Bookmarks

Yahoo Gmail Google Facebook Delicious Twitter Reddit Stumpleupon Myspace Digg

Search queries

golf club grace before meals, golf graces before meals, seymore butts ass hunt tylene buck, katharine mcphee ugly vagina, dinner grace at golf club, grace for golf club dinner, stephen a smith intro song, tylene buck interview, Tina fey anal, hqpron

Links

XODOX
Impressum

#1: Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way

Posted on 2006-07-15 04:51:04 by Jerry Camp

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.

&quot;Panzerfaust&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:utahraptor88&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">utahraptor88&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:i5cga2940gt0mmpqber3mic5603l1d7udb&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">i5cga2940gt0mmpqber3mic5603l1d7udb&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt; On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 14:49:46 -0700, &quot;Brandon Hex&quot;
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:Brandon_Hex&#64;comcast.net" target="_blank">Brandon_Hex&#64;comcast.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;While i liker yer attempt at fueling the flames of racial hate...
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;... this really goes onto just men in general. I mean 15 year old white
&gt;&gt;boys
&gt;&gt;kill their parents all the time.
&gt;
&gt; All the time? Abit with the hyperbole don't you think?
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;This has nothing to do with race. Just a story ofa dumb gullable girl who
&gt;&gt;let a man kill her parents for a few bucks befor they both went to jail.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;It's the classic American love story.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; --
&gt;
&gt; Today's liberalism is a mental disease. It's primary
&gt; cause is the cowardice born of extreme self-centerdness
&gt; . Too afraid to admit the existence of the forces of
&gt; evil which will stop at nothing less than genocide,
&gt; the liberal deludes himself into the comforting fantasy
&gt; that these forces of evil are merely victims and that
&gt; they can be brought around by 'right action' on the
&gt; part of the US. The liberal then blames the US and
&gt; patriotic Americans for the state of affairs. The
&gt; liberal further comforts himself by believing that,
&gt; in attacking America, he is battling the forces of
&gt; evil like a true hero.
&gt;
&gt; Anyone who points to the factual errors in this mode
&gt; of thinking is forcing the liberal to confront his own
&gt; cowardice and irrationality. That's why they react
&gt; with such hatred to anyone who disagrees with their
&gt; dogma.
&gt;
&gt; As this dogma gets reinforced through decades of
&gt; repetition in the media, it gets more and more
&gt; pronounced. Today's liberals have thus become traitors
&gt; whose cowardice has led them to make common cause
&gt; with the enemies of America. They have willingly
&gt; become enemies of America.

Report this message

#2: Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way

Posted on 2006-07-15 06:30:49 by unknown

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Report this message

#3: Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way

Posted on 2006-07-15 06:36:41 by Jerry Camp

Hopefully, you'll be 'fixed' before you have kids.

&quot;Mr Bigun&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net" target="_blank">BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:uqrgb21qfm62ra3869vb0gml5vifefb6jq&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">uqrgb21qfm62ra3869vb0gml5vifefb6jq&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:51:04 GMT, &quot;Jerry Camp&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com" target="_blank">jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com</a>&gt;
&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Let me get this straight...
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Claim that white 15 year old guys kill their parents 'all the time' is
&gt;&gt;hyperbole, but your suggestion that black men dating white girls do so
&gt;&gt;isn't?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Hypocrisy, thy name is nigger
&gt;
&gt; FIXED
&gt; .
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&quot;Panzerfaust&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:utahraptor88&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">utahraptor88&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt;news:<a href="mailto:i5cga2940gt0mmpqber3mic5603l1d7udb&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">i5cga2940gt0mmpqber3mic5603l1d7udb&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt; On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 14:49:46 -0700, &quot;Brandon Hex&quot;
&gt;&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:Brandon_Hex&#64;comcast.net" target="_blank">Brandon_Hex&#64;comcast.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;While i liker yer attempt at fueling the flames of racial hate...
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;... this really goes onto just men in general. I mean 15 year old white
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;boys
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;kill their parents all the time.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; All the time? Abit with the hyperbole don't you think?
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;This has nothing to do with race. Just a story ofa dumb gullable girl
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;who
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;let a man kill her parents for a few bucks befor they both went to jail.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;It's the classic American love story.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; --
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Today's liberalism is a mental disease. It's primary
&gt;&gt;&gt; cause is the cowardice born of extreme self-centerdness
&gt;&gt;&gt; . Too afraid to admit the existence of the forces of
&gt;&gt;&gt; evil which will stop at nothing less than genocide,
&gt;&gt;&gt; the liberal deludes himself into the comforting fantasy
&gt;&gt;&gt; that these forces of evil are merely victims and that
&gt;&gt;&gt; they can be brought around by 'right action' on the
&gt;&gt;&gt; part of the US. The liberal then blames the US and
&gt;&gt;&gt; patriotic Americans for the state of affairs. The
&gt;&gt;&gt; liberal further comforts himself by believing that,
&gt;&gt;&gt; in attacking America, he is battling the forces of
&gt;&gt;&gt; evil like a true hero.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Anyone who points to the factual errors in this mode
&gt;&gt;&gt; of thinking is forcing the liberal to confront his own
&gt;&gt;&gt; cowardice and irrationality. That's why they react
&gt;&gt;&gt; with such hatred to anyone who disagrees with their
&gt;&gt;&gt; dogma.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; As this dogma gets reinforced through decades of
&gt;&gt;&gt; repetition in the media, it gets more and more
&gt;&gt;&gt; pronounced. Today's liberals have thus become traitors
&gt;&gt;&gt; whose cowardice has led them to make common cause
&gt;&gt;&gt; with the enemies of America. They have willingly
&gt;&gt;&gt; become enemies of America.
&gt;&gt;

Report this message

#4: Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way

Posted on 2006-07-15 10:12:54 by unknown

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Report this message

#5: Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way

Posted on 2006-07-15 15:19:40 by utahraptor88

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:51:04 GMT, &quot;Jerry Camp&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com" target="_blank">jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com</a>&gt;
wrote:

&gt;Let me get this straight...
&gt;
&gt;Claim that white 15 year old guys kill their parents 'all the time' is
&gt;hyperbole, but your suggestion that black men dating white girls do so
&gt;isn't?
&gt;
&gt;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...
<a href="http://niggermania.com/afnfaq/" target="_blank">http://niggermania.com/afnfaq/</a>

Here's the TRUTH about black-on-White crime...
<a href="http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html" target="_blank">http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html</a>

Niggers &quot;were over 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2002&quot;.
<a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm</a>

Niggers are four times as likely as Whites to Kill their children...
<a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.txt" target="_blank">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.txt</a>

18.6% of nigger bucks go to jail, vs. 3.4% of White males
<a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm</a>

Black bastards! 68.7% of niggers are born out of wedlock!
<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf</a>

62% of ALL nigglet births are paid for by the government.
<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm</a>

56% of sow niggers have genital herpes!!! See page 21 of...
<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf</a>

Though only 12% of the population, more niggers are on
welfare than are Whites! See Figure B of...
<a href="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter10/chap10.htm" target="_blank"> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter10/ chap10.htm</a>

Report this message

#6: Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way

Posted on 2006-07-15 21:19:10 by Jerry Camp

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?

&quot;Panzerfaust&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:utahraptor88&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">utahraptor88&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:6qqhb2tvs0csnm5galkqssbn29uvp7o4qq&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">6qqhb2tvs0csnm5galkqssbn29uvp7o4qq&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:51:04 GMT, &quot;Jerry Camp&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com" target="_blank">jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com</a>&gt;
&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Let me get this straight...
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Claim that white 15 year old guys kill their parents 'all the time' is
&gt;&gt;hyperbole, but your suggestion that black men dating white girls do so
&gt;&gt;isn't?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Hypocrisy, thy name is bigotry.
&gt;
&gt; Feel free to refer to the posting of me stating that. You can't.
&gt;
&gt; Game set match
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; --
&gt;
&gt; Check out the AFN FAQ website at...
&gt; <a href="http://niggermania.com/afnfaq/" target="_blank">http://niggermania.com/afnfaq/</a>
&gt;
&gt; Here's the TRUTH about black-on-White crime...
&gt; <a href="http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html" target="_blank">http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html</a>
&gt;
&gt; Niggers &quot;were over 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in
&gt; 2002&quot;.
&gt; <a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm</a>
&gt;
&gt; Niggers are four times as likely as Whites to Kill their children...
&gt; <a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.txt" target="_blank">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.txt</a>
&gt;
&gt; 18.6% of nigger bucks go to jail, vs. 3.4% of White males
&gt; <a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm</a>
&gt;
&gt; Black bastards! 68.7% of niggers are born out of wedlock!
&gt; <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf</a>
&gt;
&gt; 62% of ALL nigglet births are paid for by the government.
&gt; <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm</a>
&gt;
&gt; 56% of sow niggers have genital herpes!!! See page 21 of...
&gt; <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf</a>
&gt;
&gt; Though only 12% of the population, more niggers are on
&gt; welfare than are Whites! See Figure B of...
&gt; <a href="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter10/chap10.htm" target="_blank"> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter10/ chap10.htm</a>

Report this message

#7: Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way

Posted on 2006-07-15 21:26:36 by Jerry Camp

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?

&quot;Mr Bigun&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net" target="_blank">BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:tp8hb2dkt0cjf1jvv4gm2aet6g8get6j3l&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">tp8hb2dkt0cjf1jvv4gm2aet6g8get6j3l&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 04:36:41 GMT, &quot;Jerry Camp&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com" target="_blank">jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com</a>&gt;
&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Hopefully, you'll be 'fixed' before you have kids.
&gt;
&gt; Too bad the trash that you call mammy, and every one else calls
&gt; crackheaded ho, wasn't fixored b4 u came out.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&quot;Mr Bigun&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net" target="_blank">BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt;news:<a href="mailto:uqrgb21qfm62ra3869vb0gml5vifefb6jq&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">uqrgb21qfm62ra3869vb0gml5vifefb6jq&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:51:04 GMT, &quot;Jerry Camp&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com" target="_blank">jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com</a>&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Let me get this straight...
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Claim that white 15 year old guys kill their parents 'all the time' is
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;hyperbole, but your suggestion that black men dating white girls do so
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;isn't?
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Hypocrisy, thy name is nigger
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; FIXED
&gt;&gt;&gt; .
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&quot;Panzerfaust&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:utahraptor88&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">utahraptor88&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;news:<a href="mailto:i5cga2940gt0mmpqber3mic5603l1d7udb&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">i5cga2940gt0mmpqber3mic5603l1d7udb&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 14:49:46 -0700, &quot;Brandon Hex&quot;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:Brandon_Hex&#64;comcast.net" target="_blank">Brandon_Hex&#64;comcast.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;While i liker yer attempt at fueling the flames of racial hate...
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;... this really goes onto just men in general. I mean 15 year old
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;white
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;boys
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;kill their parents all the time.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; All the time? Abit with the hyperbole don't you think?
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;This has nothing to do with race. Just a story ofa dumb gullable girl
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;who
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;let a man kill her parents for a few bucks befor they both went to
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;jail.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;It's the classic American love story.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; --
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Today's liberalism is a mental disease. It's primary
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; cause is the cowardice born of extreme self-centerdness
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; . Too afraid to admit the existence of the forces of
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; evil which will stop at nothing less than genocide,
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; the liberal deludes himself into the comforting fantasy
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; that these forces of evil are merely victims and that
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; they can be brought around by 'right action' on the
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; part of the US. The liberal then blames the US and
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; patriotic Americans for the state of affairs. The
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; liberal further comforts himself by believing that,
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; in attacking America, he is battling the forces of
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; evil like a true hero.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Anyone who points to the factual errors in this mode
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; of thinking is forcing the liberal to confront his own
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; cowardice and irrationality. That's why they react
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; with such hatred to anyone who disagrees with their
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; dogma.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; As this dogma gets reinforced through decades of
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; repetition in the media, it gets more and more
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; pronounced. Today's liberals have thus become traitors
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; whose cowardice has led them to make common cause
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; with the enemies of America. They have willingly
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; become enemies of America.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;

Report this message

#8: Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way

Posted on 2006-07-15 23:30:49 by utahraptor88

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:19:10 GMT, &quot;Jerry Camp&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com" target="_blank">jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com</a>&gt;
wrote:

&gt;Inference, dude, inference...you call 'hyperbole' on the comment that white
&gt;15 year olds kill their parents all the time (which it is), but then make no
&gt;such comment concerning the comments of one Mr...ahem...Bigun (yeah, right)?

I was not addressing the other poster.

&gt;
&gt;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.


&gt;
&gt;&quot;Panzerfaust&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:utahraptor88&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">utahraptor88&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;news:<a href="mailto:6qqhb2tvs0csnm5galkqssbn29uvp7o4qq&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">6qqhb2tvs0csnm5galkqssbn29uvp7o4qq&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt;&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:51:04 GMT, &quot;Jerry Camp&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com" target="_blank">jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com</a>&gt;
&gt;&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Let me get this straight...
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Claim that white 15 year old guys kill their parents 'all the time' is
&gt;&gt;&gt;hyperbole, but your suggestion that black men dating white girls do so
&gt;&gt;&gt;isn't?
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Hypocrisy, thy name is bigotry.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Feel free to refer to the posting of me stating that. You can't.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Game set match
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; --
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Check out the AFN FAQ website at...
&gt;&gt; <a href="http://niggermania.com/afnfaq/" target="_blank">http://niggermania.com/afnfaq/</a>
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Here's the TRUTH about black-on-White crime...
&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html" target="_blank">http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html</a>
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Niggers &quot;were over 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in
&gt;&gt; 2002&quot;.
&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm</a>
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Niggers are four times as likely as Whites to Kill their children...
&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.txt" target="_blank">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.txt</a>
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; 18.6% of nigger bucks go to jail, vs. 3.4% of White males
&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm</a>
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Black bastards! 68.7% of niggers are born out of wedlock!
&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf</a>
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; 62% of ALL nigglet births are paid for by the government.
&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm</a>
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; 56% of sow niggers have genital herpes!!! See page 21 of...
&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf</a>
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Though only 12% of the population, more niggers are on
&gt;&gt; welfare than are Whites! See Figure B of...
&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter10/chap10.htm" target="_blank"> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter10/ chap10.htm</a>
&gt;



--

Check out the AFN FAQ website at...
<a href="http://niggermania.com/afnfaq/" target="_blank">http://niggermania.com/afnfaq/</a>

Here's the TRUTH about black-on-White crime...
<a href="http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html" target="_blank">http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html</a>

Niggers &quot;were over 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2002&quot;.
<a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm</a>

Niggers are four times as likely as Whites to Kill their children...
<a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.txt" target="_blank">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.txt</a>

18.6% of nigger bucks go to jail, vs. 3.4% of White males
<a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm</a>

Black bastards! 68.7% of niggers are born out of wedlock!
<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf</a>

62% of ALL nigglet births are paid for by the government.
<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm</a>

56% of sow niggers have genital herpes!!! See page 21 of...
<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf</a>

Though only 12% of the population, more niggers are on
welfare than are Whites! See Figure B of...
<a href="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter10/chap10.htm" target="_blank"> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter10/ chap10.htm</a>

Report this message

#9: Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way

Posted on 2006-07-15 23:40:46 by Jerry Camp

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.

&quot;Panzerfaust&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:utahraptor88&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">utahraptor88&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:ihnib2hgits95h2fk2b5im5asp8c3b1iea&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">ihnib2hgits95h2fk2b5im5asp8c3b1iea&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:19:10 GMT, &quot;Jerry Camp&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com" target="_blank">jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com</a>&gt;
&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Inference, dude, inference...you call 'hyperbole' on the comment that
&gt;&gt;white
&gt;&gt;15 year olds kill their parents all the time (which it is), but then make
&gt;&gt;no
&gt;&gt;such comment concerning the comments of one Mr...ahem...Bigun (yeah,
&gt;&gt;right)?
&gt;
&gt; I was not addressing the other poster.
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;But, I take you feel that your hatred of 'niggers' isn't hyperbolic?
&gt;
&gt; My hate is from a lifetime of seeing them, dealing with them in law
&gt; enforcement and the plain out fact one killed my mom and tried to kill
&gt; me. Except for a small group of blacks, I wish I could I kill them
&gt; all for which I would gladly suffer eternity in hell.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&quot;Panzerfaust&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:utahraptor88&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">utahraptor88&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt;news:<a href="mailto:6qqhb2tvs0csnm5galkqssbn29uvp7o4qq&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">6qqhb2tvs0csnm5galkqssbn29uvp7o4qq&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:51:04 GMT, &quot;Jerry Camp&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com" target="_blank">jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com</a>&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Let me get this straight...
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Claim that white 15 year old guys kill their parents 'all the time' is
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;hyperbole, but your suggestion that black men dating white girls do so
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;isn't?
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Hypocrisy, thy name is bigotry.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Feel free to refer to the posting of me stating that. You can't.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Game set match
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; --
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Check out the AFN FAQ website at...
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href="http://niggermania.com/afnfaq/" target="_blank">http://niggermania.com/afnfaq/</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Here's the TRUTH about black-on-White crime...
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html" target="_blank">http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Niggers &quot;were over 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in
&gt;&gt;&gt; 2002&quot;.
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Niggers are four times as likely as Whites to Kill their children...
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.txt" target="_blank">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.txt</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 18.6% of nigger bucks go to jail, vs. 3.4% of White males
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Black bastards! 68.7% of niggers are born out of wedlock!
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 62% of ALL nigglet births are paid for by the government.
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 56% of sow niggers have genital herpes!!! See page 21 of...
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Though only 12% of the population, more niggers are on
&gt;&gt;&gt; welfare than are Whites! See Figure B of...
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter10/chap10.htm" target="_blank"> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter10/ chap10.htm</a>
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; --
&gt;
&gt; Check out the AFN FAQ website at...
&gt; <a href="http://niggermania.com/afnfaq/" target="_blank">http://niggermania.com/afnfaq/</a>
&gt;
&gt; Here's the TRUTH about black-on-White crime...
&gt; <a href="http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html" target="_blank">http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html</a>
&gt;
&gt; Niggers &quot;were over 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in
&gt; 2002&quot;.
&gt; <a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm</a>
&gt;
&gt; Niggers are four times as likely as Whites to Kill their children...
&gt; <a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.txt" target="_blank">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.txt</a>
&gt;
&gt; 18.6% of nigger bucks go to jail, vs. 3.4% of White males
&gt; <a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm</a>
&gt;
&gt; Black bastards! 68.7% of niggers are born out of wedlock!
&gt; <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf</a>
&gt;
&gt; 62% of ALL nigglet births are paid for by the government.
&gt; <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm</a>
&gt;
&gt; 56% of sow niggers have genital herpes!!! See page 21 of...
&gt; <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf</a>
&gt;
&gt; Though only 12% of the population, more niggers are on
&gt; welfare than are Whites! See Figure B of...
&gt; <a href="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter10/chap10.htm" target="_blank"> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter10/ chap10.htm</a>

Report this message

#10: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 00:00:46 by no

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?

Report this message

#11: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 00:15:53 by Denis Loubet

&quot;no&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no&#64;stopit.no" target="_blank">no&#64;stopit.no</a>&gt; wrote in message news:e9bop5$1jd$<a href="mailto:2&#64;nntp.aioe.org..." target="_blank">2&#64;nntp.aioe.org...</a>
&gt; Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
&gt; Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
&gt; Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
&gt; Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
&gt;
&gt; Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come to
&gt; be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you are
&gt; smarter than these people?

From the obvious fact that the second conclusion contradicts your first
premise and first conclusion.

Start again.


--
Denis Loubet
<a href="mailto:dloubet&#64;io.com" target="_blank">dloubet&#64;io.com</a>
<a href="http://www.io.com/~dloubet" target="_blank">http://www.io.com/~dloubet</a>
<a href="http://www.ashenempires.com" target="_blank">http://www.ashenempires.com</a>

Report this message

#12: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 00:19:33 by sector_four

no wrote:
&gt; Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
&gt; Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
&gt; Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
&gt; Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
&gt;
&gt; Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
&gt; to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
&gt; 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.

Report this message

#13: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 00:25:21 by wcb

no wrote:

&gt; Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
&gt; Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
&gt; Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
&gt; Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
&gt;
&gt; Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
&gt; to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
&gt; 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 &quot;God&quot; 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
&quot;Treatise on the Anger of God&quot;.

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 &quot;Treatise of the Anger of God&quot; 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 &quot;Dialogues on Natural Religion&quot;
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)
*************************************************






--

&quot;Laughter is not a sin intrinsically, but it produces sin&quot;
&quot;Homilies - Adversus ebriosos et de resurrectione domini
nostri Jesu&quot; - St. John Chrysostom

Report this message

#14: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 00:55:16 by Lars Eighner

In our last episode,
&lt;e9bop5$1jd$<a href="mailto:2&#64;nntp.aioe.org" target="_blank">2&#64;nntp.aioe.org</a>&gt;,
the lovely and talented no
broadcast on alt.atheism:

&gt; Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
&gt; Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
&gt; Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
&gt; Conclusion: There must be a first cause.

Contradicts the first premise, therefore the whole is invalid.

&gt; Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
&gt; to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
&gt; 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* <a href="mailto:usenet&#64;larseighner.com" target="_blank">usenet&#64;larseighner.com</a> &lt;<a href="http://larseighner.com/" target="_blank">http://larseighner.com/</a>&gt;
&quot;Dear friends, -- Man has created God, not God man. Yours ever, Garibaldi.&quot;

Report this message

#15: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 00:59:38 by Therion Ware

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:00:46 -0700, no &lt;<a href="mailto:no&#64;stopit.no" target="_blank">no&#64;stopit.no</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
&gt;Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
&gt;Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
&gt;Conclusion: There must be a first cause.

One might note that all &quot;first cause&quot; arguments presuppose that
causality was somehow &quot;pre-existent&quot; 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?

&gt;Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
&gt;to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
&gt;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?


--
&quot;Do unto others as you would have them do unto you&quot;.
attrib: Pauline Réage. Cine To DVD? <a href="http://www.video2cd.co.uk" target="_blank">http://www.video2cd.co.uk</a>

Report this message

#16: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 01:15:00 by the Bede

&quot;no&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no&#64;stopit.no" target="_blank">no&#64;stopit.no</a>&gt; wrote in message news:e9bop5$1jd$<a href="mailto:2&#64;nntp.aioe.org..." target="_blank">2&#64;nntp.aioe.org...</a>
&gt; Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
&gt; Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
&gt; Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
&gt; Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
&gt;
&gt; Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
&gt; to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
&gt; are smarter than these people?
&gt;
don't make me get out my Jowett and whup you.

Report this message

#17: Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way

Posted on 2006-07-16 01:15:47 by unknown

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Report this message

#18: Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way

Posted on 2006-07-16 01:17:31 by unknown

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Report this message

#19: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 01:59:30 by quibbler

In article &lt;e9bop5$1jd$<a href="mailto:2&#64;nntp.aioe.org" target="_blank">2&#64;nntp.aioe.org</a>&gt;, <a href="mailto:no&#64;stopit.no" target="_blank">no&#64;stopit.no</a> says...
&gt; Premises: Everything has a cause or causes.

Then god needs a cause.


&gt; Nothing can cause itself.

But things can be acausal.



&gt; Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

Why not.



&gt; 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.


&gt;
&gt; Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
&gt; to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
&gt; 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 &quot;Five
Ways&quot; 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.


&gt;

--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
&quot;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.&quot; -- Richard Dawkins

Report this message

#20: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 01:59:32 by Ian Braidwood

no wrote:
&gt; Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
&gt; Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
&gt; Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
&gt; 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.

&gt; Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
&gt; to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
&gt; 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.

Report this message

#21: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 02:07:23 by Tony Neville

no expressed precisely :
&gt; 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.)

Report this message

#22: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 02:37:06 by Asleep

no wrote:
&gt; Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
&gt; Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
&gt; Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
&gt; 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.



&gt;
&gt; Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
&gt; to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
&gt; 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

Report this message

#23: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 02:41:56 by Asleep

Lars Eighner wrote:

&gt; In our last episode,
&gt; &lt;e9bop5$1jd$<a href="mailto:2&#64;nntp.aioe.org" target="_blank">2&#64;nntp.aioe.org</a>&gt;,
&gt; the lovely and talented no
&gt; broadcast on alt.atheism:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
&gt;&gt;Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
&gt;&gt;Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
&gt;&gt;Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Contradicts the first premise, therefore the whole is invalid.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
&gt;&gt;to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
&gt;&gt;are smarter than these people?
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Because I am, and so is nearly every educated person on this planet.
&gt; Aristotle, for example, believed the Sun revolved around the Earth.
&gt; 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

Report this message

#24: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 02:45:07 by Asleep

Therion Ware wrote:

&gt;
&gt; I dunno about smarter, but we certainly have the benefit of several
&gt; hundred, if not thousands of years of human thought on the subject,
&gt; and they did not. Aristotle, for example, thought that heavier objects
&gt; fell faster that lighter one. Galileo demonstrated that he was wrong.
&gt; 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

Report this message

#25: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 03:32:32 by Gospel Bretts

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:00:46 -0700, no &lt;<a href="mailto:no&#64;stopit.no" target="_blank">no&#64;stopit.no</a>&gt; wrote:


Thanks for trying, &quot;no&quot;, but:

&gt;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.

&gt;Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

I don't see why not. We can model infinities pretty well, actually.

&gt;
&gt;Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
&gt;to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
&gt;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

Report this message

#26: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 03:37:54 by wcb

Ian Braidwood wrote:

&gt;
&gt; no wrote:
&gt;&gt; Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
&gt;&gt; Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
&gt;&gt; Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
&gt;&gt; Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
&gt;
&gt; One problem here is that you are treating matter as passive stuff that
&gt; just hangs around, waiting to be pushed. However, thanks to Quantum
&gt; Theory, we know that on very small scales matter behaves in a very
&gt; unpredictable manner and that matter can just pop into existence,
&gt; burrow through walls etc... Whatsmore, the Einstein matter/energy
&gt; equivalence shows that matter and energy are essentially the same
&gt; thing; therefore matter contains its own potential for movement. No
&gt; 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.




&gt;
&gt; Basically, the cosmological arguement presupposes a picture of matter
&gt; which is now about a century out of date.
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
&gt;&gt; to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
&gt;&gt; are smarter than these people?
&gt;
&gt; Because - like Newton - we stand on the shoulders on giants, who have
&gt; since refined or replaced just about everything those great old men
&gt; said. We know things those men never had a chance to know and if you
&gt; don't believe that, ask an archeologist where Plato kept his laptop.

--

&quot;Laughter is not a sin intrinsically, but it produces sin&quot;
&quot;Homilies - Adversus ebriosos et de resurrectione domini
nostri Jesu&quot; - St. John Chrysostom

Report this message

#27: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 03:38:17 by quibbler

In article &lt;<a href="mailto:4htci8F16nqlU1&#64;individual.net" target="_blank">4htci8F16nqlU1&#64;individual.net</a>&gt;, <a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a> says...
&gt; no wrote:
&gt; &gt; Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
&gt; &gt; Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
&gt; &gt; Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
&gt; &gt; Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
&gt;
&gt; If everything has a cause what is the cause of the First Cause. The
&gt; 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 &quot;Kalam&quot;. Not that it would have
mattered, since those arguments are likewise flawed. Even if we accepted
the &quot;first cause&quot; 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)
&quot;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.&quot; -- Richard Dawkins

Report this message

#28: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 04:19:59 by Michael Gray

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:00:46 -0700, no &lt;<a href="mailto:no&#64;stopit.no" target="_blank">no&#64;stopit.no</a>&gt; wrote:
- Refer: &lt;e9bop5$1jd$<a href="mailto:2&#64;nntp.aioe.org" target="_blank">2&#64;nntp.aioe.org</a>&gt;
&gt;Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
&gt;Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
&gt;Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
&gt;Conclusion: There must be a first cause.

Or a circle.

&gt;Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
&gt;to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
&gt;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?

--

Report this message

#29: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 04:32:46 by Don Kresch

In alt.atheism On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:00:46 -0700, no &lt;<a href="mailto:no&#64;stopit.no" target="_blank">no&#64;stopit.no</a>&gt;
let us all know that:

&gt;Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
&gt;to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
&gt;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 <a href="mailto:abuse&#64;aioe.org" target="_blank">abuse&#64;aioe.org</a> 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.

&quot;No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another&quot;
Picard to Data/Graves &quot;The Schizoid Man&quot;

Report this message

#30: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 04:35:33 by Asleep

Gospel Bretts wrote:

&gt; All those guys were indeed smarter than me. So was/is Russell,
&gt; Einstein, Dawkins, Sagan and many other folks who didn't/don't accept
&gt; 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

Report this message

#31: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 04:47:03 by ag

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 20:19:59 -0600, Michael Gray &lt;<a href="mailto:fleetg&#64;newsguy.spam.com" target="_blank">fleetg&#64;newsguy.spam.com</a>&gt;
wrote:

&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:00:46 -0700, no &lt;<a href="mailto:no&#64;stopit.no" target="_blank">no&#64;stopit.no</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; - Refer: &lt;e9bop5$1jd$<a href="mailto:2&#64;nntp.aioe.org" target="_blank">2&#64;nntp.aioe.org</a>&gt;
&gt;&gt; Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
&gt;&gt; Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
&gt;&gt; Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
&gt;&gt; Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
&gt;
&gt; Or a circle.
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
&gt;&gt; to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
&gt;&gt; are smarter than these people?
&gt;
&gt; We stand on the shoulders of giants.
&gt;
&gt; This silly argument from vercundium is easliy demolished:
&gt; Why should Plato have assumed that he was smarter than a cave man?
&gt;
&gt; --

Salut.


--
null sig

Report this message

#32: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 05:21:27 by Enkidu

no &lt;<a href="mailto:no&#64;stopit.no" target="_blank">no&#64;stopit.no</a>&gt; wrote in news:e9bop5$1jd$<a href="mailto:2&#64;nntp.aioe.org" target="_blank">2&#64;nntp.aioe.org</a>:

&gt; Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
&gt; Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
&gt; Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
&gt; Conclusion: There must be a first cause.

You seem to have a short attention span. You start with &quot;Everything has a
cause or causes&quot; and twenty-two words later, you say &quot;There must be a first
cause.&quot;

Your conclusion contradicts your premise.

--
Enkidu AA#2165
<a href="http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/" target="_blank">http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/</a>
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.

Report this message

#33: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 05:23:59 by Enkidu

&quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote in news:4htd1aF178gaU1
@individual.net:

&gt; Therion Ware wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; I dunno about smarter, but we certainly have the benefit of several
&gt;&gt; hundred, if not thousands of years of human thought on the subject,
&gt;&gt; and they did not. Aristotle, for example, thought that heavier objects
&gt;&gt; fell faster that lighter one. Galileo demonstrated that he was wrong.
&gt;&gt; Does knowing this make me smarter than Aristotle?
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; This is one that counts against Arisotle. A very simple experiment of
&gt; dropping two similarly shaped heavy items but one considerable heavier
&gt; than the other would have shown Aristotle that heavier objects do not
&gt; fall faster than light objects (unless air resistance is a significant
&gt; factor). In matters of motion, he was an a priorist and did not make
&gt; use of experimental corroberation and falsification. That was
&gt; Aristotle's single greatest deficiency. In most other things Aristotle
&gt; 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
<a href="http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/" target="_blank">http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/</a>
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA

Report this message

#34: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 06:57:42 by Denis Loubet

&quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4htcrbF159u1U1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4htcrbF159u1U1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; Lars Eighner wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; In our last episode, &lt;e9bop5$1jd$<a href="mailto:2&#64;nntp.aioe.org" target="_blank">2&#64;nntp.aioe.org</a>&gt;, the lovely and
&gt;&gt; talented no broadcast on alt.atheism:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
&gt;&gt;&gt;Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
&gt;&gt;&gt;Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
&gt;&gt;&gt;Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Contradicts the first premise, therefore the whole is invalid.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come to
&gt;&gt;&gt;be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you are
&gt;&gt;&gt;smarter than these people?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Because I am, and so is nearly every educated person on this planet.
&gt;&gt; Aristotle, for example, believed the Sun revolved around the Earth.
&gt;&gt; Each of these guys believed crap that we know to be completely untrue.
&gt;
&gt; We know that to be untrue because we have telescopes. Galileo observed the
&gt; following:
&gt;
&gt; 1. The phases of Venus, unseeable with the naked eye.
&gt; 2. The moons of Jupiter, unseeable with the naked eye.
&gt;
&gt; Given the lack of telescopes at the time, geocentrism is a very reasonable
&gt; hypothesis. The phases of Venus can not be seen with the naked eye.
&gt; Futhermore if the earth move, the Greeks assumed there should be stellar
&gt; parallax. None was observed. That is because the stars are much father
&gt; away than the Greeks assumed. The Greeks were not stupid. They were
&gt; careful observers, and given what they could observe at the time, the
&gt; geocentric hypothesis made perfectly good sense. Do not underate the Greek
&gt; 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
<a href="mailto:dloubet&#64;io.com" target="_blank">dloubet&#64;io.com</a>
<a href="http://www.io.com/~dloubet" target="_blank">http://www.io.com/~dloubet</a>
<a href="http://www.ashenempires.com" target="_blank">http://www.ashenempires.com</a>

Report this message

#35: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 07:44:58 by Gandalf Grey

Mr. Barwell continues to seek a group where he can find sheep to follow him.

&quot;wbarwell&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:wbarwell&#64;mylinuxisp.com" target="_blank">wbarwell&#64;mylinuxisp.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:12biqr7l1us48bf&#64;corp.supernews.com..." target="_blank">12biqr7l1us48bf&#64;corp.supernews.com...</a>
&gt; no wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
&gt;&gt; Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
&gt;&gt; Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
&gt;&gt; Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
&gt;&gt; to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
&gt;&gt; are smarter than these people?
&gt;
&gt; Because they were not that smart in this regard.
&gt;
&gt; The problem is the omni-everything class of creators
&gt; gods is easily debunked. Leaving no god as a first cause.
&gt; And it is not true that theer cannot be an infinite chain of cuases,
&gt; that is simply false. It is special pleading.
&gt;
&gt; Plato and Aristotle argued that there had to be a prime
&gt; mover to give motions to things in the universe, mainly
&gt; planets et al. But the big Bang expanded and eventually
&gt; became a ball of hot expanding gases as atoms formed.
&gt; Classical turbulence gave rise to motion, no god or prime
&gt; mover, a being with intelligence is needed. Pure phyics
&gt; does the trick and has been shown to have been part of the
&gt; physics long ago that gave us the Universe we have now.
&gt;
&gt; ------
&gt;
&gt; The omni-everything creator gods debunked for tour
&gt; reading, pleasure, this essay has been cleaned up
&gt; and edited to be concise and hard to argue away.
&gt;

&gt;&gt;&gt; IS THERE A GOD? NO.
&gt;&gt;&gt; Strong Atheism's answer.
&gt;&gt;&gt; Part 1.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 1. First of all, this proof &quot;God&quot; does not exist
&gt;&gt;&gt; is aimed at an entire class of gods, not particular
&gt;&gt;&gt; gods.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; This remark alone is an explict admission that you've been lying up to
&gt;&gt; this point.
&gt;
&gt; No, its just an admission I underestimated the intelligence
&gt; 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.

&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;This is the class of gods that are
&gt;&gt;&gt; omni-everything and creator of all. If I can
&gt;&gt;&gt; disprove an entire class of gods, all particular gods
&gt;&gt;&gt; that belong to that class are collectively disproven
&gt;&gt;&gt; too. This is an efficient, and sensible approach to
&gt;&gt;&gt; disproving god, by which I mean the god of major
&gt;&gt;&gt; religious and theological traditions.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; No, it is not. Since your argument aims at attributes of God, not at the
&gt;&gt; existence of god per se. The god of the major traditions might still
&gt;&gt; exist apart from the attributes the theologians have ascribed to that
&gt;&gt; god.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt; 1. Tom is a doctor.
&gt; 2. Tom has never been to college and is illiterate
&gt; 3. Since doctors are literate and have to attend college, Tom
&gt; 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.

&gt;
&gt; What I do is point out that the class of omni-everything gods
&gt; 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.

&gt;
&gt; Naturally, all claim specific examples of that class likewise
&gt; are impossible.

Do you even know what the above sentence means?

&gt;
&gt; You reek of stupidity and intellectual incapability.

Ad hom in place of a defence noted.

&gt;
&gt;&gt; 1. Bill Smith exists.
&gt;&gt; 2. It is said by his admirers that Bill Smith always tells the truth.
&gt;&gt; 3. But Bill Smith cannot always tell the truth.
&gt;&gt; 4. Hence Bills Smith does not exist?????
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; That is just dumb. Just pathetic.

Ad homs 2 and 3

A particularly, glaringly stupid
&gt; strawman.

Ad hom 4

You have to be the most dishonest man I have met
&gt; on the net this month.

Ad hom 5

If you're done throwing your usual hysterical fit, answer the criticism.

&gt;
&gt; A class of gods is said to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and
&gt; creator of all.

Said by who? You? Who made you the decider of what a &quot;class of gods&quot; 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....

&gt;&gt; 1. Bill Smith exists.
&gt;&gt; 2. It is said by his admirers that Bill Smith always tells the truth.
&gt;&gt; 3. But Bill Smith cannot always tell the truth.
&gt;&gt; 4. Hence Bills Smith does not exist?????

&gt; If god creates all, and is omniscient, he knows what his creations will do
&gt; in the future. Any possible god must then examine each potential act and
&gt; all it to come to pass or something else to be substituted. he and olny
&gt; 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.

&gt; 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.

&gt;
&gt; Thus all evil is god's doing, personally and knowingly, all evils from
&gt; 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.

&gt;
&gt; 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.

&gt;
&gt; All gods that are said to be omniscient and creator of all are thus
&gt; 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.

&gt; Omnibenevolent implies good and evil exist, do I have to make THAT
&gt; explicit
&gt; too, for the jerk squad? I think I shall just in case.

Ad hom 6. Who was the &quot;King of Ad homs,&quot; again?

&gt;
&gt; Omnipotence. Omnipotence mean all powerful. That means not
&gt; affected by other forces or powers. Time is does not affect god.

That presumes that Time is a &quot;power.&quot; 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.

&gt; God is outside and transcedent to time.

Why?

&gt; Time does not affect god so
&gt; theer is thus no past, present, future. To god all is now.
&gt; Thus god created all at once in all its particulars to the smallest
&gt; physical
&gt; 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.

&gt; Thus again, there is no free will and all evil acts are thus god's
&gt; 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.

&gt;
&gt; Thus the class of all gods that are said to be omnipotent, are thus
&gt; transcedent to time, not bound by time, and thus free will cannot exist
&gt; 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 &quot;power.&quot;

You fail again.

Do you see where you're going wrong yet?

&gt; 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.

&gt; And &quot;Bob's&quot; yer uncle.

Irrelevent comment noted.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Thus the concept of a class of creators gods that are
&gt; omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent is impossible.

You haven't shown that.

&gt; And last but not least, little Gandalf flailing his arms futility as he
&gt; trails smoke and fire into the eternal pit of bad ideas and lack
&gt; of reasoning ability.

Ad hom 7 noted.

&gt;&gt; An obvious absurdity.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; And so your argument fails. The fact that God cannot logically be
&gt;&gt; omnipotent in the extreme sense that the Christian tradition insists,
&gt;&gt; does
&gt;&gt; not in itself prove that God does not exist.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt; It does show the god that is indeed dogmatically claimed to be omnipotent
&gt; cannot exist.
&gt; Obviously.
&gt;
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?

&gt; &quot;Extreme sense&quot; is your strawman.
&gt;
&gt; For example Aquinas states god is only omnipotent in regards to real
&gt; thhings, not say bad definitiions like &quot;unmarried batchelors&quot;.
&gt; 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.

&gt;&gt;&gt; Judaism,
&gt;&gt;&gt; Christianity, Islam, Brahamnistic Hinduism.
&gt;&gt;&gt; Some have complained that this does not disprove all
&gt;&gt;&gt; gods. True, but this is not meant to, it is meant
&gt;&gt;&gt; only to deal with the gods that are the main problem
&gt;&gt;&gt; for this world,
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Another unsupported assertion. Nowhere does your original argument prove
&gt;&gt; this universal claim. Religion in general has caused tremendous
&gt;&gt; suffering
&gt;&gt; in the world, but your argument nowhere addresses this particular
&gt;&gt; problem.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Supported. You are being irrational here.

Bald assertion without support noted.

&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; the gods of 4 1/2 billion believers.
&gt;&gt;&gt; The god that is the source of fundamentalism,
&gt;&gt;&gt; bigotry, fanaticism, anti-intellectualism and
&gt;&gt;&gt; backwardness. There are a few other classes of gods
&gt;&gt;&gt; but numerically by believers, these are not that
&gt;&gt;&gt; widespread or important.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; According to whom? You may be competent to recognize what is
&gt;&gt; 'widespread'
&gt;&gt; but who are you to decide what is &quot;important?&quot;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt; According to all with brains.

Dismissive reply noted. Where's your actual evidence? Where's your actual
defence?

&gt; for example, without religious idiots in the US would we be having
&gt; problems with creationists assaulting science teaching in schools, and in
&gt; may cases, all but gutting science education in backard states and cities?

I repeat...who are YOU to decide what is important?

&gt;
&gt; You are a fool. and wrong.

Ad hom 8.

&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; But it is possible to sort
&gt;&gt;&gt; them into a few classes of gods and likewise disprove
&gt;&gt;&gt; each class.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Which you have not done and cannot do. Hence, another lie on your part.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Which I do, stop lying, it makes the peanut gallery laugh at your
&gt; 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.

&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Here I am primarily looking at the class
&gt;&gt;&gt; of omni-everything creator gods. This does not mean
&gt;&gt;&gt; other classes of gods cannot also be likewise disproven.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; And it doesn't mean they can be.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt; You lame and wrong opinion.
&gt; as if you know zip about it.

Ad hom 10

&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Or are totally unimportant. But basically the
&gt;&gt;&gt; omni-everything class of gods is so far above any
&gt;&gt;&gt; other god that once it is debunked, its hard to
&gt;&gt;&gt; step down to distinctly second rate gods.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Why is this so and why should it be so? 100s of years ago, the vast bulk
&gt;&gt; of
&gt;&gt; humanity believed that space was filled with an ether. Did this make the
&gt;&gt; fact that it was not filled with ether &quot;unimportant?&quot;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt; 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 &quot;second
rate.&quot;

&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Its like
&gt;&gt;&gt; stepping down from a Cadillac to a bicycle.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Why? You're making a value judgement about something that you're
&gt;&gt; attempting
&gt;&gt; to prove or disprove. Hence, you're committing the naturalistic fallacy.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Fallacy.

Bald assertion without support noted. If it's a fallacy you should be able
to prove that it's a fallacy.

&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 2. A BASIC DEFINITION THE CLASS OF GOD,
&gt;&gt;&gt; OMNI-EVERYTHING AND CREATOR OF ALL
&gt;&gt;&gt; Also known here as the Grand God of Grand Theology.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; There is no evidence whatsover for god. All we
&gt;&gt;&gt; have to work from is claims, or assertions made
&gt;&gt;&gt; about god. I have chosen the following 8 as they are
&gt;&gt;&gt; all part of all great and large religions and
&gt;&gt;&gt; theological traditions of the world.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; But mostly because you've decided that they are the weakest factors. In
&gt;&gt; other words, you still haven't attacked the assertion of God's existence,
&gt;&gt; only assertions concerning God's attributes.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt; I need only weak factors to work with and basically all basic claims of
&gt; this
&gt; class of god are indeed, weak,
&gt; 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.

&gt;
&gt; I mean, what facts are there that save omnipotence, omnibenevolnece
&gt; and omniscience, free will and this class of gods.
&gt; Nothing. Nothing at all.

Real existence is hardly &quot;nothing.&quot; 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.


&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Most of 4 1/2
&gt;&gt;&gt; billion believers will agree with most of these,
&gt;&gt;&gt; and these are all dogmatic to most main religions.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Fallacy of composition. Not even all Christians agree with these points.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt; 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.

&gt;
&gt; We will fid a few wimpy newage type salad bar christians and so on.
&gt; But conservatives, evangelicals, fundies and moslems mostly agree god is
&gt; 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.

&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; If we can show these create contradictions, we can show that
&gt;&gt;&gt; the class omni-everything creator gods, the Grand God,
&gt;&gt;&gt; cannot exist.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; No, you cannot. All you can prove is that any particular attribute is
&gt;&gt; illogical within that particular argument.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; We can. You simply are wrong. As usual.

But you can't demonstrate why. Again, Barwell runs away from defending his
own argument.

&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; All we have to work with are assertions
&gt;&gt;&gt; and logic.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Get on with it, Barlow.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Read faster.
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; The general overarching definition of god as per
&gt;&gt;&gt; the major religions of the world is:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
&gt;&gt;&gt; B. God has free will.
&gt;&gt;&gt; C. God is the creator of all.
&gt;&gt;&gt; D. God is omnipotent.
&gt;&gt;&gt; E. God is omnibenevolent.
&gt;&gt;&gt; F. God is omniscient.
&gt;&gt;&gt; G. God is that which nothing more powerful
&gt;&gt;&gt; can be imagined.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
&gt;&gt;&gt; for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
&gt;&gt;&gt; Islam, and Hinduism.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; 1. you're utterly wrong about the beliefs that form Hinduism and
&gt;&gt; obviously
&gt;&gt; have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
&gt;
&gt; I do, you do not.

Hinduism does not incorporate all the characteristics you list, you fool.

Hinduism is not even monotheistic.

&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt; 2. Judaism is NOT Christianity, and you're attributing to the one what is
&gt;&gt; strictly true only of the other.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; I didn't say it was, did I?.

&gt;&gt;&gt; These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
&gt;&gt;&gt; for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
&gt;&gt;&gt; Islam, and Hinduism.

&gt; You lied again.,

&gt;&gt;&gt; These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
&gt;&gt;&gt; for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
&gt;&gt;&gt; Islam, and Hinduism.

&gt; Strawman, reading comprehension problem, basic inability to read and
&gt; understand simple english sentence written at a 6th grade level for your
&gt; reading pleasure.

Ad hom 11

&gt;
&gt;&gt; 3. The same can be said for Islam.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
&gt;&gt;&gt; logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
&gt;&gt;&gt; omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
&gt;&gt;&gt; attributes, and may be considered special aspects
&gt;&gt;&gt; of omnipotence.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; No they aren't and you can't prove that they are. There is no logical
&gt;&gt; reason that a being could not be omnibenevolent without being omnipotent.
&gt;&gt; The same is true of omniscience. Neither knowledge nor goodness are
&gt;&gt; power, hence neither omnibenevolence nor omniscience are Omnipotence.
&gt;
&gt; Sighhhhhhhhhh. Omnipotence means all powerful. Including logically,
&gt; omniscience, and the power of being morally perfect and more.

Sorry, omniscience and omnibenevolence are not necessary attributes of
omnipotence. They aren't even implied by omnipotence. Some of the kindest
people in the world are relatively powerless.

&gt; Simply wrong. You are not logical nor thinking.

Bare assertion, unsupported by an argument or facts.

&gt; Since being evil is by all accounts of theology a defect, god cannot have
&gt; defects because then he is not all powerful.

Circular argument. Plus being flat out wrong.

1. All accounts of theology do not account evil as a defect in god, only in
man. Many accounts of god attribute the direct creation of evil to god.
2. Evil is considered a defect in man by the major theologies, not a defect
in god.

&gt;
&gt; This is old dogma.

Dogma that you have no understanding of judging from your arguments.

&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; We're beginning to see that your argument is as fallacious in its details
&gt;&gt; as it was in its major presumption.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; We see you are still wrong about everything

Then you should be able to present arguments and facts as to why I'm wrong,
not a dozen ad homs and unsupported assertions.

So far, you've made no defense of your argument, Barlow.

&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 3. We can abstract a class of gods, omni-everything,
&gt;&gt;&gt; creator gods from these 8 characteristics.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Except that you haven't proved the 8 characteristics at this point.
&gt;
&gt; You are obviously a goofball.
&gt; 1. God is personal, god has conciousness and will
&gt; 2. God is intelligent
&gt; 3. God has free will
&gt; 4. God created all
&gt; 5. God is omnipotent
&gt; 6. God is omniscient
&gt; 7. God is omnibenevolent
&gt; 8. God is that which is so great, nothing greater
&gt; can be imagined.
&gt;
&gt; All are dogmatic among these basic religious traditions.

1. No they aren't.
2. No one of them, nor any group of them has anything to do with the
existence of God.

Let's go back to our analogous argument.

&gt;&gt; 1. Bill Smith exists.
&gt;&gt; 2. It is said by his admirers that Bill Smith always tells the truth.
&gt;&gt; 3. But Bill Smith cannot always tell the truth.
&gt;&gt; 4. Hence Bills Smith does not exist?????

This is your basic problem. Even a malicious creep like Martin McPhillips
could see it. You're attempting to prove something about the EXISTENCE of
god by making a mess of attacking arguments ABOUT God.

&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 5. CLASSES OF GODS
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; It is important to note here in 2. that this is a
&gt;&gt;&gt; definition not for a particular god, but an
&gt;&gt;&gt; entire class of gods. This is key to this disproof
&gt;&gt;&gt; which is general in nature.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Except that your list is both incomplete and internally illogical as I've
&gt;&gt; shown.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 6. If we disprove the entire class of gods by examining
&gt;&gt;&gt; the logical implications of a few claims, all secondary
&gt;&gt;&gt; claims are also destroyed.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; 1. That's not necessarily true.
&gt;&gt; 2. You haven't disproved the entire class.
&gt;
&gt; we are about t get there, stop squawking and keep reding.

Give me something of value to read.

&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; We need not examine claims of god's simplicity or whether
&gt;&gt;&gt; god is immanent or transcendent or other similar claims.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Which you can't begin to do.
&gt;
&gt; I could, its for another time.
&gt;
&gt; Classes of transcedent or immanent gods go away when
&gt; they are claimed to be of class of omni-everything anyway.
&gt; Other problems go away automatically, following them in flames
&gt; the hole of bad ideas.

You haven't shown this to be the case as demonstrated above. Since you
haven't succeeded in dealing with the 8 points you mention, you obviously
can't dismiss derivative claims.

&gt;
&gt; Siggghhhhhhhh. This isn't going anywhere, is it?
&gt; Waste of my time to see you failing to think.

Ad hom 12. When are you actually going to present a logical argument,
Barwell?

&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; We need not break down omnibenevolence into secondary
&gt;&gt;&gt; associated claims such as such as mercy, justice, or
&gt;&gt;&gt; implied claims, though we might mention their destruction
&gt;&gt;&gt; in passing when appropriate, and damage done to such
&gt;&gt;&gt; concepts of damnation, or punishment or sin.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Such destruction as you have NOT caused, due to the flaws mentioned
&gt;&gt; above.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 7. If we disprove a class of gods,
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; But so far you haven't.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 9. THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
&gt;&gt;&gt; to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
&gt;&gt;&gt; Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
&gt;&gt;&gt; their basic definitions of what god is at god's
&gt;&gt;&gt; most basic level.

Hinduism does not. It is not Christianity or Judaism or Islam. Islam is
not Christianity. Christianity is not Judaism. Their claims about god are
distinctly different. And even if we assume that your 8 points about god
are representative of SOMETHING, you haven't made a successful claim about
any one of them much less all of them.

&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; But I've shown that they do not hold to the god you've constructed, nor
&gt;&gt; are they equivalent to each other.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; I chose these since the majority of
&gt;&gt;&gt; believers 4 1/2 billion approximately belong to these
&gt;&gt;&gt; traditions and related religions and sects.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Fallacy of *argumentum ad numeran* It makes no difference how many
&gt;&gt; people
&gt;&gt; believe what. A proof is supposed to address truth, not popular opinion.
&gt;&gt; At this point, you've failed to even accurately describe what the major
&gt;&gt; beliefs believe in. You're certainly in no position to make statements
&gt;&gt; about the importance of those beliefs taken as an illigitimate group.

I see that you agree that you've committed the *argumentum ad numeran* as
you offer not even an ad hom in its defense.

&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 10. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; The problem of evil was first written down by
&gt;&gt;&gt; Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
&gt;&gt;&gt; It is found in Christian writer Lactantius's
&gt;&gt;&gt; Treatise on the Anger of God.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; A basic formulation is:
&gt;&gt;&gt; A. God is defined as powerful
&gt;&gt;&gt; B. God is defined as as good.
&gt;&gt;&gt; C. Evil exists.
&gt;&gt;&gt; D. God therefore, is not powerful as claimed.
&gt;&gt;&gt; E. Or God is not good as claimed.
&gt;&gt;&gt; F. Or god is neither powerful or
&gt;&gt;&gt; good.
&gt;&gt;&gt; G. Or god is not existant.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Not a true representation of the argument. The argument does not prove
&gt;&gt; that
&gt;&gt; god does not exist UNLESS god must be powerful and good as asserted. And
&gt;&gt; even then, even assuming that god must be either good or powerful, god
&gt;&gt; might
&gt;&gt; not be the one and still be the other. Therefore the argument from evil,
&gt;&gt; which reaches its most powerful form much later than the pre-socratics
&gt;&gt; that
&gt;&gt; you seem to be limited to, does not prove the non-existence of god. It
&gt;&gt; only
&gt;&gt; proves that god cannot be both ALL-powerful and all good. If god were
&gt;&gt; simply powerful, god might not be powerful enough to eliminate evil. The
&gt;&gt; true argument claims that god is omnipotent, that god could unilaterally
&gt;&gt; prevent the occurance of evil in the world if god wanted to. The further
&gt;&gt; assumption that god must be infinitely good creates a god that MUST want
&gt;&gt; to create a world in which no actual evil exists.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Hence, the original form of the argument does not prove a thing. The
&gt;&gt; final form of the argument only proves that IF a god MUST be, by
&gt;&gt; definition BOTH infinitely good and infinitely powerful, then such a god
&gt;&gt; is a logical contradiction.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; [argument from free will clipped since it derives from your fallacious
&gt;&gt; presentation of the argument from evil]

I see that you agree with my criticism of your lame argument from evil,
since you offer no defence.

&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 13 OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
&gt;&gt;&gt; FREE WILL DISPROVEN PART 2.

Obviously you bow to my criticisms in the remainder of your screed, as you
offer no defense.

&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; God is defined as creator of all in these
&gt;&gt;&gt; religions.
&gt;&gt;&gt; And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Not in all of the religions you've named. Thus your argument fails right
&gt;&gt; here.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; A. God created the Universe and all in it.
&gt;&gt;&gt;B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
&gt;&gt;&gt; in the Universe and he knows the future of the
&gt;&gt;&gt; Universe and its contents.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; In some traditions.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
&gt;&gt;&gt; in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
&gt;&gt;&gt; man named John Smith in it.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; This is not omniscience vs. creatorhood. There is no necessary reason
&gt;&gt; that a creator logically must also know the full details of all possible
&gt;&gt; futures.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
&gt;&gt;&gt; damned, God will know that.
&gt;&gt;&gt; E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
&gt;&gt;&gt; state will have a John Smith, god may then
&gt;&gt;&gt; contemplate the future state of Smith and
&gt;&gt;&gt; decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
&gt;&gt;&gt; F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
&gt;&gt;&gt; specific personal and will choice made solely
&gt;&gt;&gt; by god.
&gt;&gt;&gt; G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
&gt;&gt;&gt; because of a choice made by god. In fact all
&gt;&gt;&gt; moral evil done by creations of god will be
&gt;&gt;&gt; evil and do evil only because of personal and
&gt;&gt;&gt; willful creations of god allowing evil acts
&gt;&gt;&gt; to be done, by direct decision of god.
&gt;&gt;&gt; H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
&gt;&gt;&gt; creator god, it is solely and only because
&gt;&gt;&gt; god allows evil.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Non sequitur. An omniscient god that is not omnipotent might not have a
&gt;&gt; choice as to whether to allow evil or not.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; I. If evil exists solely because of personal
&gt;&gt;&gt; choices of god, god then is not as defined,
&gt;&gt;&gt; omnibenevolent.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Non sequitur. You haven't proved that evil necessarily exists due to
&gt;&gt; god's
&gt;&gt; choice. If god is not omnipotent, evil may exist regardless.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
&gt;&gt;&gt; Universe cannot have any free will, not even
&gt;&gt;&gt; in principle. A Universe with a god that
&gt;&gt;&gt; creates all and knows all precludes free will
&gt;&gt;&gt; for all beings god creates in the strongest
&gt;&gt;&gt; possible manner.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Non sequitur. Mere knowledge does not imply control. God might know
&gt;&gt; everything that is knowable and still not know the future, or god might
&gt;&gt; know everything including all possible futures [though I doubt it].
&gt;&gt; Nevertheless, the fact that god knows everything does not logically imply
&gt;&gt; that God denies free will to actors in the world. In a purely
&gt;&gt; deterministic universe, which is a scientific materialistic assumption,
&gt;&gt; there is also no
&gt;&gt; such thing as true 'free will'. What does god's foreknowledge of such a
&gt;&gt; universe have to do with the actual precluding of free will? Simply
&gt;&gt; knowing that the universe is predetermined is to know that there can be
&gt;&gt; no
&gt;&gt; such thing as true free will, but knowing and causing are two different
&gt;&gt; things. Your argument implies that if a scientist believes that the
&gt;&gt; universe is deterministic and the scientist is right, then the scientist
&gt;&gt; is responsible
&gt;&gt; for destroying free will. That's an absurdity.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; The Grand God of Grand
&gt;&gt;&gt; Theology is thus self destroying,
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Not from what you've shown.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; THE SITUATION SO FAR.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
&gt;&gt;&gt; Grand God has been defined here with as few
&gt;&gt;&gt; terms as possible.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Actually, you've been as wordy as you can be in order to cover the
&gt;&gt; numerous logical flaws in your argument.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; As I've shown, it does not.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
&gt;&gt;&gt; flawed.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; As I've shown, free will or its absence need have nothing to do with god
&gt;&gt; one way or another.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
&gt;&gt;&gt; doom claims of god's omnibenevolence
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; No they don't, as I've shown. In fact, as I've shown, they have nothing
&gt;&gt; to do with one another.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; man's free will free will cannot exist for
&gt;&gt;&gt; man.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; If this is true, it need have nothing to do with god.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; All evil is the direct and knowing
&gt;&gt;&gt; creation of god contradicting claims of
&gt;&gt;&gt; omnibenevolence.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; You haven't even begun to show that. You haven't even addressed it.
&gt;&gt; Hence, I can only presume that you've pulled that claim out of thin air.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
&gt;&gt;&gt; free will cannot be a good quality, much less
&gt;&gt;&gt; necessary.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Again, you havne't demonstrated that.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 14. GOD AND TIME.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Both Augustine and Boethius described god as being
&gt;&gt;&gt; transcendent to time, outside and beyond it.
&gt;&gt;&gt; Thus there is no past, present, or future to god,
&gt;&gt;&gt; all is now. Since all is now, god must have
&gt;&gt;&gt; create all things at once at once.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Again, you're conflating terms. Here you conflate timelessness and
&gt;&gt; creation when you haven't proved that both must be necessary attributes
&gt;&gt; of
&gt;&gt; a god.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Any explicit claims of omniscience, and creatorship of god
&gt;&gt;&gt; doom free will and more. Any claim god is outside of time
&gt;&gt;&gt; forces us to the claim god is effectively omniscient.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; 1. you haven't doomed free will.
&gt;&gt; 2. Being outside of time is not a necessary corollary much less a cause
&gt;&gt; of
&gt;&gt; omniscience.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 15. If evil exists, god is evil.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Another assertion out of left field. Please show your proof of this
&gt;&gt; assertion. You've not even addressed this question to this point.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; We have no free will which
&gt;&gt;&gt; means secondary attributes of God such as mercy, love, justice
&gt;&gt;&gt; are pretty meaningless in face of a god that creates many
&gt;&gt;&gt; of us morally evil.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; If such a god existed, that might be true. But you offer no evidence to
&gt;&gt; suggest that god must have had a choice in the fine details of creation.
&gt;&gt; I.e., you haven't offered proof that god must be omnipotent. Hence, your
&gt;&gt; derived assumptions that he must not be merciful, loving or just, are
&gt;&gt; what
&gt;&gt; is truly meaningless here.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Heaven, hell, damnation, sin, punishment,
&gt;&gt;&gt; salvation, nothing much makes with such an omniscient god.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; How so? How does Omniscience imply any of the above?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Augustine's free will defense of God in face of Epicurus's
&gt;&gt;&gt; problem of evil is utterly undone by his claim god is sovereign
&gt;&gt;&gt; over time because he is all powerful.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; You haven't shown this to be the case.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 16. TIME AND GOD'S CREATION OF ALL.
&gt;&gt;&gt; If we say god is omnipotent, all powerful, he is outside
&gt;&gt;&gt; of time and free will is impossible and all else is simply an
&gt;&gt;&gt; Universe utterly alien, incoherent and mad and most certainly
&gt;&gt;&gt; not anything the great theological traditions tell it it is.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; That does not follow. The fact that Augustine said that god is all
&gt;&gt; powerful and outside of time, does not mean that god is either all
&gt;&gt; powerful or outside of time, OR that either of these attributes are
&gt;&gt; necessary attributes
&gt;&gt; of god. Omnipotence does not imply being outside of time. Being outside
&gt;&gt; of time does not imply omnipotence.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; And if to avoid this we say god is not outside of time, this
&gt;&gt;&gt; implies time is outside and beyond god and he cannot have
&gt;&gt;&gt; created it. Thus contradicting claims of being the creator of
&gt;&gt;&gt; all. Especially ex nihilo as many religions claim.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Not all religions make a ex nihilo claim.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 17. Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
&gt;&gt;&gt; collapsed.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Apparently not, since you haven't made an argument that would lead to
&gt;&gt; such
&gt;&gt; a collapse.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; As has Grand Theology.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; 1. Only the Grand Theology that you deliberately made up out of a
&gt;&gt; patchwork, skewed selection of elements would be impacted by even that
&gt;&gt; small part of your lengthy argument that was actually valid.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; 2. Since no such theology exists save in your skewed list, it cannot be
&gt;&gt; said that you've said much of anything about the major tenets of Western
&gt;&gt; Theology.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; 3. Your argument seems to be an argument about what you think is most
&gt;&gt; popular in most of theology.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; 4. Since what you think is most popular is not even representative of all
&gt;&gt; the world's MAJOR theologies [you haven't even touched the dogma of
&gt;&gt; hinduism] your argument is at best a strawman.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; 5. As has been shown, you're points are mostly non-sequiturs even against
&gt;&gt; the trumped up list you've created.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; In short, your argument is a strawman, and you haven't even succeeded in
&gt;&gt; debunking your own strawman.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; As pointed out,
&gt;&gt;&gt; this destroys the claims and viability of an
&gt;&gt;&gt; entire class of possible gods, all secondary and
&gt;&gt;&gt; tertiary claims for such a god of this class also
&gt;&gt;&gt; fail, as do dogmas or secondary or tertiary
&gt;&gt;&gt; claims hanging off this class of gods in any way.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 18. If a this entire class of omni-everything creator gods
&gt;&gt;&gt; cannot exist as defined, specific gods cannot
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Once again, you're attempting to slip in a general statement about any
&gt;&gt; specific god when you haven't even made a successful argument against the
&gt;&gt; strawman god you've created.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Your argument fails, even in this altered version, in both its specific
&gt;&gt; and its general claims.

In summary, your argument fails on every level, Barwell. Regardless of
whether you zero in on particular attributes of god, or you move out to a
general view, you've failed to prove your assertion that ANY class of god
can be disproven by anything you've come up with to this point.

Report this message

#36: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 07:55:40 by Gandalf Grey

&quot;wbarwell&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:wbarwell&#64;mylinuxisp.com" target="_blank">wbarwell&#64;mylinuxisp.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:12bj643fceke9a7&#64;corp.supernews.com..." target="_blank">12bj643fceke9a7&#64;corp.supernews.com...</a>
&gt; Ian Braidwood wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; no wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt; Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
&gt;&gt;&gt; Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
&gt;&gt;&gt; Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
&gt;&gt;&gt; Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; One problem here is that you are treating matter as passive stuff that
&gt;&gt; just hangs around, waiting to be pushed. However, thanks to Quantum
&gt;&gt; Theory, we know that on very small scales matter behaves in a very
&gt;&gt; unpredictable manner and that matter can just pop into existence,
&gt;&gt; burrow through walls etc... Whatsmore, the Einstein matter/energy
&gt;&gt; equivalence shows that matter and energy are essentially the same
&gt;&gt; thing; therefore matter contains its own potential for movement. No
&gt;&gt; first cause required.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Recent cosmological work has been using WMAP and
&gt; other satellites to investigate the early Universe.
&gt; The turbulence created by expanding hot gases
&gt; leaves its tell tale signature.
&gt; No god need to put the matter of the Universe
&gt; into motion. These satellites, put up in the last
&gt; decade finally have nailed the last nail in Artistotle's
&gt; Prime Mover arguments, as well as later varieties such
&gt; as found in Aquina's' 5 ways.
&gt;
&gt; As the early Universe became matter, stars and
&gt; galaxies, early star formation and collapse of massive
&gt; stars gave rise to matter with complex elements needed
&gt; for life and turbulent matter that caused yet more star
&gt; formation, something we still see going on to this day.
&gt;
&gt; No prime mover needed.

quite correct, but an odd comment coming from a believer in Parmenides'
boneheaded 'something cannot come from nothing' notion.

Report this message

#37: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 08:26:03 by Adam Grinter

&quot;no&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no&#64;stopit.no" target="_blank">no&#64;stopit.no</a>&gt; wrote in message news:e9bop5$1jd$<a href="mailto:2&#64;nntp.aioe.org..." target="_blank">2&#64;nntp.aioe.org...</a>

&gt; Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come to
&gt; be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you are
&gt; smarter than these people?

It is not my understanding of Aristotle that he said &quot;I've figured it out,
you can all stop thinking now.&quot;

Report this message

#38: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 09:02:19 by johac

In article &lt;e9bop5$1jd$<a href="mailto:2&#64;nntp.aioe.org" target="_blank">2&#64;nntp.aioe.org</a>&gt;, no &lt;<a href="mailto:no&#64;stopit.no" target="_blank">no&#64;stopit.no</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt; Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
&gt; Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
&gt; Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
&gt; Conclusion: There must be a first cause.

Your conclusion contradicts your premise.


&gt;
&gt; Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
&gt; to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
&gt; are smarter than these people?

These people are long dead. If they were alive today and were familiar
with modern physics and cosmology, I think that they would come to very
different conclusions.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782

&quot;Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities&quot;
-Voltaire

Contact - Throw a .net over the .com

Report this message

#39: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 10:02:32 by John Baker

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:00:46 -0700, no &lt;<a href="mailto:no&#64;stopit.no" target="_blank">no&#64;stopit.no</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
&gt;Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
&gt;Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
&gt;Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
&gt;
&gt;Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
&gt;to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
&gt;are smarter than these people?


Because we have enough sense to not assume the conclusion.

And because philosophy, for all its pretense of intellectualism, is
when all's said and done little more than mental masturbation. It's of
no more value than religion in the real world.

Report this message

#40: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 10:27:16 by Rich Bray

John Baker &lt;<a href="mailto:nunya&#64;bizniz.net" target="_blank">nunya&#64;bizniz.net</a>&gt; wrote in
news:<a href="mailto:ejrjb254a5dr5bvp9hp85a6raot0h8mbkh&#64;4ax.com" target="_blank">ejrjb254a5dr5bvp9hp85a6raot0h8mbkh&#64;4ax.com</a>:

&gt; philosophy, for all its pretense of intellectualism, is
&gt; when all's said and done little more than mental masturbation. It's of
&gt; no more value than religion in the real world.

Nothing is of value in the real world. Everyone dies and is forgotten
about, and everything they did will crumble in time. Sol will burn out and
Earth will die, the galaxy will be consumed and the universe will reach
maximum entropy.

Everything is masturbation. You may as well smoke some crack, read the
Bible and get a tattoo. None of it matters.

Report this message

#41: Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way

Posted on 2006-07-16 13:27:41 by utahraptor88

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 18:17:31 -0500, Mr Bigun &lt;<a href="mailto:BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net" target="_blank">BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net</a>&gt;
wrote:

&gt;On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:30:49 -0500, Panzerfaust
&gt;&lt;<a href="mailto:utahraptor88&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">utahraptor88&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:19:10 GMT, &quot;Jerry Camp&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com" target="_blank">jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com</a>&gt;
&gt;&gt;wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Inference, dude, inference...you call 'hyperbole' on the comment that white
&gt;&gt;&gt;15 year olds kill their parents all the time (which it is), but then make no
&gt;&gt;&gt;such comment concerning the comments of one Mr...ahem...Bigun (yeah, right)?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;I was not addressing the other poster.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;But, I take you feel that your hatred of 'niggers' isn't hyperbolic?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;My hate is from a lifetime of seeing them, dealing with them in law
&gt;&gt;enforcement and the plain out fact one killed my mom and tried to kill
&gt;&gt;me. Except for a small group of blacks, I wish I could I kill them
&gt;&gt;all for which I would gladly suffer eternity in hell.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;Another L.E.O? Greetings brother..

Military and local reserve Sheriff


&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&quot;Panzerfaust&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:utahraptor88&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">utahraptor88&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt;&gt;news:<a href="mailto:6qqhb2tvs0csnm5galkqssbn29uvp7o4qq&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">6qqhb2tvs0csnm5galkqssbn29uvp7o4qq&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:51:04 GMT, &quot;Jerry Camp&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com" target="_blank">jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com</a>&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Let me get this straight...
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Claim that white 15 year old guys kill their parents 'all the time' is
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;hyperbole, but your suggestion that black men dating white girls do so
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;isn't?
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Hypocrisy, thy name is bigotry.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Feel free to refer to the posting of me stating that. You can't.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Game set match
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; --
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Check out the AFN FAQ website at...
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href="http://niggermania.com/afnfaq/" target="_blank">http://niggermania.com/afnfaq/</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Here's the TRUTH about black-on-White crime...
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html" target="_blank">http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Niggers &quot;were over 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; 2002&quot;.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Niggers are four times as likely as Whites to Kill their children...
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.txt" target="_blank">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.txt</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; 18.6% of nigger bucks go to jail, vs. 3.4% of White males
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Black bastards! 68.7% of niggers are born out of wedlock!
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; 62% of ALL nigglet births are paid for by the government.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; 56% of sow niggers have genital herpes!!! See page 21 of...
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Though only 12% of the population, more niggers are on
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; welfare than are Whites! See Figure B of...
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter10/chap10.htm" target="_blank"> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter10/ chap10.htm</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;

The most precious possession on Earth
is our own people
and for this people
and with this people
we will struggle
and we will fight
and never slacken
never tire
never falter
never doubt
long live our movement
long live our people!!!

Report this message

#42: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 14:25:37 by spam

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:35:33 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;The Cosmological Argument, Anselms's Argument and the Argument from
&gt;Design are all bogus.

Agreed. Aquinas had to do something for a living so he wrote the Summa
Theologica along with Albertus Magnus. However there is an argument
that is not based on theology, as you are well aware of.

&gt;There is not a shred of empirical evidence for the
&gt;existence of The Great Knish.

Pontification. The existence of the Universe is empirical evidence fo
the existence of the Supreme Being.


--

&quot;It's impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from
an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can
physically be done, and the other half are doing it.&quot;
--Winston Churchill

Report this message

#43: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 14:31:32 by Atlas Bugged

&quot;John Baker&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:nunya&#64;bizniz.net" target="_blank">nunya&#64;bizniz.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:ejrjb254a5dr5bvp9hp85a6raot0h8mbkh&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">ejrjb254a5dr5bvp9hp85a6raot0h8mbkh&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt;philosophy, for all its pretense of intellectualism, is
&gt; when all's said and done little more than mental masturbation. It's of
&gt; no more value than religion in the real world.

So vastly, incredibly wrong, but you get an Honesty Credit for saying what
so many actually believe but refuse to enunciate.
<a href="http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/index.html</a>

Philosophy IS identification and understanding of the real world. Your
spectacularly wrong statement just flows from the spectacularly bad mess
that religion and most philosophers have made of it.

Philosophy is your life's owner's manual. The aspect of your view that is
true is that almost every such manual published to date, if followed, would
not allow you to survive childhood.

Report this message

#44: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 14:36:19 by spam

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:02:32 GMT, John Baker &lt;<a href="mailto:nunya&#64;bizniz.net" target="_blank">nunya&#64;bizniz.net</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;And because philosophy, for all its pretense of intellectualism, is
&gt;when all's said and done little more than mental masturbation. It's of
&gt;no more value than religion in the real world.

Would you say the same thing about Physics? Metaphysics?

--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Report this message

#45: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 14:37:07 by spam

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:02:19 -0700, johac &lt;<a href="mailto:jhachmann&#64;sbcglobal.com" target="_blank">jhachmann&#64;sbcglobal.com</a>&gt;
wrote:

&gt;&gt; Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
&gt;&gt; Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
&gt;&gt; Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
&gt;&gt; Conclusion: There must be a first cause.

&gt;Your conclusion contradicts your premise.

The first cause argument is not ontological. It is physical.


--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Report this message

#46: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 15:28:37 by Atlas Bugged

&quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4hurdrF1bd3tU6&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4hurdrF1bd3tU6&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; Then why is so much emprically incorrect philosopohy adhere to? For
&gt; example Aristotle's physics. Some of it was just plain wrong and some of
&gt; it was so far off that it wasn't even wrong.

Who's adhering to it? Not I.

You make the same mistake as the poster above. You have apparently seen
that over 99% of existent philosophy (encompassing religion in its entirety)
is irrelevant, wrong, or (usually) worse. You have therefore concluded that
philosophy is worthless.

Beeeeeeeeeep. Very poor use of the inductive method.

Report this message

#47: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 15:32:37 by spam

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:56:53 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;&gt; Philosophy is your life's owner's manual. The aspect of your view that is
&gt;&gt; true is that almost every such manual published to date, if followed, would
&gt;&gt; not allow you to survive childhood.

&gt;Then why is so much emprically incorrect philosopohy adhere to? For
&gt;example Aristotle's physics. Some of it was just plain wrong and some of
&gt;it was so far off that it wasn't even wrong.

Straw man.

No one bothers with Aristotle's physics.


--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Report this message

#48: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 15:34:05 by spam

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:58:37 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;&gt; Would you say the same thing about Physics? Metaphysics?

&gt;Physics leads to engineering art. Engineering art leads to useful tools
&gt;and processes. Metaphysics is mostly ka ka. Anything beyond Reality Lite
&gt;is wretched excesss.

&gt;Reality Lite = something exists independent of us and we can learn
&gt;something about it. No more metaphysics than this is necessary.

How do we learn something about existence if we don't study
metaphysics?


--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Report this message

#49: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 15:35:28 by spam

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:59:28 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;&gt; The first cause argument is not ontological. It is physical.

&gt;Ontology and $1.29 will get you a small regular coffee at Dunkin' Donuts.

Straw man.

Ontology is the study of Being. It is not intended to buy coffee.

And who in their right mind would pay $1.29 for a small regular
coffee?


--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Report this message

#50: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 15:36:15 by spam

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:49:50 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;Reality CANNOT be deduced from a priori principles. At least one measurement must be made.

Cogito is that one measurement.


--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Report this message

#51: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 15:37:31 by spam

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:51:02 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;Being the ancients, they knew less. And in millenia to
&gt;come, the people alive then will wonder at our ignorance, too.

You are selling the ancients far too short. Aristotle's Logic has held
up quite well. So have the works of mathematicians.


--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Report this message

#52: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 15:39:31 by spam

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:53:12 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;Either something can suddenly come from nothing

Which is absurd since it leads to contradictions.

&gt;or there is something
&gt;that has -always- existed, hence does not need a cause.

Eternal does not imply acausal for everything. The Universe is a Mode
of Being which is eternal and caused by the Supreme Being.

But you are right to the extent that the Supreme Being does not need
an external cause.



--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Report this message

#53: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 15:41:59 by spam

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:55:06 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;&gt; Pontification. The existence of the Universe is empirical evidence fo
&gt;&gt; the existence of the Supreme Being.

&gt;That is what you have -assumed- and never proven. The Universe could be
&gt;eternal and not need a Supreme Being.

Eternal does not necessarily imply acausal.

&gt;Or perhaps the Universe IS the Supreme Being.

Close but not quite right. The Universe is a Mode of Being, but it is
not the Supreme Being. The Universe is mutable and cannot be its own
cause of existence. The Supreme Being is immutable and therefore is
the source of its own existence.

&gt;And don't give me that question begging shit about how a
&gt;Supreme Being must be changeless.

Straw man.

There is no question begging when you realize that the Supreme Being
is immutable.


--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Report this message

#54: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 15:49:50 by Asleep

Enkidu wrote:

&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Failure to check his conclusions against nature is quite a big deal.

That is the difference between the Greek Gift of Gab and European
empirically based science. The Greeks mistook a slick argument from
First Principles for being empirically correct. Reality CANNOT be
deduced from a priori principles. At least one measurement must be made.
There ain't so such thing as a backgroun-free theory.

Bob Kolker

&gt;

Report this message

#55: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 15:51:02 by Asleep

Denis Loubet wrote:

&gt;
&gt; Hence I would say they might be smarter than me, but they were also more
&gt; ignorant than me.

That is correct. Being the ancients, they knew less. And in millenia to
come, the people alive then will wonder at our ignorance, too.

Bob Kolker

&gt;
&gt;

Report this message

#56: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 15:53:12 by Asleep

Gandalf Grey wrote:

&gt; quite correct, but an odd comment coming from a believer in Parmenides'
&gt; boneheaded 'something cannot come from nothing' notion.

Either something can suddenly come from nothing or there is something
that has -always- existed, hence does not need a cause.

Bob Kolker

Report this message

#57: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 15:55:06 by Asleep

Bob wrote:

&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:35:33 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;The Cosmological Argument, Anselms's Argument and the Argument from
&gt;&gt;Design are all bogus.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Agreed. Aquinas had to do something for a living so he wrote the Summa
&gt; Theologica along with Albertus Magnus. However there is an argument
&gt; that is not based on theology, as you are well aware of.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;There is not a shred of empirical evidence for the
&gt;&gt;existence of The Great Knish.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Pontification. The existence of the Universe is empirical evidence fo
&gt; the existence of the Supreme Being.

That is what you have -assumed- and never proven. The Universe could be
eternal and not need a Supreme Being. Or perhaps the Univers IS the
Supreme Being. And don't give me that question begging shit about how a
Supreme Being must be changeless.

Bob Kolker

&gt;
&gt;

Report this message

#58: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 15:56:53 by Asleep

Atlas Bugged wrote:
&gt;
&gt; Philosophy is your life's owner's manual. The aspect of your view that is
&gt; true is that almost every such manual published to date, if followed, would
&gt; not allow you to survive childhood.

Then why is so much emprically incorrect philosopohy adhere to? For
example Aristotle's physics. Some of it was just plain wrong and some of
it was so far off that it wasn't even wrong.

Bob Kolker

Report this message

#59: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 15:58:37 by Asleep

Bob wrote:

&gt; On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:02:32 GMT, John Baker &lt;<a href="mailto:nunya&#64;bizniz.net" target="_blank">nunya&#64;bizniz.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;And because philosophy, for all its pretense of intellectualism, is
&gt;&gt;when all's said and done little more than mental masturbation. It's of
&gt;&gt;no more value than religion in the real world.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Would you say the same thing about Physics? Metaphysics?

Physics leads to engineering art. Engineering art leads to useful tools
and processes. Metaphysics is mostly ka ka. Anything beyond Reality Lite
is wretched excesss.

Reality Lite = something exists independent of us and we can learn
something about it. No more metaphysics than this is necessary.

Bob Kolker

Report this message

#60: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 15:59:28 by Asleep

Bob wrote:

&gt;
&gt;
&gt; The first cause argument is not ontological. It is physical.

Ontology and $1.29 will get you a small regular coffee at Dunkin' Donuts.

Bob Kolker

Report this message

#61: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 15:59:58 by Atlas Bugged

&gt; On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:58:37 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&gt;&gt;Reality Lite = something exists independent of us and we can learn
&gt;&gt;something about it. No more metaphysics than this is necessary.

&quot;Bob&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:spam&#64;uce.gov" target="_blank">spam&#64;uce.gov</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:44ba4026.3815296&#64;news-server.houston.rr.com..." target="_blank">44ba4026.3815296&#64;news-server.houston.rr.com...</a>
&gt; How do we learn something about existence if we don't study
&gt; metaphysics?

Of course. So continue your studies, and stop pulling answers out of your
ass.

It may take a long time to reach a conclusive and exhaustive set of
metaphysics. Possibly never.

You think the job is done. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Report this message

#62: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 16:07:21 by Ankmin

Gandalf Grey wrote:
&gt; Mr. Barwell continues to seek a group where he can find sheep to follow him.
&gt;
&gt; &quot;wbarwell&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:wbarwell&#64;mylinuxisp.com" target="_blank">wbarwell&#64;mylinuxisp.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:12biqr7l1us48bf&#64;corp.supernews.com..." target="_blank">12biqr7l1us48bf&#64;corp.supernews.com...</a>
&gt; &gt; no wrote:
&gt; &gt;

I think this Bardwell character makes a few good points, I'll explain
why, but feel free to correct me where you feel where I'm wide of the
mark. I'd agree with him on the point that its effectively impossible
to reconcile a belief in an Omniscient First Cause with unfettered free
will. It would essentially mean that all occurrence in this universe
are the result of God's Design/Will, including each and every decision
of ours. This logical contradiction effectively leaves this domga
unsalvagable in my opinion. I realise there are problems as it is
without Free wilthout introducing an Omniscient First Cause, but from a
solely logical, theological perspective it doesn't make it isn't any
less damning. Secondly I feel he's correct in that the class of
Omni-everything Gods are a logical impossibility, and unless they defy
the very rules of logic themselves, cannot possibly exist. Though that
doesn't mean entitites which aren't so limitles in power cannot exist.
My two pence.

[Lurker]

Report this message

#63: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 16:14:29 by Ankmin

Gandalf Grey wrote:
&gt; Mr. Barwell continues to seek a group where he can find sheep to follow him.
&gt;
&gt; &quot;wbarwell&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:wbarwell&#64;mylinuxisp.com" target="_blank">wbarwell&#64;mylinuxisp.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:12biqr7l1us48bf&#64;corp.supernews.com..." target="_blank">12biqr7l1us48bf&#64;corp.supernews.com...</a>
&gt; &gt; no wrote:
&gt; &gt;


I think this Bardwell character makes a few good points, I'll explain
why, but feel free to correct me where you feel where I'm wide of the
mark. I'd agree with him on the point that its effectively impossible
to reconcile a belief in an Omniscient First Cause with unfettered free
will. It would essentially mean that all occurrence in this universe
are the result of God's Design/Will, including each and every decision
of ours. This logical contradiction effectively leaves this domga
unsalvagable in my opinion. I realise there are problems as it is
with Free Will without introducing an Omniscient First Cause, but from
a
solely logical, theological perspective it doesn't make it any
less damning. Secondly I feel he's correct in that the class of
Omni-everything Gods are a logical impossibility, and unless they defy
the very rules of logic themselves, cannot possibly exist. Though that
doesn't mean entitites which aren't quite so limitles in power are
logically impossible and cannot exist.

My two pence.

[Lurker]

Report this message

#64: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 16:23:45 by Enkidu

&quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote in
news:<a href="mailto:4hur0jF1bd3tU2&#64;individual.net" target="_blank">4hur0jF1bd3tU2&#64;individual.net</a>:

&gt; Enkidu wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Failure to check his conclusions against nature is quite a big deal.
&gt;
&gt; That is the difference between the Greek Gift of Gab and European
&gt; empirically based science. The Greeks mistook a slick argument from
&gt; First Principles for being empirically correct. Reality CANNOT be
&gt; deduced from a priori principles. At least one measurement must be
&gt; made. There ain't so such thing as a backgroun-free theory.

And yet there were Greeks who got their hands dirty. Eratosthenes proved
the Earth a sphere and measured it. Archimedes did most of his work by
experimentation, building devices still in use today.

In my book, Archimedes smokes Aristotle. Had Europe looked to him rather
than to Aristotle, we'd be a thousand years ahead on where we are.

--
Enkidu AA#2165
<a href="http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/" target="_blank">http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/</a>
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA

The suspicious mind believes more than it doubts. It believes in a
formidable and ineradicable evil lurking in every person.
-- Eric Hoffer

Report this message

#65: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 16:32:09 by Asleep

Atlas Bugged wrote:
&gt; philosophy is worthless.
&gt;
&gt; Beeeeeeeeeep. Very poor use of the inductive method.

You think? If 99 percent of something is bad, why hold out hope for the
other 1 percent?

The only metaphysics we need is Reality Lite. We already have pretty
good epistemology in the modern era. The reason why it is so good is
because it flows out of the physical sciences.

Bob Kolker

Report this message

#66: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 16:36:52 by Asleep

Bob wrote:

&gt;
&gt;
&gt; How do we learn something about existence if we don't study
&gt; metaphysics?

By looking and measuring. How did you learn how to ride a bike, pardner?
Do you philosophize or did you learn balance from the ground up,
skinned knees and all.

They way I learn rain and hail exist is to get wet and pelted. The way I
learn that fire is not is to get burned a little. The way we learn the
world is emprically. Philosophical speculations simply do not do the trick.

We think, we feel pain, we have fun therefore we am.

Bob Kolker

Report this message

#67: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 17:28:17 by spam

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 09:36:52 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;Bob wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; How do we learn something about existence if we don't study
&gt;&gt; metaphysics?
&gt;
&gt;By looking and measuring. How did you learn how to ride a bike, pardner?
&gt; Do you philosophize or did you learn balance from the ground up,
&gt;skinned knees and all.
&gt;
&gt;They way I learn rain and hail exist is to get wet and pelted. The way I
&gt;learn that fire is not is to get burned a little. The way we learn the
&gt;world is emprically. Philosophical speculations simply do not do the trick.

&gt;We think, we feel pain, we have fun therefore we am.

How did Pauli infer the existence of the neutrino?

How did Fermi use that conjecture to formulate a successful theory of
nuclear fission?

How do string theorists infer the existence of Higgs bosons?

How did Maxwell infer the existence of the stress-energy tensor?

How ...

Well, you get the idea.

Your 19th century empiricism is lost in the 20th century.


--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Report this message

#68: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 17:29:29 by spam

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 09:59:58 -0400, &quot;Atlas Bugged&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:atlasbuggedBYspam&#64;gmail.com" target="_blank">atlasbuggedBYspam&#64;gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;&gt; How do we learn something about existence if we don't study
&gt;&gt; metaphysics?

&gt;Of course. So continue your studies, and stop pulling answers out of your
&gt;ass.

What answers might those be?

&gt;It may take a long time to reach a conclusive and exhaustive set of
&gt;metaphysics. Possibly never.

How did quantum mechanics get developed?

&gt;You think the job is done. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Straw man.


--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Report this message

#69: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 17:31:11 by spam

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 09:32:09 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;The only metaphysics we need is Reality Lite.

Pontification.

&gt;We already have pretty good epistemology in the modern era.

Vague theories.

&gt;The reason why it is so good is because it flows out of the physical sciences.

19th century classicism.


--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Report this message

#70: Atheism... Religion..or cult..?

Posted on 2006-07-16 18:02:43 by unknown

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Report this message

#71: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 18:10:36 by wmech

&quot;Bob&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:spam&#64;uce.gov" target="_blank">spam&#64;uce.gov</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:44ba419e.4191437&#64;news-server.houston.rr.com..." target="_blank">44ba419e.4191437&#64;news-server.houston.rr.com...</a>
&gt; On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:55:06 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Pontification. The existence of the Universe is empirical evidence fo
&gt;&gt;&gt; the existence of the Supreme Being.
&gt;
&gt;&gt;That is what you have -assumed- and never proven. The Universe could be
&gt;&gt;eternal and not need a Supreme Being.
&gt;
&gt; Eternal does not necessarily imply acausal.
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Or perhaps the Universe IS the Supreme Being.
&gt;
&gt; Close but not quite right. The Universe is a Mode of Being, but it is
&gt; not the Supreme Being. The Universe is mutable and cannot be its own
&gt; cause of existence. The Supreme Being is immutable and therefore is
&gt; the source of its own existence.
&gt;
&gt;&gt;And don't give me that question begging shit about how a
&gt;&gt;Supreme Being must be changeless.
&gt;
&gt; Straw man.
&gt;
&gt; There is no question begging when you realize that the Supreme Being
&gt; is immutable.

IN YOUR SILLY AND NOT VERY LOGICAL 'IMAGINATION'!

Report this message

#72: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 18:17:02 by Atlas Bugged

&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:atlasbuggedBYspam&#64;gmail.com" target="_blank">atlasbuggedBYspam&#64;gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;Of course. So continue your studies, and stop pulling answers out of your
&gt;&gt;ass.

&quot;Bob&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:spam&#64;uce.gov" target="_blank">spam&#64;uce.gov</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:44ba5b18.10712859&#64;news-server.houston.rr.com..." target="_blank">44ba5b18.10712859&#64;news-server.houston.rr.com...</a>
&gt; What answers might those be?

Ludicrous speculations regarding supreme beings.
&gt;
&gt;&gt;It may take a long time to reach a conclusive and exhaustive set of
&gt;&gt;metaphysics. Possibly never.
&gt;
&gt; How did quantum mechanics get developed?

Relevance? And QM answers a whole lot of questions very nicely, but I think
it raises even more. It is, almost without doubt, a way-station. For
example, any ideas on why size matters?

Report this message

#73: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 18:37:33 by spam

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 12:10:36 -0400, &quot;Bill M&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:wmech&#64;bellsouth.net" target="_blank">wmech&#64;bellsouth.net</a>&gt;
wrote:

&gt;&gt; There is no question begging when you realize that the Supreme Being
&gt;&gt; is immutable.

&gt;IN YOUR SILLY AND NOT VERY LOGICAL 'IMAGINATION'!

Sorry to see you have a speech impediment. It must go with the fact
that you are too dull to understand metaphysics. Good thing the
existence of the Universe does not depend on your ill-formed opinions.


--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Report this message

#74: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 18:56:55 by Enkidu

&quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote in news:4hv7jlF1e4r3U1
@individual.net:

&gt; Bob wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; How did Pauli infer the existence of the neutrino?
&gt;
&gt; It was an ad hoc hypothesis to maintain conservation. It turned out he
&gt; was right.

Classic science. Make a hypothesis based on what you know, then see if
that hypothesis makes prediction you can then test to confirm or contradict
the hypothesis.

--
Enkidu AA#2165
<a href="http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/" target="_blank">http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/</a>
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA

&quot;I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability.&quot;
-Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

Report this message

#75: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 19:02:17 by spam

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:17:02 GMT, &quot;Atlas Bugged&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:atlasbuggedBYspam&#64;gmail.com" target="_blank">atlasbuggedBYspam&#64;gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;&gt; What answers might those be?

&gt;Ludicrous speculations regarding supreme beings.

Pontification.

The Supreme Being is the answer to the question of what is the source
of existence. The Universe cannot be the source of existence because
it is mutable. Only an immutable entity can be the source of
existence.

If you insist on thinking in 19th century classical physical terms,
then you will not understand. You have to think in terms of ontology,
the science of exitsence.

What makes contradictions non-existent in the real objective world?
What ontological problems occur when you allow contradictions to
co-exist? Why can't something and its contradictory opposite co-exist?
Who's to say they don't co-exist in the real objective world?

To understand that problem at the ontological level, you have to ask
what is Order. Can Order manifest itself if contradictories are
allowed to exist? Order implies Symmetry, which is the highest order
property of existence. Can Symmetry exist if we contradictories to
exist?

You take the Principle of Consistency for granted in your Objectivist
ideology. Metaphysics attempts to cast light on why that must be for
the real objective world.

But you are right - the process goes on and on. For example, why is
Symmetry a property of existence at all? Why can't existence be
completely random? Is Order an illusion?

&gt;any ideas on why size matters?

There is an entire subsection of physics devoted to answering that
question. There was an extensive article in Physics Today several
years ago that showed the extent of size issues in nature.

Basically size matters because properties scale differently with size.
If you gain weight, your girth increases but your height does not.
That disparity leads to problems at the extreme.

Consider BMI which relates mass to height.Beyond a certain value the
increase in mass becomes detrimental. Imagine what you would look like
if you attained a BMI of 250. Size considerations extend from galaxies
to elementary particles.


--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Report this message

#76: Re: Atheism... Religion..or cult..?

Posted on 2006-07-16 19:06:55 by Atlas Bugged

&quot;Mr Bigun&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net" target="_blank">BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:bhokb252r60c40ep2l9jmi1n5vg4a29v7p&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">bhokb252r60c40ep2l9jmi1n5vg4a29v7p&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt; They believe that there is no god.. and belief of something so
&gt; strongly = religion..

Yawn. There is no symmetry between atheism and any religion.

Atheism is just one aspect of proper thinking. You reject all that is
arbitrary. Are you &quot;agnostic&quot; about invisible unicorns everywhere about?
Agnostic about the assertion that Soupy Sales actually created the universe?
Etc. A mind which accepts all possibilities or speculations is not an &quot;open
mind,&quot; it is a wind tunnel.

The only issue of interest is whether religion is completely and utterly
arbitrary. Prevailing on that debate is trivial.
&gt;
&gt; They are bizarre loonies that don't act in a normal manner, have
&gt; bizarre beliefs and are completely irrational.. as are most cults...

Horseshit. I see that anything, existent or not, is on your mental plate.

Report this message

#77: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 19:12:13 by DaffyDuck

On 2006-07-16 09:10:36 -0700, &quot;Bill M&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:wmech&#64;bellsouth.net" target="_blank">wmech&#64;bellsouth.net</a>&gt; said:

&gt;
&gt; &quot;Bob&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:spam&#64;uce.gov" target="_blank">spam&#64;uce.gov</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:44ba419e.4191437&#64;news-server.houston.rr.com..." target="_blank">44ba419e.4191437&#64;news-server.houston.rr.com...</a>
&gt;&gt; There is no question begging when you realize that the Supreme Being
&gt;&gt; is immutable.
&gt;
&gt; IN YOUR SILLY AND NOT VERY LOGICAL 'IMAGINATION'!

Wow, and then we realize that Bob is Christian, and believes in a
crutch. Now it all makes sense.

Report this message

#78: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 19:12:43 by spam

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 12:24:45 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;&gt; How did Pauli infer the existence of the neutrino?

&gt;It was an ad hoc hypothesis to maintain conservation. It turned out he
&gt;was right.

How fortunate.

&gt;&gt; How did Fermi use that conjecture to formulate a successful theory of
&gt;&gt; nuclear fission?

&gt;A theory which was later shown to be correct.

How fortunate. If he and Pauli had been wrong we'd be eating sishi and
sipping saki right now.

&gt;Just because a theory is nice,

The correct term in physics is &quot;elegant&quot;.

&gt;does not mean it is right.

You mean it is not proven empirically. But that does not mean it is
not right.

&gt;&gt; How do string theorists infer the existence of Higgs bosons?

&gt;Write us when the Higgs is found.

It's existence is taken as necessary. That's where we separate the
false conjectures from the elegant speculations.

&gt;&gt; How did Maxwell infer the existence of the stress-energy tensor?

&gt;He assumed the displacement current based on his intuitions about
&gt;aether. Aether was wrong, but his equations were right.

The ether was not necessary. The stress-energy tensor is.

Back in grad school we were given a simple problem in Mechanics where
there was an electron moving in a simple electromagnetic field. The
electic field was directed along one axis and the magnetic field along
another. When you worked out the simple dynamics of the electron you
discovered that momentum was not conserved. HUH?

There was something obviously missing, something that necessarily has
to exist to conserve momentum. It was the stress-energy tensor. If you
included it in the calculation, momentum was conserved.

&gt;In any case we don't know without testing.

That is the 19th century classical attitude. But once we entered the
20th century physicists had no choice but to adopt new ways of
thinking.

Has anyone ever observed or measured the wave function?

&gt;Experiment will never be eliminated from physics. Ever. Without experiment, all you have are
&gt;conjectures. Physics is empirical right down to the ground floor.

That's 19th century thinking.

&gt;An untested hypothesis is just a speculation.

Call it what you want. The neutrino was untested but that did not stop
Pauli and Fermi.

&gt;You will write us when the Higgs Boson is found, won't you?

I am sure you will hear about on your own. Just don't hold your breath
waiting.



--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Report this message

#79: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 19:15:02 by spam

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 12:27:34 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;&gt; How did quantum mechanics get developed?

&gt;Desparation. Right out of Max Planck's mouth. He could not fiddle the
&gt;blackbody energy curve any other way. And Planck really did not fully
&gt;believe his own work. Einstein did. Which is why Einstein figured out
&gt;the photoelectric effect. By the way Maxwellian waves cannot explain the
&gt;photo electric effect since the energy of a maxwell wave is proportional
&gt;to the square of the amplitude. So even Maxwell was wrong there.

It's a good thing Planck and Einstein did not think like 19th century
classicists.

There is much more to physics than empirical testing. There is
inference, consistency, existence criteria, elegance, symmetry, etc.
None of those has any foundation in 19th century empiricism. They are
all quite metaphysical in nature.


--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Report this message

#80: Re: Atheism... Religion..or cult..?

Posted on 2006-07-16 19:15:49 by Frank J Warner

In article &lt;<a href="mailto:bhokb252r60c40ep2l9jmi1n5vg4a29v7p&#64;4ax.com" target="_blank">bhokb252r60c40ep2l9jmi1n5vg4a29v7p&#64;4ax.com</a>&gt;, Mr Bigun
&lt;<a href="mailto:BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net" target="_blank">BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt; They believe that there is no god.. and belief of something so
&gt; strongly = religion..
&gt;
&gt; however..
&gt;
&gt; They are bizarre loonies that don't act in a normal manner, have
&gt; bizarre beliefs and are completely irrational.. as are most cults...
&gt;
&gt; Scientology as a fine example of bizarre cultish beliefs..
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Scientologist are idiots and Atheists are non-believing morons.. they
&gt; should all be stoned to death!

The link at the bottom of my post will lead you to my home address.
You're welcome to come on over any time and try it, as soon as you grow
a pair.

-Frank

--
Here's some of my work:
<a href="http://www.franksknives.com" target="_blank">http://www.franksknives.com</a>

Report this message

#81: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 19:17:54 by Asleep

Enkidu wrote:

&gt;
&gt;
&gt; And yet there were Greeks who got their hands dirty. Eratosthenes proved
&gt; the Earth a sphere and measured it. Archimedes did most of his work by
&gt; experimentation, building devices still in use today.

They were atypical. Neither founded a school. If Archimedes has founded
a school we would be traveling around in Star Ships instead of jet
aircraft. The Alexandrian Thought Mafia: Archimedes, Conon,
Erasthothanes were the greatest of the Hellentistic intellectuals. They
were great, but late as Greek culture was already in decline.

Bob Kolker

Report this message

#82: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 19:24:45 by Asleep

Bob wrote:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; How did Pauli infer the existence of the neutrino?

It was an ad hoc hypothesis to maintain conservation. It turned out he
was right.



&gt;
&gt; How did Fermi use that conjecture to formulate a successful theory of
&gt; nuclear fission?

A theory which was later shown to be correct. Just because a theory is
nice, does not mean it is right. The Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation
is nicer than GTR, but it is wrong.
&gt;
&gt; How do string theorists infer the existence of Higgs bosons?

Write us when the Higgs is found.
&gt;
&gt; How did Maxwell infer the existence of the stress-energy tensor?

He assumed the displacement current based on his intuitions about
aether. Aether was wrong, but his equations were right.


&gt;
&gt; How ...
&gt;
&gt; Well, you get the idea.

Yes I do. Some hypotheses turn out to be right ande others do not.

In any case we don't know without testing. Experiment will never be
eliminated from physics. Ever. Without experiment, all you have are
conjectures. Physics is empirical right down to the ground floor. Ask
Richard Feynman who knows someting about physics. An untested hypothesis
is just a speculation. Some very nice hypotheses turned out to be wrong:
Aether, Caloric, Phlogiston, the Rutherford Atom, and Newtonian massive
light particles. It turns out light is particles but they have zero rest
mass. Also Newton's law of gravitation. False. It does not correctly
predict the precession of perihelia nor does it peredict the
gravitational red shift.

You will write us when the Higgs Boson is found, won't you?

Bob Kolker

Report this message

#83: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 19:27:34 by Asleep

Bob wrote:

&gt;
&gt; How did quantum mechanics get developed?

Desparation. Right out of Max Planck's mouth. He could not fiddle the
blackbody energy curve any other way. And Planck really did not fully
believe his own work. Einstein did. Which is why Einstein figured out
the photoelectric effect. By the way Maxwellian waves cannot explain the
photo electric effect since the energy of a maxwell wave is proportional
to the square of the amplitude. So even Maxwell was wrong there.

Bob Kolker

Report this message

#84: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 19:38:32 by Gandalf Grey

&lt;<a href="mailto:zivortimsa&#64;kriocoucke.mailexpire.com" target="_blank">zivortimsa&#64;kriocoucke.mailexpire.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:1153059269.616560.171630&#64;m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com..." target="_blank">1153059269.616560.171630&#64;m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...</a>
&gt;
&gt; Gandalf Grey wrote:
&gt;&gt; Mr. Barwell continues to seek a group where he can find sheep to follow
&gt;&gt; him.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &quot;wbarwell&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:wbarwell&#64;mylinuxisp.com" target="_blank">wbarwell&#64;mylinuxisp.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt; news:<a href="mailto:12biqr7l1us48bf&#64;corp.supernews.com..." target="_blank">12biqr7l1us48bf&#64;corp.supernews.com...</a>
&gt;&gt; &gt; no wrote:
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; I think this Bardwell character makes a few good points, I'll explain
&gt; why, but feel free to correct me where you feel where I'm wide of the
&gt; mark. I'd agree with him on the point that its effectively impossible
&gt; to reconcile a belief in an Omniscient First Cause with unfettered free
&gt; will. It would essentially mean that all occurrence in this universe
&gt; are the result of God's Design/Will, including each and every decision
&gt; of ours. This logical contradiction effectively leaves this domga
&gt; unsalvagable in my opinion. I realise there are problems as it is
&gt; with Free Will without introducing an Omniscient First Cause, but from
&gt; a
&gt; solely logical, theological perspective it doesn't make it any
&gt; less damning.

I agree with you.

Secondly I feel he's correct in that the class of
&gt; Omni-everything Gods are a logical impossibility, and unless they defy
&gt; the very rules of logic themselves, cannot possibly exist.

Which Mr. Barwell actually goes on to argue in one of his later essays.
That's part of the Barwell effect. If you wait around long enough, Mr.
Barwell will say everything and take a stand on every side of every issue.

First, There is no class of 'omni-everything gods.' It's a neologism Mr.
Barwell made up in order to make his essay sound more impressive and sound
different from the pre-existing arguments his occasionally accurate logical
points are stolen from. These pre-existing arguments have already been
making the same point against omnipotency, omniscience, evil, and so on for
a long long time. Mr. Barwell has attempted to stuff them all into a
mutilated hybrid form that is not only filled with the internal flaws I've
listed in my direct responses to him, but is also weaker than the original
arguments because Mr. Barwell attempts to universalize it even while he
pretends that it is specific to his 'non-existent' &quot;class.&quot;

Report this message

#85: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 20:12:17 by Ian Braidwood

Bob wrote:
&gt; On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:53:12 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt;Either something can suddenly come from nothing
&gt;
&gt; Which is absurd since it leads to contradictions.

Yet evidence shows that sub atomic particles can indeed pop into
existence spontaneously. The whole point of my earlier post is that
this entire arguement is based on a false premise.

&gt; &gt;or there is something
&gt; &gt;that has -always- existed, hence does not need a cause.
&gt;
&gt; Eternal does not imply acausal for everything. The Universe is a Mode
&gt; of Being which is eternal and caused by the Supreme Being.
&gt;
&gt; But you are right to the extent that the Supreme Being does not need
&gt; an external cause.

You assert this but have no evidence to support the claim. 'logic
demands it' I hear you cry but no it doesn't if the basic premises are
flawed and indeed they are. On the quantum level something can indeed
come from nothing and something can become nothing too. The
cosmological arguement rests on bad physics.

Report this message

#86: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 20:19:35 by Gandalf Grey

&quot;Bob&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:spam&#64;uce.gov" target="_blank">spam&#64;uce.gov</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:44ba419e.4191437&#64;news-server.houston.rr.com..." target="_blank">44ba419e.4191437&#64;news-server.houston.rr.com...</a>
&gt; On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:55:06 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Pontification. The existence of the Universe is empirical evidence fo
&gt;&gt;&gt; the existence of the Supreme Being.
&gt;
&gt;&gt;That is what you have -assumed- and never proven. The Universe could be
&gt;&gt;eternal and not need a Supreme Being.
&gt;
&gt; Eternal does not necessarily imply acausal.

Actually if the universe means &quot;everything&quot; and the universe is eternal, it
does necessarily imply acausality. If the universe contains everything,
there is nothing left to 'cause' the universe. Hence, the universe is
acausal.

&gt;
&gt;&gt;Or perhaps the Universe IS the Supreme Being.
&gt;
&gt; Close but not quite right. The Universe is a Mode of Being, but it is
&gt; not the Supreme Being. The Universe is mutable and cannot be its own
&gt; cause of existence. The Supreme Being is immutable and therefore is
&gt; the source of its own existence.

The universe being mutable does not imply the necessary existence of an
immutable being.

Further, we have the problem of how you would 'know' that he's &quot;close, but
not quite right.&quot; How do you &quot;know&quot; the Universe is a &quot;Mode of Being and
not a &quot;Supreme Being&quot; in itself?

How do you &quot;know&quot; the Supreme being is &quot;immutable.&quot; and is &quot;therefore the
source of its own existence?

&gt;
&gt;&gt;And don't give me that question begging shit about how a
&gt;&gt;Supreme Being must be changeless.
&gt;
&gt; Straw man.

Apparently it's not a straw man, since you immediately responded, without
logical argument, that there is a 'supreme being' in addition to the
universe and that this supreme being is 'changeless.' I'm not sure that it
is a classic case of question begging, but you certainly seemed to have
introduced additional terms so as not to have to answer the question that's
been put to you.

How can you prove that the universe is not eternal?
How can you prove that whether or not the universe is eternal, you universe
requires a supreme being?

&gt;
&gt; There is no question begging when you realize that the Supreme Being
&gt; is immutable.

And how does this &quot;realization&quot; come about, Bob?

&gt;
&gt;
&gt; --
&gt;
&gt; Stop Repeat Offenders!
&gt; Don't Re-elect Them!

Report this message

#87: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 20:28:02 by the Bede

&quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4htjgbF16vgnU2&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4htjgbF16vgnU2&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; Gospel Bretts wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; All those guys were indeed smarter than me. So was/is Russell,
&gt; &gt; Einstein, Dawkins, Sagan and many other folks who didn't/don't accept
&gt; &gt; the cosmological argument. Your point?
&gt;
&gt; The Cosmological Argument, Anselms's Argument and the Argument from
&gt; Design are all bogus. There is not a shred of empirical evidence for the
&gt; existence of The Great Knish.
&gt;
the universe is shaped like a burrito.

Report this message

#88: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 20:34:17 by the Bede

&gt;
&gt; Symmetry a property of existence at all? Why can't existence be
&gt; completely random? Is Order an illusion?
&gt;
yes, then no.

Report this message

#89: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 21:00:06 by spam

On 16 Jul 2006 11:12:17 -0700, &quot;Ian Braidwood&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:diri.gini&#64;virgin.net" target="_blank">diri.gini&#64;virgin.net</a>&gt;
wrote:

&gt;&gt; &gt;Either something can suddenly come from nothing

&gt;&gt; Which is absurd since it leads to contradictions.

&gt;Yet evidence shows that sub atomic particles can indeed pop into
&gt;existence spontaneously. The whole point of my earlier post is that
&gt;this entire arguement is based on a false premise.

You are wrong about particle creation. Particles are created from the
fluctuations of the quantum field in the vacuum under the direction of
the creation operator. You would know that if you had studied Quantum
Field Theory.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory</a>

&gt;You assert this but have no evidence to support the claim.

Actually I do have evidence to support it. The Universe (totality of
the physical world, including our little universe).

&gt;'logic demands it' I hear you cry but no it doesn't if the basic premises are
&gt;flawed and indeed they are.

The Universe is mutable. That is an established fact of physics. A
mutable entity cannot be the source of its own existence. That is an
established fact of metaphysics (ontology). Therefore there must be an
entity that is immutable that is the source of existence for that
exists. That entity is called the Supreme Being.

&gt;On the quantum level something can indeed come from nothing and something can become nothing too.

That is not true. In Quantum Field Theory, conservation of mass/energy
and momentum are strictly obeyed. The fluctuations of the quantum
field are required to create particles.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory</a>

&gt;The cosmological arguement rests on bad physics.

The cosmological argument is a poor choice because it relies on time
which is physical, not ontological.

Aquinas never discusses it in his metaphysics. It is solely a
theological argument for those who are too dull to understand
metaphysics.



--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Report this message

#90: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 21:00:35 by spam

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:16:12 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;The physics is good. It is experimentally corrobertated and has not yet
&gt;been experimentally falsified. That is as good as it gets. It is the
&gt;philosophy that is bad.

Pontification.


--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Report this message

#91: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 21:16:12 by Asleep

Ian Braidwood wrote:

&gt; You assert this but have no evidence to support the claim. 'logic
&gt; demands it' I hear you cry but no it doesn't if the basic premises are
&gt; flawed and indeed they are. On the quantum level something can indeed
&gt; come from nothing and something can become nothing too. The
&gt; cosmological arguement rests on bad physics.

The physics is good. It is experimentally corrobertated and has not yet
been experimentally falsified. That is as good as it gets. It is the
philosophy that is bad.

Bob Kolker

Report this message

#92: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 21:22:01 by spam

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:19:35 -0700, &quot;Gandalf Grey&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:gandalfgrey&#64;infectedmail.com" target="_blank">gandalfgrey&#64;infectedmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;Actually if the universe means &quot;everything&quot; and the universe is eternal, it
&gt;does necessarily imply acausality. If the universe contains everything,
&gt;there is nothing left to 'cause' the universe. Hence, the universe is
&gt;acausal.

Both your major premise and your conclusion are fatally flawed, for
the same reasons.

The Universe is eternal, because it is a Mode of Being. But it is not
&quot;everything&quot;. It can't be everything because it is mutable. Mutable
entities cannot be the source of their own existence.

You are using the term &quot;causal&quot; in a physical sense of temporal cause
and effect. But there is another kind of causality - in the
ontological sense. The source of existence of something is causally
related to the thing that relies on that source for its existence.

For example, not only does a musical note require a cause physically,
it requires a cause ontologically, for without the existence of the
musical instrument, it could not exist.

&gt;The universe being mutable does not imply the necessary existence of an
&gt;immutable being.

Yes it does. A mutable entity like the Universe cannot be the source
of its own existence - the ontological cause of its own existence.
Therefore there must be an immutable entity which is the source of
existence of the Universe. The Universe is a Mode of Being, which
could not exist if Being did not exist.

&gt;How do you &quot;know&quot; the Supreme being is &quot;immutable.&quot; and is &quot;therefore the
&gt;source of its own existence?

The existence of the Supreme Being is inferred from the mutability of
the Universe, as you can clearly see from the argument above. Since
the Universe cannot be the source of its own existence, there must be
an entity that is the source of the existence of the Universe. This
entity must be immutable in order to be the source of existence of
anything. It is the Being whose essence is Being. It is Pure Being.

&gt;I'm not sure that it
&gt;is a classic case of question begging, but you certainly seemed to have
&gt;introduced additional terms so as not to have to answer the question that's
&gt;been put to you.

I answered the question of what is the source of existence of the
Universe.

&gt;How can you prove that the universe is not eternal?

The Universe is eternal.

&gt;How can you prove that whether or not the universe is eternal, you universe
&gt;requires a supreme being?

It requires a Supreme Being whether it is eternal or not because it is
mutable and therefore cannot be the source of its own existence.

&gt;&gt; There is no question begging when you realize that the Supreme Being
&gt;&gt; is immutable.

&gt;And how does this &quot;realization&quot; come about, Bob?

Because it is the source of existence of all that exists. It IS
existence - it is Being. All else that exists are Modes of Being,
different aspects of Being. There is only Pure Being and its many
manifestations. The Universe is one such manifestation.

What does it mean for string theory to have multiple &quot;dimensions&quot;?
Please, none of this silly &quot;multiuniverse&quot; &quot;many world&quot; nonsense.
We're talking serious physics.

In the 1930s a physicist named Kaluza discovered that if you took the
equations of Einstein and added one new spatial dimension you would
get electromagnetism. That means that EM is a manifestation of
physical ordinary spacetime in 4 dimensions. Physical reality has
higher dimensionality, and ordinarily we see only the 4 dimensions of
space time. But this physical reality also manifests itself in the
form of EM, so there is more to physical reality that is manifest by 4
dimensional space time. And so on up to the 10 spatial dimensions and
1 time dimension the string theorists have discovered today.

Actually these additional dimensions are degrees of freedom, as
implied by the so-called compacted motion in the extra ones. Physical
reality has more degrees of freedom than we are able to discern in
everyday mechanics. EM is one of them that emerges with 1 extra degree
of freedom that is orthogonal to the 4 degrees of freedom.

The Supreme Being, which is Pure Being itself, had many degrees of
freedom. Our Universe is a manifestation of some of those degrees of
freedom. That means our Universe is able to exist in some of the ways
that Pure Being exists, but limited beyond that.

The Supreme Being, this immutable core of all existence, is the source
of the existence of the Universe in the same sense that mechanics and
electromagnetism are modes of the physical world. The Universe is a
limited manifestation of Pure Being. That's how the Supreme Being is
the source of its existence.


--

Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!

Report this message

#93: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 21:26:50 by wcb

Bob wrote:

&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:35:33 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;The Cosmological Argument, Anselms's Argument and the Argument from
&gt;&gt;Design are all bogus.
&gt;
&gt; Agreed. Aquinas had to do something for a living so he wrote the Summa
&gt; Theologica along with Albertus Magnus. However there is an argument
&gt; that is not based on theology, as you are well aware of.
&gt;
&gt;&gt;There is not a shred of empirical evidence for the
&gt;&gt;existence of The Great Knish.
&gt;
&gt; Pontification. The existence of the Universe is empirical evidence fo
&gt; the existence of the Supreme Being.
&gt;
&gt;

Since your god is easily disproven, the Universe
cannot be created by such.




--

&quot;Laughter is not a sin intrinsically, but it produces sin&quot;
&quot;Homilies - Adversus ebriosos et de resurrectione domini
nostri Jesu&quot; - St. John Chrysostom

Report this message

#94: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 21:30:29 by wcb

Bob wrote:

&gt; The Supreme Being is immutable and therefore is
&gt; the source of its own existence

The immutable cosmic rutabaga sits on it's &quot;root&quot; for all
of eternity and then, one day changes, it decides it must
make a Universe.

If it does so, if it changes from not wanting a
Universe to wanting one, it is not immutable.

Geeze, why can't you bozos use your brains to examine
your claims logically before you blurt them out and
make us laugh.

--

&quot;Laughter is not a sin intrinsically, but it produces sin&quot;
&quot;Homilies - Adversus ebriosos et de resurrectione domini
nostri Jesu&quot; - St. John Chrysostom

Report this message

#95: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 21:39:43 by wcb

Robert J. Kolker wrote:

&gt; Gandalf Grey wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; quite correct, but an odd comment coming from a believer in Parmenides'
&gt;&gt; boneheaded 'something cannot come from nothing' notion.
&gt;
&gt; Either something can suddenly come from nothing or there is something
&gt; that has -always- existed, hence does not need a cause.
&gt;
&gt; Bob Kolker

Obvious absolute nothing (Not the modern physicists' vaccum
nothing which is not nothing) has no potentiality for
creating anything and thus cannot be source of anything.
Thus, logically, something has always existed from eternity.
Logically, its a no brainer, and all other Greek philosphers
recognized it, Aristotle and Plato both accepted that.
It tells us a lot about the Universe.

It does not tell us if there was a god or not in all of this.

But one can also derive eternal time from this, since there was
an eternity, there was time. Modern xians (following Boethius)
often assert god is out of time, but that destroy everything
in a burst of metaphysical nihilism, showing following
Parmenides thoughts out as applied to time works also.
where as Augustine and Boethius do not.

----------------

DOES GOD EXIST? STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - NO.

1. OMNIGENESIS, DETERMINISM, FREE WILL, METAPHYSICAL
CHAOS AND THEOLOGICAL NIHILISM.

Omni - all, genesis - creation.
Omnigenesis = creation of all.

Here I shall coin a word for further discussion.
Omnigenesis means creation of all, to the smallest
physical detail. If god is in any way omniscient,
and creator of all, then he in fact creates all,
omnigenesis, to the smallest detail, all of creation
to the smallest quantum level material, to the smallest
Planck quantum distance, Planck quantum time, dimensions,
fields, everything, all of it. All that is, was, and
shall be and can be. All we know of and much physics
we do not as yet understand. And this god creates,
at higher levels, emergent qualities arising from these
basics create our physical world and us. This god creates us,
our actions, our consciousness, feelings, nature, mental
inclinations and surrounding environment. One man may
be a lawyer in California, another an illiterate peasant
in Bangladesh. One man may be good, another an evil
psychopath. Omnigenesis means god creates all things
and all of this and all men's actions and existance
to the smallest details. All we are and all we do to
the smallest detail possible is created knowingly,
and purposefully to the smallest possible degree.

Omnigenesis removes all possibility of free will.

2. THE OMNISCIENT, CREATOR GOD

God creates all, all our acts, inclinations, personalty,
to the smallest detail. This is extreme determinism.

God at the start of creation must look at what his
considered creation will create and decide, do I allow
this or that to happen?

Do I make John Smith 13 billion years into the future
a man who is evil and damned or good and saved to life
eternal in heaven? All acts Smith does are decided by god.
Does Smith at 10:23 June 24, 1999 commit murder or not?
God must look at that future and say yes, or no and then
create the world that will generate that future he has
personally and purposefully decided on. All acts of all
sentient beings are decided on and created in the smallest
possible detail, knowing, and purposefully by this omniscient
creator God from the begining of creation.

3. Omnigenesis destroys free will utterly and totally.

This destroys compatibilism, the doctrine god creates
all but we have free will, and even though god knows what
we do, he does not interfere with our free will to choose
what we do. Many people hold this doctrine is incoherent
and impossible that knowing what we do destroys free will.

But omnigenesis makes that argument moot anyway, we can
have no sort of free will at all in god creates all to
the smallest detail,and thus no sort of compatibilism
can be true. Compatibilism is now irrelevant and meaningless
as a dodge to explain way free will vs God's foreknowledge
of the future. God knows the future because he knowingly
creates its every tiniest detail.

4. THERE ARE 3 ASPECTS OF CREATOR GODS
OMNIGENESIS FORCES US TO CONSIDER.

A. The Clock maker, determinate universe, and foreknowledge

This is idea that god is omniscient, has foreknowledge
of the future because the universe is determinate.
That god somehow winds up the Universe and lets it go
and it goes on unfolding in a determinate manner, the
Deist god. The God of some natural theologies.

Laplace's demon is a thought experiment, a conceptual idea
invented by Pierre-Simon Laplace, the French Astronomer in
his work &quot;Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilit'es&quot; in 1820.

Laplace's demon is said to be able to know the future
relying on the Universe's explicit determinism to know
the future. God is theorized as just a sort of Laplacian
demon here. This god created a determinate Universe and
knows the future since he can calculate the future state
of the Universe from a starting state due specifically
to the determinate quality of the Universe.

Here, in a determinate Universe we can have no free
will.

Omnigenesis means there is no wind up universe
that unfolds, the Deist style great clock maker or
Aristotelian prime mover/creator. All is created to
the smallest detail in a detailed and totally,
purposefully, decided manner. Every atom of the Universe is
is created in a set position in time, all atoms,
and all that derive from them are set at creation.

Omnigenesis is totally determinate in a different
manner, this sort of determinism of all is created at
once, the fate of all in the Universe is decided at
one and in all particulars even before creation actually
commenced. God here knows the future because he knowing
and personally created every aspect of the future, not
because it unfolds in a determinate manner from a known
starting point.

B. God and omnipotence and time.

If god is omnipotent, or even just magnipotent, greatly
powerful, he is beyond being affected by mundane
things. Time does not affect god, he created time and
God controls time, time does not control or affect
God. For God there is no past, present, future, just now.
This is God as claimed by Augustine and Boethius.
God out of time, transcendent to time is a standard
theological claim because of these men.

But again it's omnigenesis. God creates all. And there
is no past, future all is now. Thus all is created at
once, now, in all its finest details. We are back to
omnigenesis as above.

We are driven there starting with claims god is
omnipotent and considering an omnipotent god who
created all and that god's relation to mundane time.

C. Omnigenesis - Creator of all and Omniscience

As seen above in 2., a god that is simple said to
be creator of all and omniscient even with no
particular theory how he knows all, out of time,
or creates a determinate word that unfolds, a God
with no explicit theory as to how he knows all,
also dooms free will in the strongest manner possible.
Just the fact this god is omniscience and creates all
is sufficient to create omnigenesis and doom all free
will even if we attempt to avoid mentioning how
god is theoretically omniscient to avoid being pinned
down by making an overt claim. Its no less destructive
to free will despite lack of specifity.

D. Three theories of creation, omniscience
1. Deterministic, clock maker style Universe.
The theoretical deterministic prime mover's world.
2. Omniscient - creator god.
3. Omnipotent god transcendent to time.

All 3 theories lead to total omnigenesis.
All 3 theories destroy any possible free will
totally in the strongest manner possible.


5. OMNIGENESIS AND METAPHYSICAL NIHILISM

A. God is alleged all good, totally good, omniscient,
creator of all. And the omni-everything creator
class of gods including the gods of Judaism, Islam,
Christianity and others have these attributes explicitly,
and also have other attributes.

B. These specific attributes
are to be found in various revelations, Quran, Bible
et al. Proof texts are used to make specific claims,
god is merciful, just, he wants us to be saved and
other similar claims.

C. God is just, merciful, he loves us and wants us to
be good and to be saved. God hates sin, evil and
punishes evil men for their acts, including eternal
damnation. And so on. Different religions may have
slightly different variations and emphasis on this
or that aspect of their god's abilities. Also involved
are more metaphysical considerations. God's perfection,
God as source of all morality.

But omnigenesis destroys all of this. Since God
creates all to the smallest atom, act, and inclination,
there is no room for love or mercy. Why create one
man good, saved and to have eternal life in heaven,
and the next man evil, damned and tortured in eternal
torment in the flames of hell for all eternity for
acts that god decided, planned and created in all
their minute details to the lowliest quark?

Why that if god loves us all is just and merciful?
Since free will means nothing in the strongest manner
imaginable, a god that loves us would create us all
saved, and good and to have life eternal in heaven
if that god is as claimed merciful, just and loving
and omnibenevolent. Since we have no free will its
all one and the same.

Heaven, hell, sin, salvation, damnation lose all
coherent sense and meaning. Where is love in
creating one man evil and many his victims?
How can that be loving, merciful or just?

All dissolves into a meaningless, incoherent nihilism,
a bewildering meaninglessness far beyond the supposed
meaninglessness of a materialistic, Atheistic world
without godm which many theists assert is the logical
end point of Atheism.

Here god is creator of grotesquely meaningless chaos.
A world without any meaning, a surreal Hieronymus
Bosch world of demons and angels and the damned,
heavens and hells with lakes of molten sulfur and
fiery flames and unrelenting torture for men who
were only toys of a relentlessly mad, and meaningless
monster god who created them damned, for reasons unknown,
and unknowable, and irrational to nihilistic extremes.

6. SOULS

And supposedly this god creates souls, which somehow,
are attached to our physical bodies and minds and
are part of the heart of our very existence. Then again,
along with our bodies, our minds, our acts, our inclinations,
god must have created these souls. But he also must have
created them in relationship to our physical body and its
created acts, acts created by god to the smallest details.
It is the soul that allegedly is damned or saved and lives
for ever, or some such, but again, all acts of ours are
created by omnigenesis to the smallest quark so god either also
creates a corresponding soul, damned or saved in parallel.
Or maybe not, who can tell with such an incoherent chaotic,
senseless, irrational system?

The doctrine of souls, confusing enough as is, now becomes
impossible to explain in any fashion. It makes no sense
in a physical world that is determinate to the most
exacting omnigenesistic manner, how does a soul fit
into that world?

With omnigenesis all bets are off, all supposed knowledge
is impossible and incoherent to extremes.

7. CHAOS, NIHILISM, IRRATIONALITY, UNREALITY OF ALL

We achieve then total, absolute, furious metaphysical nihilism.
God is mad, and nothing in reality, or metaphysics or any possible
afterlife can be trusted. All supposed systems of metaphysics,
philosophy, religion, theology and reality are destroyed until
the rubble of it all is sucked into a chaotic surreal abyss of
irrational metaphysics undreamed of by thinking man.

Good, evil, sin, salvation, damnation, sin, souls, heaven,
hell, love, mercy, justice, theodicy, teleology, ontology,
all makes no sense in the strongest terms. the class of
omni-everything, creator Gods destroys everything
with corrosive finality.

Theology, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, philosophy,
science, nothing makes the slightest sense in an omnigenesistic
world, with a god that destroys all it touches if we claim
this personal, concious god is all knowing and creates all.

God then is perfect intellectual nihilism.

This is In the end, taken to their logical ends are all
theology religion, and omni-everything, creator god class
religion can possibly hope to achieve. Utter madness
and total incoherence. Compared to this atheistic
materialism is mankind's only rational hope.

Materialism must be true, the only truth possible. The Grand
Gods of Grand Theologies not only self destruct, but destroy
everything else with such incredible thoroughness and totality
that they cannot possibly be truth or reality.

There is no comparison, only with metaphysical materialism
and utter lack of these classes of gods can we find reality
reason and sanity. Systems that work and are rational. Creative
rather than nihilistic to the extreme that theology can be
show to be nihilistic and thus in teh end, irrelevant to all
things.

This doctrine of omnigenesis destroys all and cannot possibly
be true. But all theology of omnipotent, omniscient creator
gods drive us to omnigenesis with logical and unrelenting
thoroughness. Those doctrines and claims that create a
omnigenetical god, omniscience, and creatorship of all,
omnipotence, time, foreknowledge of the future, combine to
create total total metaphysical nihilism. Multiple, overlapping
problems that cannot be fixed or explained away. Religion can never
be more than nihilism unless it abandons totally the doctrines
of omniscience, omnipotence, and creatorship of all things
by god. This utterly destroys the class of omni-everything
gods and all religions, Islam, Christianity, Brahmanistic
Hinduism, Judaism and all other religions built on the
doctrine that there is an omni-everything, creator god.

In the end, we have two stark and plain choices, sane
materialism, or total theological/metaphysical nihilism.
There is really then, only one choice to which we are driven
by logic and rationality.



(End)

--

&quot;Laughter is not a sin intrinsically, but it produces sin&quot;
&quot;Homilies - Adversus ebriosos et de resurrectione domini
nostri Jesu&quot; - St. John Chrysostom

Report this message

#96: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 21:48:50 by Denis Loubet

&quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4hur2sF1bd3tU3&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4hur2sF1bd3tU3&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; Denis Loubet wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Hence I would say they might be smarter than me, but they were also more
&gt;&gt; ignorant than me.
&gt;
&gt; That is correct. Being the ancients, they knew less. And in millenia to
&gt; come, the people alive then will wonder at our ignorance, too.

Ain't that the truth!


--
Denis Loubet
<a href="mailto:dloubet&#64;io.com" target="_blank">dloubet&#64;io.com</a>
<a href="http://www.io.com/~dloubet" target="_blank">http://www.io.com/~dloubet</a>
<a href="http://www.ashenempires.com" target="_blank">http://www.ashenempires.com</a>

Report this message

#97: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 21:54:57 by Stephen Fairchild

Bob wrote:

&gt;&gt;&gt; How did Fermi use that conjecture to formulate a successful theory of
&gt;&gt;&gt; nuclear fission?
&gt;
&gt;&gt;A theory which was later shown to be correct.
&gt;
&gt; How fortunate. If he and Pauli had been wrong we'd be eating sishi and
&gt; sipping saki right now.

Oh please.
--
Stephen Fairchild

Report this message

#98: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 22:02:48 by wcb

Robert J. Kolker wrote:

&gt; Ian Braidwood wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; You assert this but have no evidence to support the claim. 'logic
&gt;&gt; demands it' I hear you cry but no it doesn't if the basic premises are
&gt;&gt; flawed and indeed they are. On the quantum level something can indeed
&gt;&gt; come from nothing and something can become nothing too. The
&gt;&gt; cosmological arguement rests on bad physics.
&gt;
&gt; The physics is good. It is experimentally corrobertated and has not yet
&gt; been experimentally falsified. That is as good as it gets. It is the
&gt; philosophy that is bad.
&gt;
&gt; Bob Kolker

The problem is, nothing in sense of a hard vaccuum
and nothing in Parmenide's sense are two very different
things.

A hard vaccum seems to be nothing but it has time, dimensions
and fields that give rise to matter. It is filled with a negative and
positive energy that is balanced to equal 0, but from which energy
virtual particles can arise. It is a Universe of branes, and fields.

It is not at all nothing.

When Parmenides says nothing, he does not mean nothing in a modern day
physics sense. Parmenides means nothing and no things at all, nothing
with a potentiality to create something.


--

&quot;Laughter is not a sin intrinsically, but it produces sin&quot;
&quot;Homilies - Adversus ebriosos et de resurrectione domini
nostri Jesu&quot; - St. John Chrysostom

Report this message

#99: Re: A white girl learns all about niggers the hard way

Posted on 2006-07-16 22:18:00 by Jerry Camp

The Chinese on the west coast were treated horribly, but they were as human
as slaves in the South. That's why blacks are currently the fastest growing
segment of the conservative voting ranks. They're starting to get it.
Education, not hate, will bring healthy assimilation into America.

&quot;Mr Bigun&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net" target="_blank">BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:oltib21m73s7ucqgsmjfv6a3pj7uuf1gf8&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">oltib21m73s7ucqgsmjfv6a3pj7uuf1gf8&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:26:36 GMT, &quot;Jerry Camp&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com" target="_blank">jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com</a>&gt;
&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Nope, my mammy had three boys, all conservatives, who don't need your kind
&gt;&gt;of bigotry to address the issues caused by blacks' poor decision not to
&gt;&gt;assimilate into American culture. They're joined by illegal aliens in that
&gt;&gt;faulty way of thinking led by a bunch of corrupt racists who concurrently
&gt;&gt;teach that 'The Man' is out to get you, but 'The Man' is the only way to
&gt;&gt;assure success through bogus welfare and social spending on the backs of
&gt;&gt;the
&gt;&gt;successful.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Ask yourself, how did the Irish, Italians, and Chinese (and others) become
&gt;&gt;successful in the New World, when they came over penniless and in many
&gt;&gt;cases, in the slavery of indentured servitude?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; They didnt sit around whining about how &quot;da man be holdin me's
&gt; back&quot;.. or spending all their money on gold rim, gold teeth, haido's,
&gt; nail jobs, crack, brick, or nighttrain. And the Irish were treated as
&gt; bad as any slave .. worse in most cases.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&quot;Mr Bigun&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net" target="_blank">BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt;news:<a href="mailto:tp8hb2dkt0cjf1jvv4gm2aet6g8get6j3l&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">tp8hb2dkt0cjf1jvv4gm2aet6g8get6j3l&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 04:36:41 GMT, &quot;Jerry Camp&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com" target="_blank">jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com</a>&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Hopefully, you'll be 'fixed' before you have kids.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Too bad the trash that you call mammy, and every one else calls
&gt;&gt;&gt; crackheaded ho, wasn't fixored b4 u came out.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&quot;Mr Bigun&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net" target="_blank">BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;news:<a href="mailto:uqrgb21qfm62ra3869vb0gml5vifefb6jq&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">uqrgb21qfm62ra3869vb0gml5vifefb6jq&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:51:04 GMT, &quot;Jerry Camp&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com" target="_blank">jcamp&#64;midsouth.rr.com</a>&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Let me get this straight...
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Claim that white 15 year old guys kill their parents 'all the time' is
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;hyperbole, but your suggestion that black men dating white girls do so
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;isn't?
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Hypocrisy, thy name is nigger
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; FIXED
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; .
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&quot;Panzerfaust&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:utahraptor88&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">utahraptor88&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;news:<a href="mailto:i5cga2940gt0mmpqber3mic5603l1d7udb&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">i5cga2940gt0mmpqber3mic5603l1d7udb&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 14:49:46 -0700, &quot;Brandon Hex&quot;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:Brandon_Hex&#64;comcast.net" target="_blank">Brandon_Hex&#64;comcast.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;While i liker yer attempt at fueling the flames of racial hate...
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;... this really goes onto just men in general. I mean 15 year old
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;white
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;boys
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;kill their parents all the time.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; All the time? Abit with the hyperbole don't you think?
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;This has nothing to do with race. Just a story ofa dumb gullable
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;girl
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;who
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;let a man kill her parents for a few bucks befor they both went to
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;jail.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;It's the classic American love story.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; --
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Today's liberalism is a mental disease. It's primary
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; cause is the cowardice born of extreme self-centerdness
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; . Too afraid to admit the existence of the forces of
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; evil which will stop at nothing less than genocide,
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; the liberal deludes himself into the comforting fantasy
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; that these forces of evil are merely victims and that
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; they can be brought around by 'right action' on the
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; part of the US. The liberal then blames the US and
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; patriotic Americans for the state of affairs. The
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; liberal further comforts himself by believing that,
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; in attacking America, he is battling the forces of
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; evil like a true hero.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Anyone who points to the factual errors in this mode
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; of thinking is forcing the liberal to confront his own
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; cowardice and irrationality. That's why they react
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; with such hatred to anyone who disagrees with their
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; dogma.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; As this dogma gets reinforced through decades of
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; repetition in the media, it gets more and more
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; pronounced. Today's liberals have thus become traitors
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; whose cowardice has led them to make common cause
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; with the enemies of America. They have willingly
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; become enemies of America.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;

Report this message

#100: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 22:20:43 by James Gim

Enkidu &lt;<a href="mailto:ox_qljjor&#64;trashmail.net" target="_blank">ox_qljjor&#64;trashmail.net</a>&gt; wrote in
news:<a href="mailto:Xns98026535BD9A255229&#64;130.133.1.4" target="_blank">Xns98026535BD9A255229&#64;130.133.1.4</a>:

&gt; &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote in news:4hv7jlF1e4r3U1
&gt; @individual.net:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Bob wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; How did Pauli infer the existence of the neutrino?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; It was an ad hoc hypothesis to maintain conservation. It turned out
&gt;&gt; he was right.
&gt;
&gt; Classic science. Make a hypothesis based on what you know, then see
&gt; if that hypothesis makes prediction you can then test to confirm or
&gt; contradict the hypothesis.

Science is a religion.

Report this message

#101: Re: Atheism... Religion..or cult..?

Posted on 2006-07-16 22:35:13 by Douglas Berry

What's so funny about peace, love and Mr Bigun &lt;<a href="mailto:BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net" target="_blank">BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net</a>&gt;
posting the following on Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:02:43 -0500 iin
alt.atheism?

&gt; They believe that there is no god.. and belief of something so
&gt;strongly = religion..

No, atheism is a lack of belief.

&gt;however..
&gt;
&gt; They are bizarre loonies that don't act in a normal manner, have
&gt;bizarre beliefs and are completely irrational.. as are most cults...

We're not the ones talking to invisible friends, buddy.

&gt; Scientology as a fine example of bizarre cultish beliefs..

They, on the other hand, have a belief system. Omne written by a hack
science-fiction author, and so damn silly they have to keep it secret,
but they have one.

&gt; Scientologist are idiots and Atheists are non-believing morons.. they
&gt;should all be stoned to death!

You are more than welcome to come out to San Jose, CA, to try it. You
won't, of course.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011

&quot;The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed.&quot; - Albert Einstein

Report this message

#102: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 22:46:50 by Frank Mayhar

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:25:37 +0000, Bob wrote:
&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:35:33 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;There is not a shred of empirical evidence for the
&gt;&gt;existence of The Great Knish.
&gt; Pontification. The existence of the Universe is empirical evidence fo
&gt; the existence of the Supreme Being.

Except for the fact that it isn't.

The existence of the universe (hint: no capitalization, it isn't a proper
noun) only provides empirical evidence of itself, not of some silly idea
that it was &quot;created.&quot; Not even of your &quot;supreme being&quot; having given it
the initial push and then taken off for parts unknowable. So far,
everything that we as a species have learned has told us that there is no
&quot;gap&quot; in which a &quot;supreme being&quot; might be hiding, much less one that takes
an active part in the so-called &quot;creation.&quot; It's all, so far, explainable.

I mean, where, exactly, is this &quot;supreme being?&quot; Besides in your
fantasies. It is nowhere in the observable universe.
--
Frank Mayhar <a href="mailto:frank&#64;exit.com" target="_blank">frank&#64;exit.com</a> <a href="http://www.exit.com/" target="_blank">http://www.exit.com/</a>
Exit Consulting <a href="http://www.gpsclock.com/" target="_blank">http://www.gpsclock.com/</a>
<a href="http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/" target="_blank">http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/</a>

Report this message

#103: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 22:49:49 by Frank Mayhar

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:22:01 +0000, Bob wrote:
&gt; [mental masturbation snipped]

That's all well and good, but what does it have to do with us here in the
real world? The _empirical_ world? The one in which we all live? You
can engage in all the mental gymnastics you want to make room in the
universe for your &quot;supreme being&quot; but it doesn't matter a whit as far as
the universe itself is concerned. It just goes right along existing,
godless. Or should I say, &quot;supreme-being-less.&quot;
--
Frank Mayhar <a href="mailto:frank&#64;exit.com" target="_blank">frank&#64;exit.com</a> <a href="http://www.exit.com/" target="_blank">http://www.exit.com/</a>
Exit Consulting <a href="http://www.gpsclock.com/" target="_blank">http://www.gpsclock.com/</a>
<a href="http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/" target="_blank">http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/</a>

Report this message

#104: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 22:52:59 by Frank Mayhar

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:36:15 +0000, Bob wrote:
&gt; On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:49:50 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;Reality CANNOT be deduced from a priori principles. At least one measurement must be made.
&gt; Cogito is that one measurement.

Which assertion only shows that you don't have the first clue how
unreliable human minds are. We fool ourselves constantly, it's how we
live in the world. What we think we see and hear isn't what is really
there, it's how we interpret it. But at least that gives us some
connection with empirical reality. Without that connection, all you have
are fantasies and wishful thinking. Without a strong connection to
empirical reality you get solipsism, and we all know how well _that_
works.
--
Frank Mayhar <a href="mailto:frank&#64;exit.com" target="_blank">frank&#64;exit.com</a> <a href="http://www.exit.com/" target="_blank">http://www.exit.com/</a>
Exit Consulting <a href="http://www.gpsclock.com/" target="_blank">http://www.gpsclock.com/</a>
<a href="http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/" target="_blank">http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/</a>

Report this message

#105: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 22:54:07 by Gandalf Grey

&quot;Bob&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:spam&#64;uce.gov" target="_blank">spam&#64;uce.gov</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:44ba8ce5.23462453&#64;news-server.houston.rr.com..." target="_blank">44ba8ce5.23462453&#64;news-server.houston.rr.com...</a>
&gt; On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:19:35 -0700, &quot;Gandalf Grey&quot;
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:gandalfgrey&#64;infectedmail.com" target="_blank">gandalfgrey&#64;infectedmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Actually if the universe means &quot;everything&quot; and the universe is eternal,
&gt;&gt;it
&gt;&gt;does necessarily imply acausality. If the universe contains everything,
&gt;&gt;there is nothing left to 'cause' the universe. Hence, the universe is
&gt;&gt;acausal.
&gt;
&gt; Both your major premise and your conclusion are fatally flawed, for
&gt; the same reasons.
&gt;
&gt; The Universe is eternal, because it is a Mode of Being.

Argument by assertion.

&gt; But it is not
&gt; &quot;everything&quot;. It can't be everything because it is mutable.

Argument by definition.

&gt; Mutable
&gt; entities cannot be the source of their own existence.

Argument by assertion.

&gt;
&gt; You are using the term &quot;causal&quot; in a physical sense of temporal cause
&gt; and effect. But there is another kind of causality - in the
&gt; ontological sense. The source of existence of something is causally
&gt; related to the thing that relies on that source for its existence.
&gt;
&gt; For example, not only does a musical note require a cause physically,
&gt; it requires a cause ontologically, for without the existence of the
&gt; musical instrument, it could not exist.

Distinction without a difference.

&gt;
&gt;&gt;The universe being mutable does not imply the necessary existence of an
&gt;&gt;immutable being.
&gt;
&gt; Yes it does. A mutable entity like the Universe cannot be the source
&gt; of its own existence

You have not shown this to be logically necessary in any sense.


-&gt;
&gt;&gt;How do you &quot;know&quot; the Supreme being is &quot;immutable.&quot; and is &quot;therefore the
&gt;&gt;source of its own existence?
&gt;
&gt; The existence of the Supreme Being is inferred from the mutability of
&gt; the Universe

No it isn't. It's an argument by assertion.

&gt; , as you can clearly see from the argument above.

There is no argument you've made above. Assertions and definitions are not
arguments, they have no 'because' aspect to them.

&gt; Since
&gt; the Universe cannot be the source of its own existence, there must be
&gt; an entity that is the source of the existence of the Universe.

Non-sequitur. Even if it were true that the universe was not the source of
its own existence, it would not imply an 'entity' must have been the source
of the Universe.

&gt; This
&gt; entity must be immutable in order to be the source of existence of
&gt; anything.

Non-sequitur.

&gt;It is the Being whose essence is Being. It is Pure Being.

Argument by assertion.

&gt;
&gt;&gt;I'm not sure that it
&gt;&gt;is a classic case of question begging, but you certainly seemed to have
&gt;&gt;introduced additional terms so as not to have to answer the question
&gt;&gt;that's
&gt;&gt;been put to you.
&gt;
&gt; I answered the question of what is the source of existence of the
&gt; Universe.

By an assertion only. You've presented no argument.

&gt;
&gt;&gt;How can you prove that the universe is not eternal?
&gt;
&gt; The Universe is eternal.
&gt;
&gt;&gt;How can you prove that whether or not the universe is eternal, you
&gt;&gt;universe
&gt;&gt;requires a supreme being?
&gt;
&gt; It requires a Supreme Being whether it is eternal or not because it is
&gt; mutable and therefore cannot be the source of its own existence.

Unproven as demonstrated above.

&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; There is no question begging when you realize that the Supreme Being
&gt;&gt;&gt; is immutable.
&gt;
&gt;&gt;And how does this &quot;realization&quot; come about, Bob?
&gt;
&gt; Because it is the source of existence of all that exists. It IS
&gt; existence - it is Being. All else that exists are Modes of Being,
&gt; different aspects of Being. There is only Pure Being and its many
&gt; manifestations. The Universe is one such manifestation.

Nothing but pure assertion on your part. No argument, no evidence.

Report this message

#106: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 22:55:06 by Frank Mayhar

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:00:35 +0000, Bob wrote:
&gt; On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:16:12 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;The physics is good. It is experimentally corrobertated and has not yet
&gt;&gt;been experimentally falsified. That is as good as it gets. It is the
&gt;&gt;philosophy that is bad.
&gt; Pontification.

I don't think that word means what you think it means, Bob.
--
Frank Mayhar <a href="mailto:frank&#64;exit.com" target="_blank">frank&#64;exit.com</a> <a href="http://www.exit.com/" target="_blank">http://www.exit.com/</a>
Exit Consulting <a href="http://www.gpsclock.com/" target="_blank">http://www.gpsclock.com/</a>
<a href="http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/" target="_blank">http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/</a>

Report this message

#107: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 22:56:25 by Frank Mayhar

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:28:02 -0500, the Bede wrote:
&gt; &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:4htjgbF16vgnU2&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4htjgbF16vgnU2&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt;&gt; Gospel Bretts wrote:
&gt;&gt; &gt; All those guys were indeed smarter than me. So was/is Russell,
&gt;&gt; &gt; Einstein, Dawkins, Sagan and many other folks who didn't/don't accept
&gt;&gt; &gt; the cosmological argument. Your point?
&gt;&gt; The Cosmological Argument, Anselms's Argument and the Argument from
&gt;&gt; Design are all bogus. There is not a shred of empirical evidence for the
&gt;&gt; existence of The Great Knish.
&gt;&gt;
&gt; the universe is shaped like a burrito.

And we're all in the deep guacamole.
--
Frank Mayhar <a href="mailto:frank&#64;exit.com" target="_blank">frank&#64;exit.com</a> <a href="http://www.exit.com/" target="_blank">http://www.exit.com/</a>
Exit Consulting <a href="http://www.gpsclock.com/" target="_blank">http://www.gpsclock.com/</a>
<a href="http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/" target="_blank">http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/</a>

Report this message

#108: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-16 22:57:58 by Gandalf Grey

&quot;Frank Mayhar&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:frank&#64;exit.com" target="_blank">frank&#64;exit.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:pan.2006.07.16.20.46.47.793876&#64;exit.com..." target="_blank">pan.2006.07.16.20.46.47.793876&#64;exit.com...</a>
&gt; On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:25:37 +0000, Bob wrote:
&gt;&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:35:33 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;There is not a shred of empirical evidence for the
&gt;&gt;&gt;existence of The Great Knish.
&gt;&gt; Pontification. The existence of the Universe is empirical evidence fo
&gt;&gt; the existence of the Supreme Being.
&gt;
&gt; Except for the fact that it isn't.
&gt;
&gt; The existence of the universe (hint: no capitalization, it isn't a proper
&gt; noun) only provides empirical evidence of itself, not of some silly idea
&gt; that it was &quot;created.&quot;

Well said. The universe is evidence of the universe.


Not even of your &quot;supreme being&quot; having given it
&gt; the initial push and then taken off for parts unknowable. So far,
&gt; everything that we as a species have learned has told us that there is no
&gt; &quot;gap&quot; in which a &quot;supreme being&quot; might be hiding, much less one that takes
&gt; an active part in the so-called &quot;creation.&quot; It's all, so far,
&gt; explainable.
&gt;
&gt; I mean, where, exactly, is this &quot;supreme being?&quot; Besides in your
&gt; fantasies. It is nowhere in the observable universe.
&gt; --
&gt; Frank Mayhar <a href="mailto:frank&#64;exit.com" target="_blank">frank&#64;exit.com</a> <a href="http://www.exit.com/" target="_blank">http://www.exit.com/</a>
&gt; Exit Consulting <a href="http://www.gpsclock.com/" target="_blank">http://www.gpsclock.com/</a>
&gt; <a href="http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/" target="_blank">http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/</a>
&gt;

Report this message

#109: Re: Atheism... Religion..or cult..?

Posted on 2006-07-16 23:26:03 by unknown

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Report this message

#110: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-17 00:23:38 by Asleep

James Gim wrote:&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Science is a religion.

No it isn't. It is subject to falsification if experiment shows that a
prediction is incorrect.

Bob Kolker

Report this message

#111: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-17 00:34:38 by John Baker

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 12:36:19 GMT, <a href="mailto:spam&#64;uce.gov" target="_blank">spam&#64;uce.gov</a> (Bob) wrote:

&gt;On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:02:32 GMT, John Baker &lt;<a href="mailto:nunya&#64;bizniz.net" target="_blank">nunya&#64;bizniz.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;And because philosophy, for all its pretense of intellectualism, is
&gt;&gt;when all's said and done little more than mental masturbation. It's of
&gt;&gt;no more value than religion in the real world.
&gt;
&gt;Would you say the same thing about Physics? Metaphysics?


Physics, no. Metaphysics, yes.

Report this message

#112: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-17 00:35:46 by John Baker

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:31:32 -0400, &quot;Atlas Bugged&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:atlasbuggedBYspam&#64;gmail.com" target="_blank">atlasbuggedBYspam&#64;gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;&quot;John Baker&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:nunya&#64;bizniz.net" target="_blank">nunya&#64;bizniz.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;news:<a href="mailto:ejrjb254a5dr5bvp9hp85a6raot0h8mbkh&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">ejrjb254a5dr5bvp9hp85a6raot0h8mbkh&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt;&gt;philosophy, for all its pretense of intellectualism, is
&gt;&gt; when all's said and done little more than mental masturbation. It's of
&gt;&gt; no more value than religion in the real world.
&gt;
&gt;So vastly, incredibly wrong, but you get an Honesty Credit for saying what
&gt;so many actually believe but refuse to enunciate.
&gt;<a href="http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/index.html</a>
&gt;
&gt;Philosophy IS identification and understanding of the real world. Your
&gt;spectacularly wrong statement just flows from the spectacularly bad mess
&gt;that religion and most philosophers have made of it.
&gt;
&gt;Philosophy is your life's owner's manual. The aspect of your view that is
&gt;true is that almost every such manual published to date, if followed, would
&gt;not allow you to survive childhood.

I'm sorry, that's wrong, but thanks for playing.


&gt;

Report this message

#113: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-17 00:43:16 by John Baker

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 12:25:37 GMT, <a href="mailto:spam&#64;uce.gov" target="_blank">spam&#64;uce.gov</a> (Bob) wrote:

&gt;On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:35:33 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&gt;&lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;The Cosmological Argument, Anselms's Argument and the Argument from
&gt;&gt;Design are all bogus.
&gt;
&gt;Agreed. Aquinas had to do something for a living so he wrote the Summa
&gt;Theologica along with Albertus Magnus. However there is an argument
&gt;that is not based on theology, as you are well aware of.

Which is no better or more convincing than the arguments that *are*
based on theology.

&gt;
&gt;&gt;There is not a shred of empirical evidence for the
&gt;&gt;existence of The Great Knish.
&gt;
&gt;Pontification. The existence of the Universe is empirical evidence fo
&gt;the existence of the Supreme Being.

Unsupported assertion and assuming the conclusion.

Report this message

#114: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-17 00:51:09 by John Baker

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:41:59 GMT, <a href="mailto:spam&#64;uce.gov" target="_blank">spam&#64;uce.gov</a> (Bob) wrote:

&gt;On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:55:06 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&gt;&lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Pontification. The existence of the Universe is empirical evidence fo
&gt;&gt;&gt; the existence of the Supreme Being.
&gt;
&gt;&gt;That is what you have -assumed- and never proven. The Universe could be
&gt;&gt;eternal and not need a Supreme Being.
&gt;
&gt;Eternal does not necessarily imply acausal.
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Or perhaps the Universe IS the Supreme Being.
&gt;
&gt;Close but not quite right. The Universe is a Mode of Being, but it is
&gt;not the Supreme Being. The Universe is mutable and cannot be its own
&gt;cause of existence. The Supreme Being is immutable and therefore is
&gt;the source of its own existence.
&gt;
&gt;&gt;And don't give me that question begging shit about how a
&gt;&gt;Supreme Being must be changeless.
&gt;
&gt;Straw man.
&gt;
&gt;There is no question begging when you realize that the Supreme Being
&gt;is immutable.

If the &quot;Supreme Being&quot; is immutable, then it cannot create. It cannot
think, it cannot learn, it cannot know or do anything. All of those
things require some degree of change - something which, by your own
words, the &quot;Supreme Being&quot; is incapable of.

Report this message

#115: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-17 00:56:28 by John Baker

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:55:06 -0700, Frank Mayhar &lt;<a href="mailto:frank&#64;exit.com" target="_blank">frank&#64;exit.com</a>&gt;
wrote:

&gt;On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:00:35 +0000, Bob wrote:
&gt;&gt; On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:16:12 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;The physics is good. It is experimentally corrobertated and has not yet
&gt;&gt;&gt;been experimentally falsified. That is as good as it gets. It is the
&gt;&gt;&gt;philosophy that is bad.
&gt;&gt; Pontification.
&gt;
&gt;I don't think that word means what you think it means, Bob.

I don't think a lot of words mean what Bob thinks they do.

Report this message

#116: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-17 01:01:15 by quibbler

In article &lt;<a href="mailto:44ba2fb8.4082765&#64;news-server.houston.rr.com" target="_blank">44ba2fb8.4082765&#64;news-server.houston.rr.com</a>&gt;, <a href="mailto:spam&#64;uce.gov" target="_blank">spam&#64;uce.gov</a>
says...
&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:35:33 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt;The Cosmological Argument, Anselms's Argument and the Argument from
&gt; &gt;Design are all bogus.
&gt;
&gt; Agreed. Aquinas had to do something for a living

Yeah, and EquineAss had to produce lots of bogus arguments to pay the
bills, since, as the the love child of jabba the hutt and fat bastard,
satisfying his dietary requirements were no mean feat. I'm suprised that
the vatican treasury wasn't exhausted in the process of feeding him. By
some accounts the guy was too fat to come out of his room. I mean, we
sometimes talk about &quot;heavy thinkers&quot;, but he was ridiculous.
BTW, it's hard to believe that EquineAss could be a saint, given his
apparent gluttony. Granted, he had less trouble with other sins, such as
carnal temptations, since nobody would want to sleep with him anyway. As
to his miracles, one imagines that merely the act of *walking* probably
counted as one of them.


&gt; so he wrote the Summa
&gt; Theologica along with Albertus Magnus.

The vatican has the original copy complete with all the greasy-fingered
food stains.


&gt; However there is an argument
&gt; that is not based on theology,

Good, because theology is pretty universally a bunch of bullshit.

&gt; as you are well aware of.
&gt;
OK.

&gt; &gt;There is not a shred of empirical evidence for the
&gt; &gt;existence of The Great Knish.
&gt;
&gt; Pontification. The existence of the Universe is empirical evidence fo
&gt; the existence of the Supreme Being.

Not at all. If anything, it is evidence that no such supreme being was
required, in order for the universe to exist, assuming that you even can
meaningfully define the supreme being entity you're babbling about.


--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
&quot;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.&quot; -- Richard Dawkins

Report this message

#117: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-17 01:11:09 by quibbler

In article &lt;<a href="mailto:44ba419e.4191437&#64;news-server.houston.rr.com" target="_blank">44ba419e.4191437&#64;news-server.houston.rr.com</a>&gt;, <a href="mailto:spam&#64;uce.gov" target="_blank">spam&#64;uce.gov</a>
says...
&gt; On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:55:06 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; Pontification. The existence of the Universe is empirical evidence fo
&gt; &gt;&gt; the existence of the Supreme Being.
&gt;
&gt; &gt;That is what you have -assumed- and never proven. The Universe could be
&gt; &gt;eternal and not need a Supreme Being.
&gt;
&gt; Eternal does not necessarily imply acausal.

Sure it does, since a cause must be temporally antecedent to the effect
and &quot;eternal&quot; means that there was not time when it did not already
exist. Thus, there is no way for a cause to precede an eternal thing.



&gt;
&gt; &gt;Or perhaps the Universe IS the Supreme Being.
&gt;
&gt; Close but not quite right. The Universe is a Mode of Being,

No, it is more than merely a mode of being. It is everything that was,
is, or will be. It is not merely existence, but that which exists.



&gt; but it is
&gt; not the Supreme Being.

No, because it actually exists, unlike a Supreme Being.


&gt; The Universe is mutable

So fucking what?

&gt; and cannot be its own
&gt; cause of existence.

You haven't established that it needs a cause. The fact that it is
&quot;mutable&quot; doesn't imply that it needs a &quot;cause&quot;


&gt; The Supreme Being is immutable

Zero plus zero is still zero, it's true.


&gt; and therefore is
&gt; the source of its own existence.


WTF does that mean, the &quot;source of its own existence&quot;. Are you saying
that a supreme being really can be born in the log cabin it built itself?


&gt;
&gt; &gt;And don't give me that question begging shit about how a
&gt; &gt;Supreme Being must be changeless.
&gt;
&gt; Straw man.

How so. He anticipated your claim. You're now relying on the very claim
of immutability about which you are ineffectually protesting.



&gt;
&gt; There is no question begging when you realize that the Supreme Being
&gt; is immutable.

The fact that he doesn't exist makes him all the more &quot;immutable&quot;. But
you are still begging the question by assuming his immutability when that
is what you need to prove, as well as his existence, among other things.



--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
&quot;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.&quot; -- Richard Dawkins

Report this message

#118: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-17 01:23:25 by CatPanDaddy

&quot;quibbler&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:quibbler247&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">quibbler247&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:MPG.1f2473274b83c84989b34&#64;news.readfreenews.net..." target="_blank">MPG.1f2473274b83c84989b34&#64;news.readfreenews.net...</a>
&gt; In article &lt;<a href="mailto:44ba2fb8.4082765&#64;news-server.houston.rr.com" target="_blank">44ba2fb8.4082765&#64;news-server.houston.rr.com</a>&gt;, <a href="mailto:spam&#64;uce.gov" target="_blank">spam&#64;uce.gov</a>
&gt; says...
&gt;&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:35:33 -0500, &quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot;
&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;The Cosmological Argument, Anselms's Argument and the Argument from
&gt;&gt; &gt;Design are all bogus.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Agreed. Aquinas had to do something for a living
&gt;
&gt; Yeah, and EquineAss had to produce lots of bogus arguments to pay the
&gt; bills, since, as the the love child of jabba the hutt and fat bastard,
&gt; satisfying his dietary requirements were no mean feat. I'm suprised that
&gt; the vatican treasury wasn't exhausted in the process of feeding him. By
&gt; some accounts the guy was too fat to come out of his room. I mean, we
&gt; sometimes talk about &quot;heavy thinkers&quot;, but he was ridiculous.
&gt; BTW, it's hard to believe that EquineAss could be a saint, given his
&gt; apparent gluttony. Granted, he had less trouble with other sins, such as
&gt; carnal temptations, since nobody would want to sleep with him anyway. As
&gt; to his miracles, one imagines that merely the act of *walking* probably
&gt; counted as one of them.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt; so he wrote the Summa
&gt;&gt; Theologica along with Albertus Magnus.
&gt;
&gt; The vatican has the original copy complete with all the greasy-fingered
&gt; food stains.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt; However there is an argument
&gt;&gt; that is not based on theology,
&gt;
&gt; Good, because theology is pretty universally a bunch of bullshit.
&gt;
&gt;&gt; as you are well aware of.
&gt;&gt;
&gt; OK.
&gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;There is not a shred of empirical evidence for the
&gt;&gt; &gt;existence of The Great Knish.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Pontification. The existence of the Universe is empirical evidence fo
&gt;&gt; the existence of the Supreme Being.
&gt;
&gt; Not at all. If anything, it is evidence that no such supreme being was
&gt; required, in order for the universe to exist, assuming that you even can
&gt; meaningfully define the supreme being entity you're babbling about.
&gt;

He's already explained this in too many threads to count... his being isn't an
entity, it's an act... the verb &quot;being&quot;, not the noun.

Doesn't help much, but there it is.

Report this message

#119: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-17 01:36:36 by CatPanDaddy

&quot;quibbler&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:quibbler247&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">quibbler247&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:MPG.1f247573e253ff5e989b35&#64;news.readfreenews.net..." target="_blank">MPG.1f247573e253ff5e989b35&#64;news.readfreenews.net...</a>

&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; There is no question begging when you realize that the Supreme Being
&gt;&gt; is immutable.
&gt;
&gt; The fact that he doesn't exist makes him all the more &quot;immutable&quot;. But
&gt; you are still begging the question by assuming his immutability when that
&gt; is what you need to prove, as well as his existence, among other things.
&gt;

He's already explained this in too many threads to count... his &quot;being&quot; isn't an
entity, it's an act... he's using the verb definition of the word &quot;being&quot;, not
the noun.

Doesn't help much, but there it is.

Report this message

#120: Re: Atheism... Religion..or cult..?

Posted on 2006-07-17 01:40:02 by cobalt

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:26:03 -0500, Mr Bigun &lt;<a href="mailto:BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net" target="_blank">BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net</a>&gt;
wrote:

&gt;On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:15:49 -0700, Frank J Warner
&gt;&lt;<a href="mailto:warnerf&#64;veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net" target="_blank">warnerf&#64;veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;In article &lt;<a href="mailto:bhokb252r60c40ep2l9jmi1n5vg4a29v7p&#64;4ax.com" target="_blank">bhokb252r60c40ep2l9jmi1n5vg4a29v7p&#64;4ax.com</a>&gt;, Mr Bigun
&gt;&gt;&lt;<a href="mailto:BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net" target="_blank">BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; They believe that there is no god.. and belief of something so
&gt;&gt;&gt; strongly = religion..
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; however..
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; They are bizarre loonies that don't act in a normal manner, have
&gt;&gt;&gt; bizarre beliefs and are completely irrational.. as are most cults...
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Scientology as a fine example of bizarre cultish beliefs..
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Scientologist are idiots and Atheists are non-believing morons.. they
&gt;&gt;&gt; should all be stoned to death!
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;The link at the bottom of my post will lead you to my home address.
&gt;&gt;You're welcome to come on over any time and try it, as soon as you grow
&gt;&gt;a pair.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;-Frank
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; I can spare the 15 seconds it would take to shut you up ..idiot..

LOL - try to push around Frank? I think you might not live to regret
that foolish idea.

Report this message

#121: Re: Atheism... Religion..or cult..?

Posted on 2006-07-17 02:20:22 by unknown

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Report this message

#122: Re: Atheism... Religion..or cult..?

Posted on 2006-07-17 02:32:12 by cobalt

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:20:22 -0500, Mr Bigun &lt;<a href="mailto:BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net" target="_blank">BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net</a>&gt;
wrote:

&gt;On 16 Jul 2006 18:40:02 -0500, <a href="mailto:cobalt&#64;newscene.com" target="_blank">cobalt&#64;newscene.com</a> (Kate ) wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:26:03 -0500, Mr Bigun &lt;<a href="mailto:BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net" target="_blank">BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net</a>&gt;
&gt;&gt;wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:15:49 -0700, Frank J Warner
&gt;&gt;&gt;&lt;<a href="mailto:warnerf&#64;veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net" target="_blank">warnerf&#64;veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;In article &lt;<a href="mailto:bhokb252r60c40ep2l9jmi1n5vg4a29v7p&#64;4ax.com" target="_blank">bhokb252r60c40ep2l9jmi1n5vg4a29v7p&#64;4ax.com</a>&gt;, Mr Bigun
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&lt;<a href="mailto:BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net" target="_blank">BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; They believe that there is no god.. and belief of something so
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; strongly = religion..
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; however..
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; They are bizarre loonies that don't act in a normal manner, have
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; bizarre beliefs and are completely irrational.. as are most cults...
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Scientology as a fine example of bizarre cultish beliefs..
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Scientologist are idiots and Atheists are non-believing morons.. they
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; should all be stoned to death!
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;The link at the bottom of my post will lead you to my home address.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;You're welcome to come on over any time and try it, as soon as you grow
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;a pair.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;-Frank
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; I can spare the 15 seconds it would take to shut you up ..idiot..
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;LOL - try to push around Frank? I think you might not live to regret
&gt;&gt;that foolish idea.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; he's a loud mouth.. that's all.. he reminds me of one of those loud
&gt;mouth semi-retarded idiots that people see on the street yelling and
&gt;shouting.. people avoid them because they are stupid.. but the idiots
&gt;think it's because everyone's afraid of them..

I think you are thinking of yourself. But good description. Sounds
like you all over.

&gt;
&gt;I'm 6'3 245.... I dont sweat 'ya!

Report this message

#123: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-17 03:01:16 by DaffyDuck

On 2006-07-16 15:51:09 -0700, John Baker &lt;<a href="mailto:nunya&#64;bizniz.net" target="_blank">nunya&#64;bizniz.net</a>&gt; said:

&gt; If the &quot;Supreme Being&quot; is immutable, then it cannot create. It cannot
&gt; think, it cannot learn, it cannot know or do anything. All of those
&gt; things require some degree of change - something which, by your own
&gt; words, the &quot;Supreme Being&quot; is incapable of.

Don't confuse the child with facts and logic. Then again, maybe it's
just another instance of big words that Bob doesn't understand.

Report this message

#124: Re: Atheism... Religion..or cult..?

Posted on 2006-07-17 03:15:20 by John Baker

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:26:03 -0500, Mr Bigun &lt;<a href="mailto:BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net" target="_blank">BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net</a>&gt;
wrote:

&gt;On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:15:49 -0700, Frank J Warner
&gt;&lt;<a href="mailto:warnerf&#64;veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net" target="_blank">warnerf&#64;veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;In article &lt;<a href="mailto:bhokb252r60c40ep2l9jmi1n5vg4a29v7p&#64;4ax.com" target="_blank">bhokb252r60c40ep2l9jmi1n5vg4a29v7p&#64;4ax.com</a>&gt;, Mr Bigun
&gt;&gt;&lt;<a href="mailto:BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net" target="_blank">BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; They believe that there is no god.. and belief of something so
&gt;&gt;&gt; strongly = religion..
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; however..
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; They are bizarre loonies that don't act in a normal manner, have
&gt;&gt;&gt; bizarre beliefs and are completely irrational.. as are most cults...
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Scientology as a fine example of bizarre cultish beliefs..
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Scientologist are idiots and Atheists are non-believing morons.. they
&gt;&gt;&gt; should all be stoned to death!
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;The link at the bottom of my post will lead you to my home address.
&gt;&gt;You're welcome to come on over any time and try it, as soon as you grow
&gt;&gt;a pair.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;-Frank
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; I can spare the 15 seconds it would take to shut you up ..idiot..

In 15 seconds, you'd be picking yourself up off the ground and
wondering how you got there.

Report this message

#125: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-17 03:18:34 by Vic Sagerquist

Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet no (<a href="mailto:no&#64;stopit.no" target="_blank">no&#64;stopit.no</a>) made the
light shine upon us with this:

&gt; Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
&gt; Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
&gt; Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
&gt; Conclusion: There must be a first cause.

So what caused the first cause, if everything needs a cause? Logical
fallacy: Special Pleading.

&gt;
&gt; Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come
&gt; to be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you
&gt; are smarter than these people?
&gt;

Logical fallacy: Argument from Authority.

--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed &quot;L&quot; shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department

The laws that require me to NOT kill people I don't like REALLY bug
me, or there would be many less of YOUR kind.
-John Weatherly

Report this message

#126: Re: Atheism... Religion..or cult..?

Posted on 2006-07-17 03:19:38 by unknown

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Report this message

#127: Re: Atheism... Religion..or cult..?

Posted on 2006-07-17 03:20:46 by OG Loc

Mr Bigun wrote:
&gt; I'm 6'3 245.... I dont sweat 'ya!

Fatty.

Report this message

#128: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-17 03:20:46 by quibbler

In article &lt;<a href="mailto:44ba8ce5.23462453&#64;news-server.houston.rr.com" target="_blank">44ba8ce5.23462453&#64;news-server.houston.rr.com</a>&gt;, <a href="mailto:spam&#64;uce.gov" target="_blank">spam&#64;uce.gov</a>
says...
&gt; On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:19:35 -0700, &quot;Gandalf Grey&quot;
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:gandalfgrey&#64;infectedmail.com" target="_blank">gandalfgrey&#64;infectedmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt;Actually if the universe means &quot;everything&quot; and the universe is eternal, it
&gt; &gt;does necessarily imply acausality. If the universe contains everything,
&gt; &gt;there is nothing left to 'cause' the universe. Hence, the universe is
&gt; &gt;acausal.
&gt;
&gt; Both your major premise and your conclusion are fatally flawed

As are your premises and conclusions.



&gt;
&gt; The Universe is eternal, because it is a Mode of Being.


If the universe is eternal then it can't have a creator. Full Stop.


&gt; But it is not
&gt; &quot;everything&quot;.

Actually, that's it's definition in many cases.



&gt;It can't be everything because it is mutable.

It's not just one thing. It's everything. Parts of it are mutable and
other parts might not be. You don't really know. Not that it makes two
shits of difference one way or the other.


&gt; Mutable
&gt; entities cannot be the source of their own existence.


Who says they need a source, particularly if they are *eternal*?


&gt;
&gt; You are using the term &quot;causal&quot; in a physical sense of temporal cause
&gt; and effect. But there is another kind of causality - in the
&gt; ontological sense.

There are many senses in which causal terminology can be used. Most of
them require that there be a universe upon which to act, and time, in
which things may occur. It's not clear that causes can actually produce
existence. They merely act upon existing things.
However, there is another interpretation of causes, as per people like
Hume, in which a cause is simply a generalized prediction about what is
likely to happen in the future, based upon what happened in the past. It
is merely a construct which we find useful for predicting certain simple
phenomena. But there may be no way, in principle to predict particular
phenoemena. We might might say that these sorts of things have no cause.
Alternately, we might simply question the meaningfulness of talking about
the &quot;cause&quot; of everything in existence (i.e. the universe). Either
things existed or they didn't. If nothing existed, there would be nobody
around to care. If things do exist, then that's simply a brute fact.

&gt; The source of existence of something is causally
&gt; related to the thing that relies on that source for its existence.
&gt;
&gt; For example, not only does a musical note require a cause physically,
&gt; it requires a cause ontologically, for without the existence of the
&gt; musical instrument, it could not exist.

I suppose you've never heard of whistling, or alternately, will define
everything which produces a sound as a &quot;musical instrument&quot;. BTW, just
in terms of the purely ontological issue here, how do we know that a
musical note can't exist without an instrument? I mean, just because
musical instruments produce notes does not imply, by itself that no notes
an exist without those instruments. We don't know, in particular, that
musical instruments are the only source of notes.

&gt;
&gt; &gt;The universe being mutable does not imply the necessary existence of an
&gt; &gt;immutable being.
&gt;
&gt; Yes it does. A mutable entity like the Universe cannot be the source
&gt; of its own existence - the ontological cause of its own existence.

Why. You've never explained that. You just endlessly repeat it as
though anyone but you cares about your convoluted nonsense. You also
haven't established that he universe needs a source. And don't just
fucking repeat that it's immutable, because that is not sufficient to
suggest that it needs a source.


&gt; Therefore there must be an immutable entity

That &quot;entity&quot; as you call it, need not be an actual thinking being.
Existence itself, or the void, or the singularity, etc, etc, may be this
&quot;source&quot; (assuming that a source is needed).


which is the source of
&gt; existence of the Universe. The Universe is a Mode of Being, which
&gt; could not exist if Being did not exist.

What you are calling &quot;Being&quot; is just existence. Existence, by
definition, exists. To say that nothingness exists would be a
contradiction in terms, because nothing cannot have the property of
existence. Things exist or they don't, but it's not clear that existence
itself can do anything but exist.


&gt; This
&gt; entity must be immutable in order to be the source of existence of
&gt; anything. It is the Being whose essence is Being. It is Pure Being.

More like pure bullshit. What you are calling &quot;Being&quot; is merely
existence. Existence need not have a source. The fact that things can
change also does not suggest that it cannot be eternally existent, in
some form or other.


&gt;
&gt; &gt;I'm not sure that it
&gt; &gt;is a classic case of question begging, but you certainly seemed to have
&gt; &gt;introduced additional terms so as not to have to answer the question that's
&gt; &gt;been put to you.
&gt;
&gt; I answered the question of what is the source of existence of the
&gt; Universe.

Your answers make no sense and are specious, question begging tripe.



&gt;
&gt; &gt;How can you prove that the universe is not eternal?
&gt;
&gt; The Universe is eternal.

Then it doesn't need a source. Furthermore, even something that is
immutable is not guaranteed to exist. Even something that doesn't need a
source may exist or not exist, as a matter of fact.


&gt;
&gt; It requires a Supreme Being whether it is eternal or not because it is
&gt; mutable and therefore cannot be the source of its own existence.

Why not an infinte regress of mutable &quot;sources&quot;?



&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; There is no question begging when you realize that the Supreme Being
&gt; &gt;&gt; is immutable.
&gt;
&gt; &gt;And how does this &quot;realization&quot; come about, Bob?
&gt;
&gt; Because it is the source of existence of all that exists.

Even assuming that it doesn't need a source for its own existence, that
does not mean that it is the source of other things. Existence itself
might enable other things to exist, but it would not, in itself cause any
particular thing to exist. It just makes it possible. But possibility
and actuality are pretty different animals.


&gt; It IS
&gt; existence - it is Being. All else that exists are Modes of Being,
&gt; different aspects of Being.

Existence itself, as such, (an sich) clearly has to exist. So, in that
sense, existence qua existence does exist.



&gt; There is only Pure Being and its many
&gt; manifestations. The Universe is one such manifestation.

And how much acid did you drop in the processes of discovering and
researching this, given that you've produced no other explanation for
your claims?


&gt;
&gt; What does it mean for string theory to have multiple &quot;dimensions&quot;?
&gt; Please, none of this silly &quot;multiuniverse&quot; &quot;many world&quot; nonsense.
&gt; We're talking serious physics.

Oh, yeah, right. You're talking about the serious physics of immutable
things making themselves. Sure, whatever you say.



&gt;
&gt; In the 1930s a physicist named Kaluza discovered that if you took the
&gt; equations of Einstein and added one new spatial dimension you would
&gt; get electromagnetism. That means that EM is a manifestation of
&gt; physical ordinary spacetime in 4 dimensions. Physical reality has
&gt; higher dimensionality, and ordinarily we see only the 4 dimensions of
&gt; space time. But this physical reality also manifests itself in the
&gt; form of EM, so there is more to physical reality that is manifest by 4
&gt; dimensional space time. And so on up to the 10 spatial dimensions

Actually, they're not all spatial dimensions. Many of them are compact.



&gt; and
&gt; 1 time dimension the string theorists have discovered today.
&gt;
&gt; Actually these additional dimensions are degrees of freedom

Yes, and something that is immutable has no degrees of freedom. It's
nothingness, not your Supreme Being.


, as
&gt; implied by the so-called compacted motion in the extra ones. Physical
&gt; reality has more degrees of freedom than we are able to discern in
&gt; everyday mechanics. EM is one of them that emerges with 1 extra degree
&gt; of freedom that is orthogonal to the 4 degrees of freedom.
&gt;
&gt; The Supreme Being, which is Pure Being itself, had many degrees of
&gt; freedom.

It can't have any. It's immutable.



&gt; Our Universe is a manifestation of some of those degrees of
&gt; freedom.

Then why do you discount multiple universes?

&gt; That means our Universe is able to exist in some of the ways
&gt; that Pure Being exists, but limited beyond that.
&gt;
&gt; The Supreme Being, this immutable core of all existence,

No, what it really comes down to is the fact that you worship existence
and have attempted to legally change the name of Existence to God or the
&quot;Supreme Being&quot;. It's not very convincing to say the least. No atheist
denies existence. But it's not a god and doesn't require an source. It
simply is.




--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
&quot;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.&quot; -- Richard Dawkins

Report this message

#129: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-17 03:20:46 by Asleep

CatPanDaddy wrote:
&gt;
&gt; He's already explained this in too many threads to count... his &quot;being&quot; isn't an
&gt; entity, it's an act... he's using the verb definition of the word &quot;being&quot;, not
&gt; the noun.

Being is a state. Acts have objects on which the act. Being has no object.

Bob Kolker

Report this message

#130: Re: Atheism... Religion..or cult..?

Posted on 2006-07-17 03:20:46 by Douglas Berry

What's so funny about peace, love and Mr Bigun &lt;<a href="mailto:BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net" target="_blank">BIGUN&#64;yourtonsils.net</a>&gt;
posting the following on Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:19:38 -0500 iin
alt.atheism?

&gt;&gt;In 15 seconds, you'd be picking yourself up off the ground and
&gt;&gt;wondering how you got there.
&gt;
&gt;dream on

So, when can I expect you in San Jose? I have to let the owner of the
dojo know that we'll need a sparring ring.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011

&quot;The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed.&quot; - Albert Einstein

Report this message

#131: Re: The cosmological argument: Proof of the existence of God

Posted on 2006-07-17 03:20:46 by William_Wingstedt

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 23:57:42 -0500, &quot;Denis Loubet&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:dloubet&#64;io.com" target="_blank">dloubet&#64;io.com</a>&gt;
wrote:

&gt;
&gt;&quot;Robert J. Kolker&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:nowhere&#64;nowhere.com" target="_blank">nowhere&#64;nowhere.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;news:<a href="mailto:4htcrbF159u1U1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4htcrbF159u1U1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt;&gt; Lars Eighner wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; In our last episode, &lt;e9bop5$1jd$<a href="mailto:2&#64;nntp.aioe.org" target="_blank">2&#64;nntp.aioe.org</a>&gt;, the lovely and
&gt;&gt;&gt; talented no broadcast on alt.atheism:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Premises: Everything has a cause or causes. Nothing can cause itself.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Conclusion: Everything is caused by another thing or things.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Premise: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Conclusion: There must be a first cause.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Contradicts the first premise, therefore the whole is invalid.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas used this argument, which has come to
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;be known as the cosmological argument. Why should anyone believe you are
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;smarter than these people?
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Because I am, and so is nearly every educated person on this planet.
&gt;&gt;&gt; Aristotle, for example, believed the Sun revolved around the Earth.
&gt;&gt;&gt; Each of these guys believed crap that we know to be completely untrue.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; We know that to be untrue because we have telescopes. Galileo observed the
&gt;&gt; following:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; 1. The phases of Venus, unseeable with the naked eye.
&gt;&gt; 2. The moons of Jupiter, unseeable with the naked eye.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Given the lack of telescopes at the time, geocentrism is a very reasonable
&gt;&gt; hypothesis. The phases of Venus can not be seen with the naked eye.
&gt;&gt; Futhermore if the earth move, the Greeks assumed there should be stellar
&gt;&gt; parallax. None was observed. That is because the stars are much father
&gt;&gt; away than the Greeks assumed. The Greeks were not stupid. They were
&gt;&gt; careful observers, and given what they could observe at the time, the
&gt;&gt; geocentric hypothesis made perfectly good sense. Do not underate the Greek
&gt;&gt; thinkers, even with their errors. They invented mathematics as we know it.
&gt;
&gt;Hence I would say they might be smarter than me, but they were also more
&gt;ignorant than me.
&gt;

But there are also some things that members of ancient societies &amp;
cultures may have known of which we are ignorant. In many cases,
stripped of our technology and forced to live on a landscape with
which he have lost touch, many of us, even though we may be &quot;more
knowledgeable&quot; would perish in the context of their existence.

&gt;
&gt;--
&gt;Denis Loubet
&gt;<a href="mailto:dloubet&#64;io.com" target="_blank">dloubet&#64;io.com</a>
&gt;<a href="http://www.io.com/~dloubet" target="_blank">http://www.io.com/~dloubet</a>
&gt;<a href="http://www.ashenempires.com" target="_blank">http://www.ashenempires.com</a>
&gt;
&gt;

Report this message