and did not make
use of experimental corroberation and falsification. That was
Aristotle's single greatest deficiency. In most other things Aristotle
was a first rate thinker and was rightly revered for his wisdom.
Bob Kolker
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1084978 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 01:59 |
|
no wrote:
> Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
> Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
> Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
> Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
One problem here is that you are treating matter as passive stuff that
just hangs around, waiting to be pushed. However, thanks to Quantum
Theory, we know that on very small scales matter behaves in a very
unpredictable manner and that matter can just pop into existence,
burrow through walls etc... Whatsmore, the Einstein matter/energy
equivalence shows that matter and energy are essentially the same
thing; therefore matter contains its own potential for movement. No
first cause required.
Basically, the cosmological arguement presupposes a picture of matter
which is now about a century out of date.
> Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
> to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
> are smarter than these people?
Because - like Newton - we stand on the shoulders on giants, who have
since refined or replaced just about everything those great old men
said. We know things those men never had a chance to know and if you
don't believe that, ask an archeologist where Plato kept his laptop.
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1084983 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 02:07 |
|
no expressed precisely :
> Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
Nothing can cause itself, so then there can't have been a First Cause.
Changeability is uncaused, else there can be no causation at all let
alone a First Cause. Changeability implies the existence of stuff that
changes. Well, that's the Universe for you -- stuff undergoing change.
The Universe doesn't require a first cause because causation is of the
Universe. Anything that is caused is of the Universe. My conclusion
is: Causality or causation is an attribute of the Universe, and that
the Universe has always existed and will always exist (at least in some
form or another.)
Tony.
(Christcurch, New Zeland.)
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1084991 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 01:59 |
|
In article <e9bop5$1jd$2 [at] nntp.aioe.org>, no [at] stopit.no says...
> Premises: Everything has a cause or causes.
Then god needs a cause.
> Nothing can cause itself.
But things can be acausal.
> Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Why not.
> Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
A cause need not be a person. Therefore, even if there were a first
cause, it would not necessarily be god.
>
> Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
> to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
> are smarter than these people?
Kant, Hume, Locke, Russell and many others showed that the cosmological
(etiological) argument and other traditional arguments as per the "Five
Ways" of EquineAss were all flawed and utterly useless. Read a textbook
on logic or philosophy not written in the middle ages and it might
explain that to you, Perkoff.
>
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1085025 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 03:32 |
|
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:00:46 -0700, no <no [at] stopit.no> wrote:
Thanks for trying, "no", but:
>Premises: Everything has a cause or causes.
1. That's not self-evident at all.
2. If it's true that everything has a cause then God must also have a
cause.
>Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
I don't see why not. We can model infinities pretty well, actually.
>
>Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
>to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
>are smarter than these people?
All those guys were indeed smarter than me. So was/is Russell,
Einstein, Dawkins, Sagan and many other folks who didn't/don't accept
the cosmological argument. Your point?
--
Gospel Bretts
aa Atheist #2262
Fundy Xian Atheist
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1085030 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 04:35 |
|
Gospel Bretts wrote:
> All those guys were indeed smarter than me. So was/is Russell,
> Einstein, Dawkins, Sagan and many other folks who didn't/don't accept
> the cosmological argument. Your point?
The Cosmological Argument, Anselms's Argument and the Argument from
Design are all bogus. There is not a shred of empirical evidence for the
existence of The Great Knish. Moses thought he beheld the Deity when he
burned a Knish over his campfire. Thus arose the story of the Burning
Knish. But it was only a Knish.
Bob Kolker
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1085037 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 03:37 |
|
Ian Braidwood wrote:
>
> no wrote:
>> Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
>> Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
>> Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
>> Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
>
> One problem here is that you are treating matter as passive stuff that
> just hangs around, waiting to be pushed. However, thanks to Quantum
> Theory, we know that on very small scales matter behaves in a very
> unpredictable manner and that matter can just pop into existence,
> burrow through walls etc... Whatsmore, the Einstein matter/energy
> equivalence shows that matter and energy are essentially the same
> thing; therefore matter contains its own potential for movement. No
> first cause required.
Recent cosmological work has been using WMAP and
other satellites to investigate the early Universe.
The turbulence created by expanding hot gases
leaves its tell tale signature.
No god need to put the matter of the Universe
into motion. These satellites, put up in the last
decade finally have nailed the last nail in Artistotle's
Prime Mover arguments, as well as later varieties such
as found in Aquina's' 5 ways.
As the early Universe became matter, stars and
galaxies, early star formation and collapse of massive
stars gave rise to matter with complex elements needed
for life and turbulent matter that caused yet more star
formation, something we still see going on to this day.
No prime mover needed.
Its all physics all the way down, not turtles.
>
> Basically, the cosmological arguement presupposes a picture of matter
> which is now about a century out of date.
>
>> Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
>> to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
>> are smarter than these people?
>
> Because - like Newton - we stand on the shoulders on giants, who have
> since refined or replaced just about everything those great old men
> said. We know things those men never had a chance to know and if you
> don't believe that, ask an archeologist where Plato kept his laptop.
--
"Laughter is not a sin intrinsically, but it produces sin"
"Homilies - Adversus ebriosos et de resurrectione domini
nostri Jesu" - St. John Chrysostom
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1085049 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 03:38 |
|
In article <4htci8F16nqlU1 [at] individual.net>, nowhere [at] nowhere.com says...
> no wrote:
> > Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
> > Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
> > Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
> > Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
>
> If everything has a cause what is the cause of the First Cause. The
> assumption that everything has a cause implies a circle or a regress.
Yeah, perkoff kinda fucked that one up by not properly aping the
argument, or a more modern version like "Kalam". Not that it would have
mattered, since those arguments are likewise flawed. Even if we accepted
the "first cause" explanation to resolve the apparent difficulty, (1) a
cause need not be a person, god, etc. (2) we can just as easily interpret
this to mean that the big bang event happened acausally, since the first
cause is uncaused. Therefore, again, god could not be said to be the
creator, by definition, since the first cause could not have been
initiated by him.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1085073 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 04:32 |
|
In alt.atheism On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:00:46 -0700, no <no [at] stopit.no>
let us all know that:
>Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
>to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
>are smarter than these people?
Because you're a troll. I mean: you're x-posting to
rec.sport.pro-wrestling and alt.battlestar-galactica.
I'll bet abuse [at] aioe.org would like to hear of your trolling
activities.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1085078 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 04:19 |
|
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:00:46 -0700, no <no [at] stopit.no> wrote:
- Refer: <e9bop5$1jd$2 [at] nntp.aioe.org>
>Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
>Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
>Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
>Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
Or a circle.
>Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
>to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
>are smarter than these people?
We stand on the shoulders of giants.
This silly argument from vercundium is easliy demolished:
Why should Plato have assumed that he was smarter than a cave man?
--
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1085081 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 04:47 |
|
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 20:19:59 -0600, Michael Gray <fleetg [at] newsguy.spam.com>
wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:00:46 -0700, no <no [at] stopit.no> wrote:
> - Refer: <e9bop5$1jd$2 [at] nntp.aioe.org>
>> Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
>> Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
>> Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
>> Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
>
> Or a circle.
>
>> Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
>> to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
>> are smarter than these people?
>
> We stand on the shoulders of giants.
>
> This silly argument from vercundium is easliy demolished:
> Why should Plato have assumed that he was smarter than a cave man?
>
> --
Salut.
--
null sig
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1085095 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 05:21 |
|
no <no [at] stopit.no> wrote in news:e9bop5$1jd$2 [at] nntp.aioe.org:
> Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
> Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
> Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
> Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
You seem to have a short attention span. You start with "Everything has a
cause or causes" and twenty-two words later, you say "There must be a first
cause."
Your conclusion contradicts your premise.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
Over the years I've met a handful of people who regularly talk with God,
but they usually do so only when they're off their medications.
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1085099 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 05:23 |
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> wrote in news:4htd1aF178gaU1
[at] individual.net:
> Therion Ware wrote:
>
>>
>> I dunno about smarter, but we certainly have the benefit of several
>> hundred, if not thousands of years of human thought on the subject,
>> and they did not. Aristotle, for example, thought that heavier objects
>> fell faster that lighter one. Galileo demonstrated that he was wrong.
>> Does knowing this make me smarter than Aristotle?
>
>
> This is one that counts against Arisotle. A very simple experiment of
> dropping two similarly shaped heavy items but one considerable heavier
> than the other would have shown Aristotle that heavier objects do not
> fall faster than light objects (unless air resistance is a significant
> factor). In matters of motion, he was an a priorist and did not make
> use of experimental corroberation and falsification. That was
> Aristotle's single greatest deficiency. In most other things Aristotle
> was a first rate thinker and was rightly revered for his wisdom.
Failure to check his conclusions against nature is quite a big deal.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1085151 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 06:57 |
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4htcrbF159u1U1 [at] individual.net...
> Lars Eighner wrote:
>
>> In our last episode, <e9bop5$1jd$2 [at] nntp.aioe.org>, the lovely and
>> talented no broadcast on alt.atheism:
>>
>>
>>>Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
>>>Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
>>>Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
>>>Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
>>
>>
>> Contradicts the first premise, therefore the whole is invalid.
>>
>>
>>>Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come to
>>>be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you are
>>>smarter than these people?
>>
>>
>> Because I am, and so is nearly every educated person on this planet.
>> Aristotle, for example, believed the Sun revolved around the Earth.
>> Each of these guys believed crap that we know to be completely untrue.
>
> We know that to be untrue because we have telescopes. Galileo observed the
> following:
>
> 1. The phases of Venus, unseeable with the naked eye.
> 2. The moons of Jupiter, unseeable with the naked eye.
>
> Given the lack of telescopes at the time, geocentrism is a very reasonable
> hypothesis. The phases of Venus can not be seen with the naked eye.
> Futhermore if the earth move, the Greeks assumed there should be stellar
> parallax. None was observed. That is because the stars are much father
> away than the Greeks assumed. The Greeks were not stupid. They were
> careful observers, and given what they could observe at the time, the
> geocentric hypothesis made perfectly good sense. Do not underate the Greek
> thinkers, even with their errors. They invented mathematics as we know it.
Hence I would say they might be smarter than me, but they were also more
ignorant than me.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet [at] io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
|
|
|
| Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God [message #1085165 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 07:44 |
|
Mr. Barwell continues to seek a group where he can find sheep to follow him.
"wbarwell" <wbarwell [at] mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12biqr7l1us48bf [at] corp.supernews.com...
> no wrote:
>
>> Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
>> Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
>> Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
>> Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
>>
>> Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
>> to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
>> are smarter than these people?
>
> Because they were not that smart in this regard.
>
> The problem is the omni-everything class of creators
> gods is easily debunked. Leaving no god as a first cause.
> And it is not true that theer cannot be an infinite chain of cuases,
> that is simply false. It is special pleading.
>
> Plato and Aristotle argued that there had to be a prime
> mover to give motions to things in the universe, mainly
> planets et al. But the big Bang expanded and eventually
> became a ball of hot expanding gases as atoms formed.
> Classical turbulence gave rise to motion, no god or prime
> mover, a being with intelligence is needed. Pure phyics
> does the trick and has been shown to have been part of the
> physics long ago that gave us the Universe we have now.
>
> ------
>
> The omni-everything creator gods debunked for tour
> reading, pleasure, this essay has been cleaned up
> and edited to be concise and hard to argue away.
>
>>> 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?
>
> You reek of stupidity and intellectual incapability.
Ad hom in place of a defence noted.
>
>> 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?????
>
>
> That is just dumb. Just pathetic.
Ad homs 2 and 3
A particularly, glaringly stupid
> strawman.
Ad hom 4
You have to be the most dishonest man I have met
> on the net this month.
Ad hom 5
If you're done throwing your usual hysterical fit, answer the criticism.
>
> 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.
> Omnibenevolent implies good and evil exist, do I have to make THAT
> explicit
> too, for the jerk squad? I think I shall just in case.
Ad hom 6. Who was the "King of Ad homs," again?
>
> 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.
> And "Bob's" yer uncle.
Irrelevent comment noted.
>
>
> Thus the concept of a class of creators gods that are
> omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent is impossible.
You haven't shown that.
> And last but not least, little Gandalf flailing his arms futility as he
> trails smoke and fire into the eternal pit of bad ideas and lack
> of reasoning ability.
Ad hom 7 noted.
>> An obvious absurdity.
>>
>> And so your argument fails. The fact that God cannot logically be
>> omnipotent in the extreme sense that the Christian tradition insists,
>> does
>> not in itself prove that God does not exist.
>>
>
> It does show the god that is indeed dogmatically claimed to be omnipotent
> cannot exist.
> Obviously.
>
Only in your preselected strawman universe. And as I've shown, you've
failed miserably even to prove your own handpuppet argument.
If you can't even prove a pre-selected, skewed strawman argument, how are
you possibly going to attack the real article, Barwell?
> "Extreme sense" is your strawman.
>
> For example Aquinas states god is only omnipotent in regards to real
> thhings, not say bad definitiions like "unmarried batchelors".
> I don't have to pick a strawman extreme omnipotence to do the job.
As demonstrated, you flop before you even make it to omnipotence.
>>> Judaism,
>>> Christianity, Islam, Brahamnistic Hinduism.
>>> Some have complained that this does not disprove all
>>> gods. True, but this is not meant to, it is meant
>>> only to deal with the gods that are the main problem
>>> for this world,
>>
>> Another unsupported assertion. Nowhere does your original argument prove
>> this universal claim. Religion in general has caused tremendous
>> suffering
>> in the world, but your argument nowhere addresses this particular
>> problem.
>>
>
> Supported. You are being irrational here.
Bald assertion without support noted.
>
>
>>> the gods of 4 1/2 billion believers.
>>> The god that is the source of fundamentalism,
>>> bigotry, fanaticism, anti-intellectualism and
>>> backwardness. There are a few other classes of gods
>>> but numerically by believers, these are not that
>>> widespread or important.
>>
>> According to whom? You may be competent to recognize what is
>> 'widespread'
>> but who are you to decide what is "important?"
>>
>
> According to all with brains.
Dismissive reply noted. Where's your actual evidence? Where's your actual
defence?
> for example, without religious idiots in the US would we be having
> problems with creationists assaulting science teaching in schools, and in
> may cases, all but gutting science education in backard states and cities?
I repeat...who are YOU to decide what is important?
>
> You are a fool. and wrong.
Ad hom 8.
>
>>> But it is possible to sort
>>> them into a few classes of gods and likewise disprove
>>> each class.
>>
>> Which you have not done and cannot do. Hence, another lie on your part.
>>
>
> Which I do, stop lying, it makes the peanut gallery laugh at your
> pretensions.
Ad hom 9. If you've done it, you should be able to point to it
specifically. You can't because you haven't and can't.
>
>>> Here I am primarily looking at the class
>>> of omni-everything creator gods. This does not mean
>>> other classes of gods cannot also be likewise disproven.
>>
>> And it doesn't mean they can be.
>>
>
> You lame and wrong opinion.
> as if you know zip about it.
Ad hom 10
>
>>> Or are totally unimportant. But basically the
>>> omni-everything class of gods is so far above any
>>> other god that once it is debunked, its hard to
>>> step down to distinctly second rate gods.
>>
>> Why is this so and why should it be so? 100s of years ago, the vast bulk
>> of
>> humanity believed that space was filled with an ether. Did this make the
>> fact that it was not filled with ether "unimportant?"
>>
>
> Non sequitur.
It's a perfect analogy. You're attempting to float the notion that the only
gods that need 'debunking' are the gods of the most powerful and numerous
religious traditions.
1. You havne't succeeded in debunking them
2. You haven't demonstrated why those particular gods are the only important
ones.
3. You haven't offered any rational basis upon which a god becomes "second
rate."
>
>
>
>
>
>>> Its like
>>> stepping down from a Cadillac to a bicycle.
>>
>> Why? You're making a value judgement about something that you're
>> attempting
>> to prove or disprove. Hence, you're committing the naturalistic fallacy.
>>
>>>
>
> Fallacy.
Bald assertion without support noted. If it's a fallacy you should be able
to prove that it's a fallacy.
>
>
>>> 2. A BASIC DEFINITION THE CLASS OF GOD,
>>> OMNI-EVERYTHING AND CREATOR OF ALL
>>> Also known here as the Grand God of Grand Theology.
>>>
>>> There is no evidence whatsover for god. All we
>>> have to work from is claims, or assertions made
>>> about god. I have chosen the following 8 as they are
>>> all part of all great and large religions and
>>> theological traditions of the world.
>>
>> But mostly because you've decided that they are the weakest factors. In
>> other words, you still haven't attacked the assertion of God's existence,
>> only assertions concerning God's attributes.
>>
>
> I need only weak factors to work with and basically all basic claims of
> this
> class of god are indeed, weak,
> Sorry, thems just the facts. All we have are weak assertions.
You've made one honest statement above. William Barwell NEEDS weak factors
to work with. This is the case because you can't handle stronger factors.
>
> I mean, what facts are there that save omnipotence, omnibenevolnece
> and omniscience, free will and this class of gods.
> Nothing. Nothing at all.
Real existence is hardly "nothing." And, as noted, you've flopped trying to
debunk everything save omnipotence, and THAT is only because you've never
actually attempted to deal with it.
>
>
>>> Most of 4 1/2
>>> billion believers will agree with most of these,
>>> and these are all dogmatic to most main religions.
>>
>> Fallacy of composition. Not even all Christians agree with these points.
>>
>
> Most...
So what. That's precisely what makes it the fallacy of composition.
You keep smacking into that fallacy, and you keep embracing it as though it
were a great truth. All it is is a great mistake.
>
> We will fid a few wimpy newage type salad bar christians and so on.
> But conservatives, evangelicals, fundies and moslems mostly agree god is
> omni-everything. Sorry.
Fallacy of *argumentum ad numerum*. I don't give much of a damn what most
people think. I give a damn about whether a logical proof is a logical
proof.
When are you going to come up with one.
>
>
>>> If we can show these create contradictions, we can show that
>>> the class omni-everything creator gods, the Grand God,
>>> cannot exist.
>>
>> No, you cannot. All you can prove is that any particular attribute is
>> illogical within that particular argument.
>>
>
>
> We can. You simply are wrong. As usual.
But you can't demonstrate why. Again, Barwell runs away from defending his
own argument.
>
>>> All we have to work with are assertions
>>> and logic.
>>
>> Get on with it, Barlow.
>>
>
> Read faster.
>
>>>
>>> The general overarching definition of god as per
>>> the major religions of the world is:
>>>
>>> A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
>>> B. God has free will.
>>> C. God is the creator of all.
>>> D. God is omnipotent.
>>> E. God is omnibenevolent.
>>> F. God is omniscient.
>>> G. God is that which nothing more powerful
>>> can be imagined.
>>>
>>> These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
>>> for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
>>> Islam, and Hinduism.
>>
>> 1. you're utterly wrong about the beliefs that form Hinduism and
>> obviously
>> have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
>
> I do, you do not.
Hinduism does not incorporate all the characteristics you list, you fool.
Hinduism is not even monotheistic.
>
>
>> 2. Judaism is NOT Christianity, and you're attributing to the one what is
>> strictly true only of the other.
>
>
> I didn't say it was, did I?.
>>> These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
>>> for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
>>> Islam, and Hinduism.
> You lied again.,
>>> These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
>>> for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
>>> Islam, and Hinduism.
> Strawman, reading comprehension problem, basic inability to read and
> understand simple english sentence written at a 6th grade le | |
|
