Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
10-04-2002, 12:57 PM | #251 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,485
|
Vanderzyden:
While it is impossible to show that every single possible version of God can't exist, we simply take the attributes that theists present and show that a God with that combination of attributes can't exist. For example, if God created us with all of our faults and then judges us based on those faults, then it is impossible for that God to be a just God. Therefore, a God with those attributes is impossible. |
10-04-2002, 01:02 PM | #252 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: southeast
Posts: 2,526
|
Quote:
|
|
10-04-2002, 01:06 PM | #253 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: United States
Posts: 1,657
|
The other possibility is that God exists but is not just by human standards, yet being all powerful can declare himself just in whatever he does, however capricious, arbitrary and cruel, which is indeed the case with Yahweh. Christians have somewhat house-broken this Canaanite mountain god who eats fat and entrails, but all of the attributes imputed to him by scripture are not in evidence in his behavior. he is for all intents and purposes no different than other prposed gods in this regard, better than some, worse than others. The apparent difference between Yahweh and Satan as Christian folklore has it, is not one of character, but one of power. The srongest devil gets to call himself god, but he's still a pox on humanity.
|
10-04-2002, 01:07 PM | #254 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Place
Posts: 285
|
Quote:
Oh, and you still haven't answered my first question. |
|
10-04-2002, 01:20 PM | #255 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
|
Wrong forum and thread, perhaps, but I'll give short answers to each:
1. You--a human with a mind--exist. Um, yeah. And? 2. You breate a medium balanced well at two parts nitrogen, one part oxygen. Yeah, and if it was different, my physiology would be adapted to handle that. 3. Our parent star is a bachelor, located a sufficient radiation-safe distance from the center of our galaxy. The earth receives lots of harmful radiation from the Sun. That's why it's recommended you wear sunblock if you're going to be exposed for long. Skin cancer, you know. Kind of a knock on the designer, wouldn't you say? 4. The earth is a precise distance from its parent star. Actually, the distance varies; we're on an elliptical orbit. In July we're about 3 million miles further from the Sun than in January, IIRC. That damn designer can't get anything right! 5. The earth-moon system, which is astronomically classified as a double-planet, is in just the right balance for the necessary amount of tidal activity. What is the "necessary amount" of tidal activity? And why do tides vary so much? Tides are much higher in some places, and very low in other places. Tides vary daily even locally. Sloppy designer! Sloppy designer! 6. Similarly, we may consider the specificity of the composition and volume of the earth's atmosphere, the age of the earth, the presence and immense variety of extras (gold, diamonds, spices), etc. You've already considered the composition and volume of the earth's atmosphere. And what does the age of the earth (@4.5b years by scientific reckoning) indicate about a designer? Extras? We know where gold and diamonds come from, no need for a designer there. Spice? He who controls the spice, controls the universe! [/QUOTE] |
10-04-2002, 01:29 PM | #256 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
The problem with me providing references is that I read my interpretation from the same literature everybody else reads and I've just given you my intepretation of the lineage of Jesus as presented in the bible. Of course, Mary and Eve are metahysical beings but so was Jesus but not Joseph in who's mind the entire event took place. A silly litle book like "Jude the Obscure," or "the Spire" are loaded with my kind of language. So is poetry and I once got into big trouble over my explication of "Porphyria's Lover." I got a D- for Shakespeare but I am convinced that all this stuff was written from my perspective but in such a way that it was hidden behind the physical world wherein it really does not make rational sense. |
|
10-04-2002, 01:45 PM | #257 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: southeast
Posts: 2,526
|
Quote:
Hey Mageth, what planet do you come from? Here on Earth, oxygen is about 20.9%, or close to one part in five. On a side note, when scuba diving, I often get air tanks specially filled at 32-36% oxygen. The human body has a large tolerance for different air mixtures. (Fixed quote tags) [ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Asha'man ]</p> |
|
10-04-2002, 01:53 PM | #258 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Silver City, New Mexico
Posts: 1,872
|
Vanderzyden;
Your recent argument for the existence of god is as old as Aquinas, at least. We've all seen it before, and the teleological argument has long been refuted. Even if we grant for the sake of argument that creation implies a creator, how does that prove that the god of abraham must be this creator? What is so special about your creation myth? Why should I think that it is more likely than any other of the hundreds of creation myths? |
10-04-2002, 01:55 PM | #259 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
|
Hey Mageth, what planet do you come from? Here on Earth, oxygen is about 20.9%, or close to one part in five.
Um...I was quotin' Vanderhosen or whatever his name is... Yeah, about 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, IIRC. I recognized it as wrong but declined to call him on that one. |
10-04-2002, 02:21 PM | #260 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 694
|
Mageth,
I hesitate to respond to you because of the disingenous tone of your reply. This is all a big joke to you, is that it? If you continue, then surely you will understand if I choose to avoid you. Quote:
Also, we don't need sunblock. The shade of trees is sufficient. Quote:
But, of course, this is typical of the skeptic: dismiss the main issue and focus on petty details that might show inconsistencies. You also offer no reason why the elliptical orbit is imperfect or problematic. Perhaps you could play the role of Design Consultant: Why would a circular orbit be better? Oh, did you really think that I wasn't aware of elliptical orbit? Are you again attempting to "show me up"? Are you trying to impress the girls here with your macho tactics? Tell me, since you apparently attempt to impress us with your specialized knowledge, do you know at what distance (closer or further) from the Sun would prohibit the existence of biological life? Quote:
Notice that I am not asking HOW, but WHY? Vanderzyden |
|||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|