*******************
Post by Matt CunninghamWhat are you talking about? I'm agnostic... but I'm not a closet
atheist. In fact, I have no problem saying to just about anyone that,
from my experience, it seems highly possible(even likely) that there
isn't any God. But you can't *know* that, that's the issue.
Yes, you can. The definition of god is simple.
God is a personal being, he has conciousness, will,
intelligence.
He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and
creator of all. He is greater than anything that can
be imagined.
The trick is to see that this is an open ended
maximalist definition. Theists try to gain as much
claims for god this way without having to specify
every little claim for god overall.
There are lesser claims, god is Jehovah, god is Allah
and so on.
So when you look at this maximalist type god, its really not a
god, but a class of gods. If ypu can debunk this god, you debunk
all specific maximalist gods, Jehova, Allah et al. And all
lessor specific claims. That Jesus is son of god or that god spoke to
Mohammed via Gabriel.
And you can indeed do this. Claims made for god self
destruct easily enough when examined. Omnipotence and
Omnibenevolence create the problem of evil.
Theists try to claim evil is necessary for free will to avoid
this problem. But omniscience and creatorship of all utterly
destroys any possibility of free will.
So the maximalist class of gods cannot exist.
So no specific maximalist god can exist, not
sub-claims for any maximalist god.
To preserve god, the theist must step way, way down to a much,
much lessor type of god.
In fact, its almost trivial to debunk god.
Strong Atheism is up to the task and wins.
The other issue to notice is, the god of the bible is
not the god of the theologians. God in the bible for example.
lies to Adam to scare Adam from eating of the tree of knowledge
of good and evil.
This god is not om,niscient enough to see that his lie
wil not succeed very long. Dozens of little things like this
are far different from the omni-everything god which is really
a Greek idea grafted later on to the bible god by early
christian theologians.
Post by Matt CunninghamOur
perspective is limited to such a degree that we have no evidence on the
genesis of the universe,
Baloney, we see it most certainly needs no god and contradicts al
and every creation myth you ca dig up.
Post by Matt Cunninghamhence any assumption on the existence(or
non-existence) of a God is just that, an assumption.
Which assumption fails because of its self destructive
set ofdefinitions.
Post by Matt CunninghamIf you think
differently, you're, um, wrong ;p If you can find a single shred of
*proof* that God doesn't exist, then atheism wouldn't require a leap of
faith.
OK, here it is.
******************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #1
William C. Barwell 3-8-05
******************************************************
1. Orthodox theology makes several very basic
dogmatic claims about god.
2. A. God is omnipotent
B. God is omniscient
C. God is omnibenevolent
D. God created the entire world
E. God is merciful
3. If god creates a world and everthing in it,
and he is omniscient, he knows everything that
is or will be in that Universe and any future
actions that will take place in that Universe.
4. He knows what a concious being will do in any possible
world he will create. If he creates a world that
at a future date has a man named John Smith, god
would know that there will indeed be a John Smith.
5. Being omniscient, he knows what Smith will do.
He will know in any possible world if Smith is good,
a believer and saved, or is evil and damned.
6. He would then have a choice. Create the contemplated
world with an evil Smith or not. He could easily
change his mind and create a world with a good Smith
instead. God may easily chose any world he wishes,
he has no constraints on his omnipotence.
7. Smith has no choice in the matter, he has no say in
being created, or being created as a good Smith or
an evil Smith. All choice is god's choice alone.
8. Thus Smith has no free will. If he is evil it is
solely because god made the concious and purposeful
decision to create an evil Smith who does moral evil.
Smith's actions, and all his intentions and mental states
are predetermined and created in actuality by god.
He can have no free will even in principle. God does
not create a Smith with free will and turn his loose
in an undetermined Universe. All real acts and all real
mental states of Smith have been considered by god, and
chosen from among many possiblibilities and purposefully
created by god to the smallest detail by god alone,
involving all time within Smith's life, second by second.
9. Nobody has free will. All decisions to create any
man or woman or other sentient beings, angels or devils,
that are good or evil are made by knowingly by god.
If any man or woman or being does moral evil it is
solely and only because god decided to create a world
where they exist and do evil and are damned.
All actions of these beings are specifically chosen
and created by god in the most finegrained manner
physically possible in any Universe God actually
creates, down to the smallest possible actually
existant quantum time and space scales in this world.
10 But god is alledegly omnibenevolent. That is all
good. If he creates men and women or beings who do
moral evil, moral evil exists solely and only because
god knowingly creates morally evil, sentient beings.
11. Since it is god who allows morally evil sentient beings
to exist, he is the creator and sustaining cause of
all moral evil in the Universe, and he could just as
easily created all men to do only moral good, but
specifically and purposefully chose not to do so.
12. Since free will is not possible for man, not even
in principle, there is no way to blame evil on man.
Smith if he is evil is evil because god created him
knowingly as a morally evil man. If he is good, he is
good only because god chose to create him good.
And thus no way to claim evil is necessary to allow for
free will which is a common theological claim.
Free will thus cannot be used to get god out of any
blame for existance of moral evil in the world.
13. An omnibenevolent god cannot, because he is indeed
omnibenevolent, create moral evil by definition.
14. Morally evil men and women exist.
15. Thus a god who is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent
4. Creator of the entire world
5. Merciful
Cannot exist in a world where moral evil exists.
16. If such a god existed, free will cannot exist.
17. A god that creates a man as evil, then tortures him
for all eternity for evil acts god created him doing,
who could have made him good, made all his acts good,
created him good a believer and saved, is the one who
is evil, not the man so created evil who had no choice
in this at all. Such a god cannot be said to be
omnibenevolent nor merciful, probably cannot even
be claimed to be sane.
(End)
****************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #2
William C. Barwell 3-14-05
****************************************************
1. God is said to be omnibenevolent, all good.
2. God is also said to have free will.
3. God is also said to be omnipotent.
4. By omnibenevolent, it is meant that god is said
to be incapable of doing evil.
5. But does not this mean god is not omnipotent?
Doesn't god's omnibenevolence limit his omnipotence?
6. No. God has a good nature. He does not do evil.
But he has the very real power to do evil if
he was not restrained by his good nature.
Thus his good nature does not affect his omnipotence.
7. Nor does this then affect his free will. Merely
having a good nature in no way can effect his
having free will. Men may be goodly or evil,
such qualities do not mean they lack free will.
Likewise god's good nature similarly does not
mean god has no free will.
6. So god has free will and a good nature incapable
of doing evil and retains his omnipotence also.
7. Why is there evil in this world? Alledgedly so
man can be said to have free will. Given free
will some men do evil by their own free will.
8. But if god can have free will, and a good nature
incapable of doing moral evil, why then cannot
god likewise give man free will and a good nature
incapable of evil such as god has, thus eliminating
moral evil from this world?
9. If god is as claimed, omnibenevolent and omnipotent
then he is obligated by his omnibenevolence to give
all men free will and a good nature so they will
not sin and be saved. And thus that no moral
evil is allowed to exist in the Universe.
10. Logically then, a god that is simultaneously
omnibenevolent, omnipotent and has free will
cannot exist. Man's free will is not an adequate
excuse to explain the existance of moral evil
and to save a god that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent
and allows moral evil to exist.
(End)
**************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of god #3
William C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************
God is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent.
4. The most powerful thing that can be imagined.
5. The creator of all.
6. Intelligent and concious, having will.
7. What do we mean by omnipotent?
Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
8. That really asks the question, does god create the
rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large?
And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason?
9. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.
10. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.
11. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.
12. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.
13. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.
14. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes
him overtly evil.
15. Free will is said to be why evil exists, man is given
free will and sometimes abuses it. But as we can see,
free will cannot save god from blame if he can make the
rules and laws and laws and logic of the Universe.
16. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.
17. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can
be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.
18. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of
ontological proofs are all thus falsified.
19. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.
20. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is falsified also.
21. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Universe that contained evil only because
he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.
22. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 300 BCE. The gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent or possible neither.
23. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.
24. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.
25. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?
26. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other
sciences.
27. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for disembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.
28. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand
God of theological tradition has actual and real
existance.
29. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing theology,
since as demonstrated above, that has proven to
be a total failure as a methodology.
(END)
**************************************************
God Disproven - Part 2
There are several concepts of god that are meant
when that word is used. One is the philosophers'
god derived from ancient Greek concepts, the god
that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.
But we also have the biblical god, the god of
the old testament, Yahweh, El, the god of Genesis
Exodus and the other books of the bible. This god
is a historical god, not a philosphical god.
His nature and existance are said to be found in
the Torah, the old testament.
At the turn of the 19th century archeology saw
the establishment of so called biblical archaeology,
archaeology mostly of an American origin dedicated
optimistically to showing that the bible was true.
Instead, over a century, it showed the opposite.
Biblical archaeology never really existed as a
seperate 'discipline', it was an aspect of Near
Eastern Archaeology.
It is now established that much of the bible is in
no way history nor true. There was no Egyptian
captivity, no exodus, no 40 years wandering, no bloody
invasion of Canaan lead by Moses and Joshua. With
that faux history debunked, so goes the theological
concepts embedded in this this faux history.
God here is understood to have been an entity that
at certain specific times did certain specific things
at certain specific places involving certain specific
persons. But if these places and persons did not exist,
this god likewise does not exist, they are all just
characters in a novel masquerding as history.
Archaeology has found and excavated the cities
supposedly destroyed by Joshua and the Israelites
and found they were ruins long before any Israelite
could have been in the area.
Several excavations have looked for the 36 year
long encampments of the Israelites at Kadesh Barnea
and failed.
Egyptologists find names of numerous foreigners
and their gods attested to in Egyptian literture,
tombs and other sources, but no Israelite names,
no mention of Yahweh can be found. Odd for a people
that supposedly were in Egypt for 430 years starting
70 persons.
Despite that, Israel show little Egyptianisms,
not in language, architecture, pottery, writing systems,
literary traditions, clothing or other things you'd
expect from a people who starting with 70 people
spent 430 years in Egypt, growing to a massive presence
there from biblical accounts.
And these bible tall tales are replete with errors,
anachronisms and other signs it is not history.
Thus archaeology and historians and bible scholars
have concluded that from Genesis to Judges, the bible
is most certainly not history.
Rather in recent decades, archaeologists have discovered
the true facts about Israel. They were typical Canaanites
who peacefully spread throught the hill country as peaceful
farmers in unfortified hilltop farms. This population of
farmers later developed into Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon,
Edom andother similar states in that area of the world.
There was no invasion as per Joshua. No Moses on the mount,
no god leading the Israelites as a pillar of smoke or fire,
no plagues of Egypt, no genocides ordered by god.
This god and all these happenings are fantasies. The god
attached to these tall tales did not and does not exist
anymore than did Winnie the Pooh in his Hundred Acre Woods.
Both are mere characters in novels, the only difference is
most people don't realize the bible is just a bad novel
pieced together from ancient myths long ago. They have
no idea archaeologists and historians have abandoned
all of this as being in any way history or being true.
But this god, that did certain things in certain places
at certain times with certain people is in fact, dead
and gone. Disproven, debunked and gone.
Because these places and times and people have been
disproven as having never existed and god disappears with
these now debunked tales.
A few quotes from the experts:
"The Rise of Ancient Israel"
A Symposium at the Smithsonian Institute
October 26, 1991
Biblical Archaeology Society 1992
Herschel Schanks
"Well archaeology is no longer a crutch in
this classic sense of a conquest model. We
simply can no longer posit a series of destructions
in Canann that can be rationally identified as the
result of the Israelite conquest. Recently our
archaeological methodology has improved, we can date
levels more securely, and more sites have been excavated.
As a result we can no longer say that archeology
supports what we call the conquest model of Israel's
emergence in Canaan."
William G. Dever
"The conquest model is not subsribed to by most
biblical scholars today - certainly no one in the
mainstream of scholarship - and that's been true
for some time. Moreover, there isn't a single
reputable professional archaeologist in the world
whoespouses the conquest model in Israel, Europe,
or America. We don't need to say anymore about
the conquest model. That's that. (Laughter)
Not to be dogmatic about it or anything, but..
(Laughter)"
"From Nomadism to Monarchy
- Archaeological and Historical Aspects
of Early Israel"
Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman.
Biblical Archaeology Society 1994
Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman
Introduction Page 13
"Combination of archeological and historical
research demonstrates that the biblical account
of the conquest and occupation of Canaan is
entirely divorced from historical reality.
Instead, it proves the correctness of the
literary-critical approach to the biblical text.
The biblical descriptions of the origin and early
history of the people of Israel are not disimilar
from narratives on the origins of other peoples,
which likewise do not withstand the test of
historical criticism."
Nadav Na'aman Page 249
"It is commonly accepted today that the majority
of conquest stories in the book of Joshua are devoid
of historical reality."
"What Did The Biblical Writers Know & When
Did They Know It?"
- William G. Dever
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
2001
Page 121
"Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look
at the biblical texts describing the the origins
of Israel, we see at once that the traditional
account contained from Genesis to Joshua cannot be
reconciled with the picture derived from
archaeological investigation.The whole
"Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set
aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense
of the word myth: perhaps "historical fiction"
but tales told primarily to validate religous
beliefs."
Page 282
"Here we must confront squarely the essential
dilemma of the modern reader of the Hebrew Bible.
a dilemma that nearly all writers of today acknowledge.
Does critical study of the bible undermine religous
faith, perhaps more importantly diminish the value
of the Bible as a basis for cultural and moral
values? For the fundamentalists, or for many
conservative Christians, Jews an others, the answer
is: Yes. These folk must then reject modern literary
other critical methods, although I have assumed here
that such methods are to be taken for granted by any
well-informed reader in the modern world. There is
irony here. In North America and in places in Europe
archaeology is accepted, even enthusiastically embraced,
because it is mistakenly thought it will after all,
"prove the Bible is true".
**************************************************
**********************************
God Disproven Number 3
**********************************
Romans 11:7-8
Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh
for; but the election hath obtained it; and the
rest were blinded.
(According as it is written, God hath given them
the spirit of slumber; eyes that they should not
see, ears that they should not hear) unto this
day.
Many christians claim god gave us free will,
but here we see that that in fact, god is
said to blind many to spiritual truth. So
in fact, free will means nothing to god. Here
Paul is trying to explain why Israel has rejected
Jesus as a messiah.
Thus, if god does not care about free will, and even
denies men free will by so blinding them, free will is
no longer an arguable claim if the bible is true.
If god is omnibenevolent, then he would be duty
bound to make all men believers and all men capable
of only doing moral good. If he could do so, and
does not he is not omnibenevolent.
So a benevolent god that does not care about free will
cannot exist in a world where we see unbelief and moral
evil.
*********
Most theologians in the past have agreed god has free will.
Aquinas in Summa Theologica made that quite explicit.
Yet all theologians also agree god is omnibenevolent.
That is he has free will yet can only do good, never evil.
Yet many apologists tell us man needs free will and thus
ability to do evil. This is to get god off the hook for
existance of evil.
But as god can have a good nature and free will, so can man.
That argument is no longer viable.
But if god can make man with a god like free will
and good nature incapable of never doing moral
evil and fails to, he is the creator and sustaining
cause of all evil and is evil himself.
That we live in a world where moral evil exists proves
an omnibenevolent god is nonexistant.
**********
God is said to be omnipotent.
Can god create a rock so big he cannot lift it?
If yes he cannot lift such a rock and thus is
non-omnipotent. If no, he cannot create such a
rock and is non-omnipotent.
Omnipotent is a self destructing concept that cannot
exist in reality. It is literally nonsense, incoherent,
impossible.
Thus an omnipotent god is not possible.
***********
Is god omnipotent? In Judges 1:19, god
cannot deal with iron chariots.
And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the
inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive
out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had
chariots of iron.
An inventive and intelligent god would have
made the chariot wheels fall off or killed
the horses such as he killed all the cattle
of Egypt in Exodus 9:6.
If the bible is true, there is no omnipotent god.
If apologists wish to claim there is such and
omnipotent god, they have to admit the bible is
false and rather silly.
***********
God is said to be omniscient, knowing all.
In Genesis 2:17, god lies to Adam.
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
thou shall not eat of it, for in the day thou eatest
thereof, thou shalt surely die.
The problem is that this outrageous lie did not
dissuade Adam from actually not eating of the tree.
Yet god was not omniscient enough to see that this lie
would not achieve its goal.
Again, if the bible is true, there is no omniscient god.
An omniscient god cannot exist.
And god here is a liar, which is not omni-benevolent
by any means.
***********
Is god omnibenevolent? By all claims, yes.
That is god must always do good and never evil.
But if he can never do evil, then there is
god cannot do, evil. Thus he has no free will
after all. And there is something he cannot do.
Evil. He is not omnipotent.
Thus a an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god with
free will cannot exist as claimed. Theology has
pretended to solve this problem by essentially
redefining free will and omnipotent in a very
dishonest manner and hoping nobody ever noticed.
And of course there was always the torture chamber
for those who might be honest.
************
Exodus Chapter 5
5:4
And it came to pass by the way into the inn
that the Lord met him (Moses) and tried to kill
him. Then Zipporah (Moses's wife see Exodus 2;21)
took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her
son and cast it at his feet, and said, surely
a bloody husband thou art to me.
So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband
thou art because of the circumcission.
This bizaare tale presents god as being unable
to kill Moses in a personal attack upon his
person bodily.
Thus if the bible is true, god cannot be as claimed,
omnipotent. This is one tale you will not hear
preached from the local pulpits.
A god incapable of killing a solitary Israelite
in an ambush outside an inn isn't much of a god.
****************
(End)
***********************************************
God Disproven Omniscience #1
William C. Barwell 3-9-05
***********************************************
God is said to be omniscient, knowing all.
In Genesis 2:17, god lies to Adam.
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
thou shall not eat of it, for in the day thou eatest
thereof, thou shalt surely die."
The problem is that this outrageous lie did not
dissuade Adam from actually not eating of the tree.
Yet god was not omniscient enough to see that this
lie would not achieve its goal.
Thus if the bible is true, there is no omniscient god.
An omniscient god cannot exist.
And god here is a liar, which is not omni-benevolent
by any means.
(End)
Post by Matt CunninghamHowever, until you can do that(and I know you can't) you're
making a leap of faith just as in any religion.
Hard Atheism can easily show that the god of the bible
is debunked by archaeology, and logic debunks the maximalist
god of theology.
Its almost trivial.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie