Re: The logic of atheism

Ron Peterson wrote:

> robpar wrote:
>> Ron Peterson wrote:
>
>>> Let's posit that there is a god who is identical the concept
>>> of love.
>>>
>>> [. . .]
>>>
>>> Prove that god doesn't exist.
>
>> You prove that such a critter actually exist. There is no
>> reason to believe in the unproven, until such critter is proven
>> to exist, I will with hold belief.
>
> I was merely trying to show the futility of trying to prove that
> the gods created by theists don't exist.

But it's not futile at all. (It /may/ be futile getting the theist
to actually define a god sufficiently to examine the matter, but
that's a different problem.)

I've yet to come across /any/ god that couldn't be trivially fit
into one of two (and occasionally both) categories: vitally
dependent on a logical impossibility (and therefore non-existent)
or a deification of something utterly mundane (pick any idol).

The God of modern Western theology fits into the first
category: he's nothing if he's not the omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent creator of the Universe. Since each of those
properties can easily be shown to be self-contained logical
contradictions or impossibilities, God is nothing. Might as well
define God as a right-angle equilateral quadrangle in Euclidean
space in which every point on the figure is equidistant from a
central point (that is, a circular square).

Most emperors throughout history fit the second category, often
with a bit of the first thrown in for good measure. Gaius
Julius Caesar was undoubtedly real...but he's just zis guy, you
know? People may have sincerely believed that he had supernatural
powers, but they were mistraken.

And, once you realize that there /are/ inviolate natural laws
(such as the ones you learned the first day of math class when you
were young), it quickly becomes apparent that /all/ gods must fit
into one or both of those categories. Even the ones that are real
and have real powers--assuming such exist--are simply making use
of an understanding of natural law that we lack. They're the moral
equivalent of David Copperfield setting himself up as a tin god to
a back-bush tribe.

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The basic problem I have with Intelligent Design
    ... > saying that what we have now is uniquely and amazingly well-suited to fit, ... that it MUST have come about by design. ... > Even though I am a Christian and believe that God DID create everything, ... > What I mean is that whatever path the development of the universe took, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Thoughts on Intelligent Design
    ... that it MUST have come about by design. ... > Even though I am a Christian and believe that God DID create everything, ... > everything fits because if it did not fit, we would not be here and, here is ... > What I mean is that whatever path the development of the universe took, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Thoughts on Intelligent Design
    ... >> everything fits because if it did not fit, we would not be here and, ... >> What I mean is that whatever path the development of the universe took, ... I do believe God created the universe and everything in it. ... >> If we, as Christians, are to reach the non-believer, Christians must do ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: was I stupid?
    ... But, Woodstock, those "dark nights" are not the same thing as ... they are thought of as tests from god as to one's belief in him. ... My point was merely that the atheists who have been on both sides ... The people who fit are a lot more pleasant to be around than ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: Ages everyone?
    ... I don't cast God in the role of adversary. ... That just doesn't fit my (Episcopalian) theology. ...
    (rec.games.frp.dnd)