From: kiemschies@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: <None>
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:23:17 EDT

In article <1992Aug13.024132.1@acad2.alaska.edu>, atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
> 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. 
I did not see the begining of this post, but I disagree with your statement that
the burden of proof is on the believer. As at least some religions
maintain, faith has any removes any BURDEN of proof (Just like M31 with the
naked eye, you either see it or don't), unless someone is follish enough to try
to conclusively prove a religous type belief system (or if someone is equally
as foolish as to try to disprove one through purly semantic arguments of
religous discriptions). 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>>> 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!
I agree with you about the arrogance comment, but you are not free from the
arrogance yourself (remeber the bewilderd believer comment you made). I know
the list of extremely wise and intellegent people who have or do not have some
sort of religous beliefs is no argument for the foundation of any belief 
system, that list should be enough to quelch the ascertaion that belief means
you simlply are a muddel-headed unscientific person

> 
> 
> 
>> 	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.
No I don't think it's "done done". It is not needed to "weaken" the omnipotence
and omniscience to deal with the classic philosophical arguments against them.
I find that certain change of perspective arguments do that quite well. Though
I don't have time to go into detail now, certain semi-independence (NOT watered
down independence, but semi-independence)arguments are what I'm talking about. And before you try to start saying something like
there is no independant observer, and I should take a Quantum mechanics class,
I have, I got A's in all of them except the Graduate level one (I'm a double
Physics and Astronmy major, just graduated).

> 
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 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