Re: Peterson's Death Sentence

From: Noah Roberts (nroberts_at_dontemailme.com)
Date: 01/26/05 

Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:47:23 -0800

Parse Tree wrote:

>> And how about this one...assuming that mass behaves for God as it does
>> any known being existing in our universe the argument still does not
>> support the assertion that God does not exist...why?
>
>
> It actually doesn't need that assumption. Because if mass was of no
> consequence to it, then it could not create something it could not lift.

That only works in a universe where laws of mass apply.

If God is all powerful then he can break logic, did that ever occur to
you? Yes, if God *is* all powerful, then he can create an object that
he cannot move but still be able to move it. Why would logic get in the
way of something ALL POWERFUL?

If God is dictated by logic then certainly God is not all powerful, so
by using logic you already assume your conclusion is true, which makes
for an invalid proof. The argument is circular, you are begging the
question.

By the very definition of the thing you want to prove does not exist you
are beaten.

If you can define an ALL powerful being that is limited by ANYTHING, let
me hear it. You can't disprove something unlimited by your proof.
Therefor your 'proof' is of no consequence and remains...unproven and
will remain so because:

Question: Is logic limited in its application?

Premise: There may or may not exist an all powerful being.

1. To prove, using logic, that an all powerful being does not exist I
must assume it is limited and bound by the principles of logic.
2. Any all powerful being by definition is not limited or bound by
anything, including logic.
3. Logic cannot prove the non-existence of a being not bound by its
principles.
4. Logic cannot be used to prove the non-existence of an all powerful
being...
5. This places a limit on the application of logic.

Conclusion: Logically, logic is limited in its application.

But we already knew that, or should have since there are many such
proofs...logic is not an absolute truth. There are no absolute truths ;)

Logic works, I grant you, but is limited in its application.

>
>> Because it assumes God is all powerful and that by proving God is not
>> all powerful you prove God doesn't exist.
>
>
> Yes it does assume that God is all powerful, or all knowing.
>
> Are you taking this back, now?

Can't take something back you never asserted. I simply asked, "Why
not," and argued against the answer...I was unconvinced, and still am.
I never once stated that God is infallible, unlimited, and all
powerful...in fact I raised some valid questions to that idea. I also
never stated God was not all powerful for God could well be, all powerful.

I simply argue against the assertations that belief in God is stupid,
irrational, foolish, or otherwise ill-conceived.

Agreeing that it is impossible for an
> omnipotent or omniscient being?

No, I never agreed to that though I knew you would claim I did...that is
the kind of person/people I am arguing against. Straw Man.

First off because you have not convinced me that the rules of mass apply
to an all powerful God, and second because you haven't convinced me that
something all powerful is limited by logical rules...and by definition
this is not so.

This later is a new aspect of my argument, which is continually evolving
as I think about the initial "proof". If indeed the proof was valid I
would have to concede that there is very strong evidence that God is at
least limited by something. But the proof is not valid, therefor I
still do not know.

> Considering you've just agreed that omnipotence would make God
> impossible to exist, I would certainly hope that you wonder.

No, I also never agreed to that. My words were exactly, "assuming that
mass behaves for God as it does any known being existing in our
universe..." But as I have said before I do not agree with this
assumption. You are purposefully changing the purpose and meaning of my
argument, which is not arguing in good faith...you are attempting to
ambush me with things I never said, as I predicted you would.

>
>> Couldn't God have made it moraly ok to murder or are the laws of ethics
>> so absolute that even God is governed by them? If ethics are optional,
>> if you could completely remove any evil inherint in evil acts, why
>> bother with evil at all? It is very possible that God is NOT all
>> powerful but is in fact governed by some of the same laws we are; like
>> the laws of right and wrong.
>
>
> So long as you agree that God lacks omnipotence. Of course at this
> point, one has to look at the definition of God and wonder how it
> differs from aliens that are sufficiently advanced.

My belief: "God" is the creator of all things. God is, and has always
been. A lot about God is rather difficult or impossible to understand.
  The main difference I can see *right* off is that any alien, no matter
how powerful, is contained within this universe (any alien in some other
universe is of no concern but would basically be bound by the same
problem). But GOD created the universe, time, and only God knows what
else...everything really...God is the only thing that was not created.

Yes I know, nothing can exist without a beginning and/or an end...in
THIS universe.

>
>> I do not deny the possibility either way...because I am smart enough to
>> realize I that don't know.
>
>
> Either way? Does that mean that you think God can be omnipotent even
> though you've discovered that such is not possible?

No, because I never "discovered that such is not possible". I don't
even understand how you could possibly come to that conclusion (yet
predicted you would at least make that claim...) since my exact words,
quoted again here for clarification (and below by you), were, "...even
if I give your argument credibility, which I don't..." How did that get
changed around in your brain to "I agree with your argument..."?! Three
possibilities:

1) You can't read.
2) You didn't read, you just reacted.
3) You are arguing in bad faith.

>
> Do you think that's what being open minded is about?

Being open minded is realizing that there are a whole *** load of
things I don't know or understand and being open to the possibilities.
One of those IS the possibility that the impossible is possible...and
that doesn't even account for the possibility that what I think is
impossible is not, which is the more likely possibility.

Zealots, almost by definition, are close minded....locked into
conceptions that may or may not be truthful. Your words and arguments
label you as a zealot.

I don't discount the possibility that God is not all powerful. I do
discount and discredit the proof that he/she/it is not because I believe
it to be false, and I believe I have sufficiently shown it to be so.

>
>> That is were rational people and zealots
>> like you and yours differ.
>
>
> Consistent with or based on reason; logical? Are you saying that
> applying logic to the existence of God can somehow be irrational?

Yes, it is pointless, irrational, irrelevant, and impossible...unless
you can break my proof. Or you can prove that an all powerful being
does not exist without assuming it is not all powerful.

At which point I try again, because I believe it is false to apply logic
the way that was done by Kevin and any *** in my proof, or inability
to find one in yours, is a limitation of mine, not God's.

>
>> So, even if I give your argument credibility, which I don't, you have
>> only proven that your own conception of God is a fallacy...nice job.
>> I never disagreed with that.
>>
>> Now you can go about claiming I said thing I never said...that is my
>> prediction...
>
>
> What?

I was right, see above...

Quantcast