tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post5692781419828793630..comments2023-10-28T05:10:27.300-05:00Comments on Atheism Analyzed: The Irrefutable Argument For Atheism?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-27254904542047763602016-06-04T01:46:22.670-05:002016-06-04T01:46:22.670-05:00Hello Everyone!!
Because some people do not belie...Hello Everyone!!<br /><br />Because some people do not believe in metaphors even if they are true:<br /><br />Many strong atheists fall into the trap of Epicurean Self-Importance (yes, is a metaphor I invented, but well that explains a lot), because, it is easier to assign responsibilities to an imaginary construct of what they intra-subjectively dislike, rather than trying to be people who recognize their faults and defects and trying to minimize them.<br /><br />There are more immature people than ever whose egos just make them more judgemental than most of us would wish to be, sadly some of them with psychological problems and dysfunctional families (there are positive correlations, not talking about possibly unknown causation).<br /><br />Remember, fanatics -whether religious, agnostic, or atheist- are belligerent, and if not controlled, they are potential killers, everywhere. First slangs, then threats, then murderers.<br /><br />Kind Regards.yonosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00853519252063461784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-33983382845903781372016-06-03T11:54:49.134-05:002016-06-03T11:54:49.134-05:00Boomslang, what you find unconvincing is of zero c...Boomslang, what you find unconvincing is of zero consequence and pure opinion. The rest of your post can be summarized as this; 'God does not prevent rapes from happening therefore he does not exist.'<br />Few problems here;<br />1. His argument presupposes evil exist without defining the term.<br />2. Presupposing the existence of evil also implies that there exists moral absolutes but that in turn would imply a moral law giver which Boomslang must account from a purely secular/naturalistic stance.<br />3. Should God only prevent rape or what about lesser evils such as stealing a pencil?<br />4. Should God force everyone to be good and remove their free will but that would be a violation of free will and contrary to God's nature.<br />5. Last, why must the world be the way Boomslang insist it should operate what makes your way the best way?Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-50425685160999587762016-06-02T17:35:28.636-05:002016-06-02T17:35:28.636-05:00Boomslang's theory of a deity reminds me of Ge...Boomslang's theory of a deity reminds me of Gerald Woerlee, an Anesthesiologist from The Netherlands who believed that God and Mary should be stoned to death (using a scripture in Deuteronomy) for having Jesus out of wedlock (I would put the link up, but his site is gone now). <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-67894630256787967912016-06-02T15:43:38.673-05:002016-06-02T15:43:38.673-05:00"I'm leaving", says increasingly ner..."I'm leaving", says increasingly nervous man for the 7th time this day.<br /><br />Keep going m8, maybe you'll make it to Encyclopedia Dramatica.Xelloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14472152241523645178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-24048922387765254632016-06-02T14:51:32.910-05:002016-06-02T14:51:32.910-05:00I promised not to comment on Boomslang's final...I promised not to comment on Boomslang's final message. Apparently he has left the blog for good. Judge for yourselves whether he has answered any of the questions put to him above.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-27770127786894733262016-06-02T12:41:15.611-05:002016-06-02T12:41:15.611-05:00Dear Mr/Mrs Phoenix,
Feel free to exercise your f...Dear Mr/Mrs Phoenix,<br /><br />Feel free to exercise your free will and find where I "claim victory". Claim victory? To the contrary. I've explained how/why it's impossible to be victorious in a "game" in which my opponent simply defines his or her "Avatar" as <i>incapable of losing</i>, and further, how it's a waste of everyone's time. See, no matter what I say/do/think; no matter which "move" I make, anything and everything is met with, "Sorry, you lose!", accompanied with posts about by how delusional I am for even attempting to get in the game. 'Good thing real life doesn't work that way. <br /><br />As for your attempt to school me with "subset" equations and flight analogies, I'm afraid that this tree serpent doesn't find the phoenix' feathery rationalizations convincing. IOW, you've made a distinction without a drop of difference as far as I'm concerned. To be blunt: your "equation" isn't worth a plug nickle to me. See, this tree serpent doesn't give a rat's patooty if you call it "violating" free will, or "over riding" free will, because at the end of the day if the "God" that you revere so much actually exists, it is, as we speak, sitting there with his thumb up his rectum as children are being raped. 'Know what that means? That means that even <i>you</i> are more compassionate than your "God"(assuming that you wouldn't stand there making excuses about the rapist's "free will" if you happened upon a child getting raped). <br /><br />I know, I know, I have no grounds to say "rape" is "wrong"...::eyeroll:: <br /><br />In closing, please never lose your "faith", Phoenix. Serious sh*t. It would be a very scary day indeed if certain people found out that there is no Divine, moral-giving babysitter in the sky to watch over all the children here on earth. And yes, final thoughts. At least on this blog. Bye all!boomSLANGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03820077215682328240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-47708949891078162232016-06-02T12:37:15.663-05:002016-06-02T12:37:15.663-05:00Correction: should have read "Take it or leav...Correction: should have read "Take it or leave it". boomSLANGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03820077215682328240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-33137156969851384792016-06-02T12:35:42.182-05:002016-06-02T12:35:42.182-05:00"I promise to allow you the Last Word, if you...<b>"I promise to allow you the Last Word, if you'll explain yourself (if you are in fact leaving). OK?"</b> ~ Stan<br /><br />Here's the rub, Stan: I've <i>already</i> explained myself as best as I know how when it comes to what I'm contending on the subject of "free will" as it applies to the "Problem of Evil". I've illustrated that in a world where there is a Divine Creator who oversees its creation, that if I, presumably one of its "creation" whose intelligence is totally limited, can conceive of a world in which "evil" isn't a problem, that the "Creator"(whose intelligence presumably exceeds my own a bazillion-fold) could conceive of the same world. We're told that biblegod <i>originally intended</i> an earthly "Utopia", aka, "Paradise", aka, "Eden", aka, "Paradise of God", for man to dwell eternally. "Sin" wasn't in the original plan, Stan, which tells the reasonable among us that "only good choices" wasn't an issue for the "Planner". But curiously, theists insist that "only good choices" <i>is</i> an issue because it tampers with the creation's "free will". I even asked you pointblank in a multiple choice question if Utopia could be had if "only good choices" were available, and you said "Probably".<br /><br />Long about that time the script is all of the sudden flipped and everything we were discussing about biblical doctrine is deemed "religion", and further, I'm told that I have no grounds to contest or even question said doctrine, because under naturalism there is no "Good" or "Evil", yadda, yadda, and that it's all subjective. Okay, wonderful, except that I'm not the one claiming that there is an Objective Morality; theists are, and the fact that I can't account for such a thing doesn't make Moral Objectivists "correct", by default. In fact, I've illustrated why/how Moral Objectivists are in the same "subjective" boat in which they love to put me. <br /><br />But I "get it", Stan, you and your constituents in theism reject anything and everything that is "atheism", concluding that I and all atheists are "delusional" for daring to question "God", because, alas, the mere mortal beings that we are means that we cannot <i>possibly</i> know the mind, motives, etc., of this (supposed) "God". Meanwhile, theists, who evidently like to forget that they, too, <i>are also mere mortals whose intelligence is limited</i>, sit here and are cocksure that they know the mind, motives, etc., of "God". Funny, that. <br /><br />As for the "Last Word", or even the "last word", 'don't care. Take it or leave.boomSLANGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03820077215682328240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-53549643660602046412016-06-02T06:54:57.076-05:002016-06-02T06:54:57.076-05:00After a quick scan I see that there were four or f...After a quick scan I see that there were four or five questions for Boomslang, none of which he answered. He does not want to engage, it appears that he really just wants to appear to have knowledge that he won't reveal.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-3711922822383803972016-06-02T06:44:06.509-05:002016-06-02T06:44:06.509-05:00Phoenix,
Yes. I like your set analysis.
In fact,...Phoenix,<br />Yes. I like your set analysis. <br /><br />In fact, I'd like to take it one step further:<br /><br />Let God = G, c=creation, f=free will, p=omnipotent, k=omniscience,pr=omnipresence<br /><br />c = {f}<br /><br />G= [{f,p,o,pr}, AND {<b>NOT f,p,o,pr</b>}].<br /><br />The Atheist concept of a deity is far too small. They seem to think of the deity as just a slightly smarter version of themselves, but that their intellect and morality is actually superior anyway. It boils down to "what a deity would necessarily entail", vs. "what they want".<br /><br />Here's what I have observed that Atheists want:<br />1. Perfect total autonomy over intellect, morality, and material existence.<br />2. No challenge to their autonomy by any Objective values, either logic necessities or moral necessities.<br />3. Not to be judged by the huge majority of historically bloody Atheist projects which dominated half the Earth in the 20th and early 21st centuries. <br />4. Not to be judged at all, because it is their right as superior creatures to judge the more inferior creatures, using their untethered intellect and morality. Being judged by their inferiors is both an affront and is not necessary to assign value to.<br /><br />I suspect that boomslang will come back for at least one more shot, AND that he will not address the circularity issue of Appeal to Self-Authority because he cannot.<br /><br /><br />Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-44084084479500212432016-06-02T06:22:54.539-05:002016-06-02T06:22:54.539-05:00I'm not sure whether Boomslang is leaving or i...I'm not sure whether Boomslang is leaving or if that is just his characteristic sign-off. I thought earlier that he was leaving, but he chastised me for that thought. He might be leaving; he's certainly not really engaging in any issues.<br /><br />Boomslang, your idea that a creating deity could change the concepts of Good and Evil is correct, just as is the idea that a creating deity could eliminate gravity, stop time in its tracks, or just cancel the entire "universe project" altogether. But all the physical laws for the universe have not changed. If there is a deity, the deity is very, very consistent.<br /><br />The problem here is, first with the rejection of those consistencies, by the mere idea that they "might" change, because they "could" change. Second, as with the prior argument (not addressed by you), you don't prove anything different from the charge against Atheism, you merely throw out a Tu Quoque Logic Fallacy in a sort blizzard of rhetoric and leave.<br /><br />The charge remains: Atheism provides an amoral environment within which any sort of activity may be defined as "moral". This is without question; it has been empirically determined by the Atheist hegemony across half the earth during the 20th Century, with rivers of blood. <br /><br />Your habit of throwing out the "rabbit hole" defenses is interesting. You are here, but you don't want to discuss things which are fixed in your mind. Then you are dogmatic in those areas and unwilling to address them.<br /><br />That plus your apparent unwillingness to address the other issues brought before you makes me wonder, why are you even here? Your arguments are without substance, your attitude is arrogant, and your response is very selective and neglects most subjects as "rabbit holes". So why ARE you here?<br /><br />I promise to allow you the Last Word, if you'll explain yourself (if you are in fact leaving). OK?Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-90157803658285934062016-06-02T01:51:53.599-05:002016-06-02T01:51:53.599-05:00I think tree serpent (boomslang) has a basic misun...I think tree serpent (boomslang) has a basic misunderstanding of set theory.<br /><br />He argues that whatever applies to the creation (subset) must be equally true of the Creator (Proper Superset).<br /><br />A proper superset must contain all the elements of the subset, but have at least one element which the subset does not contain. Therefore the proper superset and subsets are not equal<br /><br />Let God = G, c=creation, f=free will, p=omnipotent, k=omniscience,pr=omnipresence<br /><br />c = {f}<br /><br />G= {f,p,o,pr}<br /><br /><br />Boomslang thought he could show up here, hurl some rhetorical gambits and claim victory. He soon found out he is way out of his depth over here, hence the quick bail out. Furhtermore, he also misunderstands our position: Our argument is not that God can violate the law of free will, it is that God has more options available than the average mortal, and may over ride free will because of his superior knowledge of these laws. Just as our knowledge of flight allows us to temporarily suspend the laws of gravity but we do not violate any physical laws when in flight.Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-55283612958913735462016-06-01T21:16:53.834-05:002016-06-01T21:16:53.834-05:00This...
"But not under naturalism, which has...This...<br /><br /><b>"But not under naturalism, which has no concept of either Good or Evil. In a natural world, suffering just is. That’s all. It just is. Neither Good nor Bad."</b><br /><br />As you might've guessed, I strongly disagree with this, but the good news is, I caught it early enough with just a cursory read of your latest that we don't have to waste each other's time going down this whole rabbit hole of atheism/naturalism having to account for things like "an Objective morality" and "Good and Evil", yadda, yadda. After all, I could just as easily say, "Under theism, the Divine moral-giver does not adhere to an external standard of Good/Evil or right/wrong, and therefore, 'Good' is arbitrary and can change on a whim. In fact, 'Good' is merely the Divine moral-giver's opinion, which ironically leaves theists in the very same subjective boat in which they like to put atheists."<br /><br />It's been nice chattin', despite knowing the end result. Bye now!boomSLANGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03820077215682328240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-23124761196687253642016-06-01T19:36:04.857-05:002016-06-01T19:36:04.857-05:00"Why do you think that your existence should ...<i>"Why do you think that your existence should be utopian, if there is a God?"<br /><br />Totally depends on which "God" you mean. I mean, from a deist standpoint god created stuff and hauled butt out here. We'd expect to see suffering in that scenario, too. On the other hand, a god who is claimed to oversee its creation(it's "children") and who is also claimed to be things like omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, does't get off so easy, IMO. </i><br /><br />Which version of a creating agent for the universe claims “omnibenevolent”? You are equating theism to religion. They are not the same. If you wish to argue a specific religion or cult, this is not the place, because we discuss the existence vs. the non-existence of a creating agent for the universe here.<br /><br />So as far as I can see, you didn’t answer that question.<br /><br /><i>”"Or if you were God? Or if God should do it your way?"<br /><br />It seems to me that God's way should be better than mine or yours in every conceivable way. Can you not agree with at least that much?”</i><br /><br />Whose definition of “better” shall we use? If we use your definition of “better”, then please define it. Under naturalism and Atheism there is no judgment possible regarding “what is, just is”. So “better” is not definable in material terms – it is a judgment, an opinion.<br /><br /><i>” For instance, if I saw a child being molested in broad daylight, I wouldn't stand there with arms folded as it went down. Doing so would make me a jerk, at best, and I trust you'd agree. IOW, if getting involved makes me compassionate, then in theory, "God" should be even more compassionate. And yet, the defense we hear is that the perpetrator's "free will" takes precedence over the child's "free will"(as if children choose to be raped). That's not compassion; that's excuse-making.”</i><br /><br />So your deduction runs like this:<br />1. You see something which is “evil”, in your judgment.<br />2. You would immediately move to stop that evil.<br />3. Because God doesn’t prevent all evil,<br />4. Then God is culpable.<br />5. And thus you are “better” than God.<br />6. Even though “evil” doesn’t actually exist in a natural, material, godless world.<br /><br />Now, why, as an Atheist living in an all-natural world which is defined by cause and effect, determinism and evolution, do you see any act as “evil”, when everything merely “exists” because it “exists”, naturally? (And don’t bother defaulting to “well, don’t YOU see rape as evil? What I view as evil is not the point). Under what theory of naturalism or evolution is "evil" defined?<br /><br />You seem to believe that “evil” does, in fact, exist. But that is not a natural, material artifact of nature or of evolution. In fact, in an all-natural universe, “evil” is merely a human construct which is not grounded in any self-evident first principles; evil is just subjective opinion, based on acculturation of the opinion-holder. If there is no objective evil, how can God be responsible for it? This appears to present an internal contradiction in your worldview, or at least in your thought process regarding placing culpability on God for the girl’s suffering. If you disagree, please explain why.<br /><br />And the deeper issue would be this: you are not happy with the set-up of the natural world, and your idea of the creating agent for the universe is that such a power should restrict all situations to be beneficial to humans such that free will is not useful or necessary. Why do you wish to live without free will? What would that benefit you? What could you know or understand without free will?<br /><br />And again, what is beneficial for one human might not be beneficial for other humans; that makes utopia a self-referencing, internally contradictory concept.<br /><br />It is logically sound to have created a natural universe, and free will to deal with it. And as always, if you disagree with that, then please explain why.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-75793820419881354202016-06-01T19:35:27.548-05:002016-06-01T19:35:27.548-05:00”Best I can tell, you have no reasonable answer.&q...<i>”Best I can tell, you have no reasonable answer."<br /><br />Best as I can tell from your "Belated thought from the past" post, you think that atheists are about as far from reasonable as one can get. I mean, they're all delusional, after all. So, at this point you're just being redundant(at best)”</i><br /><br />Well, you <b>could</b> actually try to prove that it is not delusional by showing that it is non-circular – or you can accept that believing in the circularity of “Appeal to the Authority of Oneself” is in fact a delusional logical path. Because that is the issue. If you choose to take that as an affront rather than a challenge, then you are not here to assert logical defense for your own worldview, you are here to … just take offense. But you have presented logic as a defense before, why not now?<br /><br /><i>”"The 'bible's redactors' is not an identifiable source, is it"<br /><br />No. But oddly enough, that's never stopped believers from referencing material from said unidentifiable source when they feel it bolsters their position, has it?”</i><br /><br />This is not dodge ball. What is your source? I gave you my source; now it’s up to you. What is your source?<br /><br /><i>”"The translation from the Latin Vulgate refers to that utopia as 'paradise of pleasure', and just 'paradise'."<br /><br />Makes sense. A place where there's "only good choices" available would lead to pleasure, I suppose.<br /><br />Me: Is a "a utopia" possible with "good choices", exclusively? a) yes, b) no<br /><br />You: "Probably".”<br /><br />Figures. But, whatever. You'd told me all I need to know on that topic. When it comes to the "Problem of Evil", no, the creator didn't need to "set it up that way", after all. Your own answer to the question reveals this. </i><br /><br />But you didn’t ask the proper question, did you? Here's the right one:<i><br /><br />”Did the creator have a reason for the way it is set up?”</i> <br /><br />That is the question. The universe could have remained NOT set up, just as well. Did the creating agent have a reason for moving it out of the null position, and into the position of actualized existence with consistent rules for physical behavior. I.e., why is there not nothing, when nothing is the null position??<br /><br /><i>”"Did you sign up for a utopia, but you got born here instead?"<br /><br />Not only that, but I signed up to be white and born in a first world country, too! Haha. Just kidding. But really, in a natural world we'd fully expect to see human suffering along with the good in life. We'd also expect to see more suffering in third world countries, and interestingly, that's precisely what we see. I suppose it could just a big coincidence. But I don't think so.”</i><br /><br />Yes. There is a reason. But not under naturalism, which has no concept of either Good or Evil. In a natural world, suffering just is. That’s all. It just is. Neither Good nor Bad. The judgment comes when the Atheist – Materialist assumes that suffering is evil, even though his own worldview can’t contain evil. Then he blames God, which he doesn’t believe in.<br /><br />If suffering isn’t evil, then God isn’t evil, even under the false claims of culpability. There is no evil. That’s the necessary conclusion of a natural universe. Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-1656636176525203132016-06-01T16:48:36.857-05:002016-06-01T16:48:36.857-05:00"The 'bible's redactors' is not a...<b>"The 'bible's redactors' is not an identifiable source, is it"</b><br /><br />No. But oddly enough, that's never stopped believers from referencing material from said unidentifiable source when they feel it bolsters their position, has it?<br /><br /><b>"The translation from the Latin Vulgate refers to that utopia as 'paradise of pleasure', and just 'paradise'."</b><br /><br />Makes sense. A place where there's "only good choices" available would lead to pleasure, I suppose.<br /><br />Me: <i>Is a "a utopia" possible with "good choices", exclusively? a) yes, b) no</i><br /><br />You: "Probably".<br /><br />Figures. But, whatever. You'd told me all I need to know on that topic. When it comes to the "Problem of Evil", no, the creator didn't need to "set it up that way", after all. Your own answer to the question reveals this.<br /><br /><b>"Did you sign up for a utopia, but you got born here instead?"</b><br /><br />Not only that, but I signed up to be white and born in a first world country, too! Haha. Just kidding. But really, in a natural world we'd fully expect to see human suffering along with the good in life. We'd also expect to see more suffering in third world countries, and interestingly, that's precisely what we see. I suppose it could just a big coincidence. But I don't think so. <br /><br /><b>"Why do you think that your existence should be utopian, if there is a God?"</b><br /><br />Totally depends on which "God" you mean. I mean, from a deist standpoint god created stuff and hauled butt out here. We'd expect to see suffering in that scenario, too. On the other hand, a god who is claimed to oversee its creation(it's "children") and who is also claimed to be things like omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, does't get off so easy, IMO. <br /><br /><b>"Or if you were God? Or if God should do it your way?"</b><br /><br />It seems to me that God's way should be better than mine or yours in every conceivable way. Can you not agree with at least that much? For instance, if I saw a child being molested in broad daylight, I wouldn't stand there with arms folded as it went down. Doing so would make me a jerk, at best, and I trust you'd agree. IOW, if getting involved makes me compassionate, then in theory, "God" should be even <i>more</i> compassionate. And yet, the defense we hear is that the perpetrator's "free will" takes precedence over the child's "free will"(as if children choose to be raped). That's not compassion; that's excuse-making.boomSLANGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03820077215682328240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-74997398237163944372016-06-01T16:10:28.848-05:002016-06-01T16:10:28.848-05:00"Best I can tell, you have no reasonable answ...<b>"Best I can tell, you have no reasonable answer."</b><br /><br />Best as I can tell from your "Belated thought from the past" post, you think that atheists are about as far from reasonable as one can get. I mean, they're all delusional, after all. So, at this point you're just being redundant(at best).boomSLANGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03820077215682328240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-40885288990740392302016-06-01T16:03:29.776-05:002016-06-01T16:03:29.776-05:00” 'Funny, then, that the bible's redactors... <i>” 'Funny, then, that the bible's redactors also refer to that "Utopia" as a "paradise of God", when presumably "sin" cannot be present wherever "God" is. Yes, odd, because if "sin" is absent, then there'd only be "good choices"(according to at least one theist), but yet, "God" doesn't seem to mind only "good choices", you know, since "the Utopia called Eden"(on earth) was his original plan, and "Heaven" is the backup plan.”</i><br /><br />The “bible’s redactors” is not an identifiable source, is it. The translation from the Latin Vulgate refers to that utopia as “paradise of pleasure”, and just “paradise”. <br /><br /><i>“Holy Bible; translated from the Latin Vulgate; A.D. 1609; copyright 1914; pub. Lepanto Press; p7,8.”</i><br /><br /><i>” Is a "a utopia" possible with "good choices", exclusively? a) yes, b) no”</i><br /><br />Probably. Did you sign up for a utopia, but you got born here instead? Why do you think that your existence should be utopian, if there is a God? Or if you were God? Or if God should do it your way?<br />Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-38481709953290624922016-06-01T16:01:33.928-05:002016-06-01T16:01:33.928-05:00Best I can tell, you have no reasonable answer.Best I can tell, you have no reasonable answer.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-67829944335318289142016-06-01T15:13:28.635-05:002016-06-01T15:13:28.635-05:00"go in peace, if you must go."
Fair eno...<b>"go in peace, if you must go."</b><br /><br />Fair enough, except that nowhere have I said that I "<i>must</i> go", which is why I sought your preference. And since you are still asking me questions, I guess that answers that, doesn't it?(rhetorical)<br /><br /><b>"But of course, any argument presented here will of necessity receive a response; that's what the site is all about."</b><br /><br />'Can't choose to not respond, eh? So much for that "free will" junk, I guess.(j/k) But seriously, I understand why you'd need the last word on a site dedicated to showing how delusional atheists are and how they all claim to be intellectually superior. It wouldn't look good to your readership. I get it.<br /><br /><b>"For example, according to the Old Testament rendition of the Utopia called Eden, it was not problematic until the two humans received the knowledge of Good and Evil, which was forbidden them, but which they took, using their free will."</b><br /><br />'Funny, then, that the bible's redactors also refer to that "Utopia" as a "paradise of God", when presumably "sin" cannot be present wherever "God" is. Yes, odd, because if "sin" is absent, then there'd only be "good choices"(according to at least one theist), but yet, "God" doesn't seem to mind only "good choices", you know, since "the Utopia called Eden"(on earth) was his original plan, and "Heaven" is the backup plan.<br /><br /><b>"The knowledge of Good and Evil destroyed any chance to a utopia existence without the conflict that Good and Evil present to a utopia"</b><br /><br />The conflict that Good and Evil <i>present</i> to a utopia. Okay, let's simplify it: Is a "a utopia" possible with "good choices", exclusively? a) yes, b) no<br /><br /><b>"What is your objection to the concept of an extra-universal agent with the ability and motivation to create the universe? Do you require material evidence?"</b><br /><br />Hang on just a second. You're going to take the time to dedicate a separate post to second-guessing me and all atheists, labeling us "delusional" for daring to speculate on the topic of "God", and now you're going to sit there and ask me what my objections are? <br /><br />This, again, is what I mean by a discussion destined to go nowhere. You've not convinced me that you're the least bit interested in wanting to know what I genuinely believe (or don't believe). Best as I can tell, your curiosity is ruse.boomSLANGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03820077215682328240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-54222994133138555382016-06-01T13:56:39.273-05:002016-06-01T13:56:39.273-05:00I want to add, the question above is not a Christi...I want to add, the question above is not a Christian apologetic issue. It is a functional issue which does bear on the fundamental theism of many different forms of theism. But it is a question of how to attach a sufficient cause to an observed effect. In that sense it is purely Aristotelian deduction, based on inductive observation of an empirical nature.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-36380512519123836642016-06-01T13:50:09.144-05:002016-06-01T13:50:09.144-05:00Welp, go in peace, if you must go. But of course, ...Welp, go in peace, if you must go. But of course, any argument presented here will of necessity receive a response; that's what the site is all about. For example, according to the Old Testament rendition of the Utopia called Eden, it was not problematic until the two humans received the knowledge of Good and Evil, which was forbidden them, but which they took, using their free will. The knowledge of Good and Evil destroyed any chance to a utopia existence without the conflict that Good and Evil present to a utopia. This is not evidence either for or against the existence of a creating agent for the universe. It is congruent with every human attempt to establish utopias on earth, though.<br /><br />What is your objection to the concept of an extra-universal agent with the ability and motivation to create the universe? Do you require material evidence? Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-69913891158967578842016-06-01T10:57:59.401-05:002016-06-01T10:57:59.401-05:00Stan,
I've explained to you why I think we...Stan,<br /><br />I've explained to you why I think we'd be wasting each other's time to further attempt to achieve common ground. Thus, it seems to me that perhaps you are the one with an issue(?). Look, we can stop here and I'll be on my merry way, or if you'd like, I can explain why I find your latest defense of the "Creator" to be lacking - for a quick example - how/why it would create another set of problems if we are also to believe that the "Garden of Eden" was <i>originally intended</i> to be a garden <i>paradise</i> and the eternal dwelling place of man. This place is also referred to as "the paradise of God" in the Bible. Surely "God" is present in a place called "the paradise of <b>God</b>", noting that we are told that "God" cannot be in the presence of "sin". <br /><br />Note, none of this is to say that there isn't some sort of apologetic for what I few as a conundrum. But alas, Christian apologetics are not meant to convince people like me. No, they're meant to help the <i>already</i>-convinced when <i>dealing</i> with people like me(and sometimes to quell their own doubts). Have a good one.boomSLANGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03820077215682328240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-20808406211994589032016-06-01T10:53:55.969-05:002016-06-01T10:53:55.969-05:00A belated thought from the past. Atheists presume ...A belated thought from the past. Atheists presume to know what God should have done in order to satisfy their own Atheist preferences, and they declare the deity to be evil or non-existant if God hasn't satisfied their demands. <br /><br />This presumption of moral and intellectual superiority to a deity is without any possible rational support, and indicates the Atheist's penchant for self-anointed elitist superiority over all of the universe. Yet unless the Atheist knows intimately the actual mind of the creating deity, he cannot claim his own superiority without making up stories which he declares to be superior to those in the mind of the deity. <br /><br />Since he cannot actually know if his stories of intellectual and moral superiority really are superior, then the claim cannot come from any grounding in actual Truth. Thus the claims are circular, being grounded only in the self-presumptive superiority of the Atheist and the declared inferiority of God.<br /><br />It is delusional to operate intellectually from such a position. It is also delusional to believe such claims which are made solely on the self-presumed superiority of the Atheist who makes the claims.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-57636724644469900162016-06-01T09:46:41.077-05:002016-06-01T09:46:41.077-05:00Boomslang,
Yes, the creator could have set up a hu...Boomslang,<br />Yes, the creator could have set up a human with a truncated will which allowed only "Good" decisions. But only if there is a universe in which a decision made by one human is always a good decision for all other humans involved as well.<br /><br />Prime example: The decision to abort one's progeny might be seen as "Good" for the woman, but bad for the father, and worse for the aborted humman. On the other hand, keeping the child through birth might be seen as good for the child who was not killed, good for the father, bad for the mother. In fact, the abortion decision is frequently "Good" for the boyfriend, bad for the mother, and bad for the preborn human progeny.<br /><br />There are many such conundrums in natural life. Elimination of those choices would eliminate most if not all decisions from human ability to decide. That's how utopia works: there is no contrary reality allowed in any ideal utopia. All contrary worldviews must be extinguished.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.com