From: atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Here is your proof=God Exists?
Date: 13 Aug 92 06:41:32 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska

In article <1992Aug12.104650.252@doc.bmd.trw.com>, jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
> In article <1992Aug11.231239.1@acad2.alaska.edu>, atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
>> 
>> It may be possible for a god to exist, but for God--Yahweh--to be
>> real we must suspend reality, which is a contradiction in itself
>> already.  
> 
>  	This conclusion does not follow, nor is it self-evident.

It's only evident if you've bothered to think it through with an
open, unclouded mind.  Like M31 with the naked eye: some are able
to see it; some are not.  The premises have been stated so many
times on this newsgroup that I would have thought that even you
would know them by now. 


> 
>> It has been shown time and again 
> 
>   	Really?  It may have been *asserted* time and again, but
> 	not "shown" in the sense of "undeniably proved".

If reality is real (that is, if we're not being purposely
hoodwinked by some sort of evil power) then Yahweh could not
exist.  An absolutely all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good
being is impossible.  Besides, it's not up to me to prove Yahweh
doesn't exist--the burden of proof is upon you, the bewildered
believer. 




> 
>> that the attributes
>> given Yahweh are such that they make it impossible for It to
>> exist, for omnipotence conflicts with itself 
> 
>   	No, omnipotence is not self contradictory.  Unless you
> 	are defining it in a (non-Christian) sense where it is
>  	bound to be self contradictory.



As usual, Christians must have their own definitions in order to
patch up their Swiss-cheese philosophy.  Example: "The 'kill' in
'Thou shalt not kill' really means 'murder,' so capital
punishment and war are OK.  And we don't mean 'murder' in the way
you non-Christians define it, for it was not murder for Moses to
put to death hundreds of thousands of Midianites" (see Numbers
31).


>  The problem then is with
> 	your definition and not with omnipotence itself.
>

I have no problems at all with things that don't exist; only with
the ignorant, blurry-eyed toads who keep croaking about them. 
Omnipotent, by my non-Christian definition, means all-powerful. 
Since all-powerfulness is self-contradictory (I know you've heard
the argument, Jim), you must side-step it with a uniquely
Christian definition, by which omnipotence becomes something like
semi-omnipotence or quasi-omnipotence or weak-omnipotence or
unknowing-omnipotence or omnipotence-by-choice or some other
ridiculous semantic tap-dancing--the type of verbal footwork you
guys are so good at.  Your average dipshit Christian thinks
all-powerful means all-powerful, and he sees no need to ever
think beyond that.  _That's_ the problem; not my definitions nor
yours.


 
>> and with
>> omniscience; 
> 
> 	Omnipotence and omniscience are not contradictory but
> 	complementary.  Again, your definitions may be the culprit.


Here we go with "strong" and "weak" omniscience again, right? 
Shit.  Yeah, my definitions are the culprit, all right.  I use
the ones from that sacred secular scripture, the dictionary, and
from an even higher authority--the language of the people.  You
can redefine the words all you want, but pretty soon you're just
talking to yourself.


> 
>> omniscience conflicts with free will (an important
>> characteristic of humans under Yahweh); 
> 
> 	I agree that "free will" is an important concept in 
> 	Christianity, but the term has suffered from the many
> 	attempts to (mis)define it that I've seen in this group.

With so many people misdefining it, did you ever examine your own
definition?  The common definition of free will is:  the ability
to choose.  What's so hard about that?  We all intuitively know
how the term is used; why try to gum it up with a lot of baggage? 
Is it because you can't face the truth?  That in the presence of
an omniscient observer, free will is an illusion?


> 	Properly defined within the context of Christian theology,


Why should we allow ourselves to sink to Christian definitions in
order to be "proper" from the Christian viewpoint?  How
insufferably arrogant!



> 	it does not conflict with omniscience at all.  And if you
> 	reject the Christian concept and sense of free will, then
> 	you are only arguing from a strawman position.

You mean if I reject your definition, I'm committing an informal
fallacy?  You must _really_ believe God is on your side!

Free will is a pretty easy concept.  It's only when you have to
saw off the ends, take a hunk out of the middle, drill a few
holes in it, insert a few new parts, varnish one side and paint
the other, then squint at it from a hundred yards away that it
becomes a Christian "defined" concept useful in shoring up the
illogical Christian position.  By then, of course, you're all
alone in the dark, mumbling to yourself.


> 
> 
>> and omnieuence (my word
>> for "all-goodness") 
> 
> 	Try "omnibenevolence" on for size.

Don't like it.  Prefer mine.  It's funnier.  More fun to say,
too.  "Omnieuence" sounds like an Charlie Parker riff;
"omnibenevolence" sounds like a flat tire.


> 
>> conflicts with the other two and is in
>> serious conflict with our observations of reality.  
> 
>   	True enough, (you got one right),


I got them all right.


 but Christianity does not
> 	claim that Yahweh is "*omni*-benevolent".  God is certainly
> 	benevolent to some, but He is not benevolent to all, and such
> 	is never claimed in the Bible.


You got one right.  But you didn't go far enough.  Yahweh is not
all-anything.  Yahweh doesn't exist.  Are you sure you want to
talk about the Bible?


> 
>> So perhaps
>> there is a god, but it ain't Yahweh.
>> 
> 
> 	If there is a God, you've a long way to go yet to prove that
> 	it's not Yahweh -- to show that Yahweh is outside the bounds
> 	of possibility.
> 

As we used to say back home, I done done it.  All-powerful, which
means "all-powerful," is impossible unless you redefine
all-powerful to mean something less than all-powerful. 
All-knowing, which means "all-knowing," is incompatible with
all-powerful (think about it, Jim--you'll remember it longer if
you discover it yourself) unless you redefine all-knowing to mean
something less than all-knowing (such as "weak" all-knowing). 
All-knowing is also incompatible with free will, which means
"free will," unless you redefine it to mean something less than
free will.  All-good, which means "all-good," is incompatible
with all-knowing and all-powerful, unless you redefine all-good
to mean something less than all-good.  Are the preachers going to
start saying that Yahweh is "not quite all-powerful; not quite
all-knowing, and not quite all-good"?  I don't think so, though
such a position would be far, far more reasonable than the
present dogma and would be more in line with the hosts of other
gods that were invented before and after Yahweh.


> 
>> 
>> 
>>> John
>> 
>> Don, and I don't even have a sister.
> 
> 	Jim, and so what?

Too subtle for you, Jim?  (Hint: Go back and read the first part. 
One of the secrets to comprehending text is to keep up with
what's been said so far.  Now I see why you have so much trouble
with theology and atheism.)


> 	Periodic disclaimer:  My opinions happen to be correct, but few
> 		seem to recognize it.  :)    

Should be a clue, Jim.  When I was a country singer, I wrote a
song called "Nobody knows how famous I am."


Don
atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism