From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Fri Jan 25 2002 - 16:36:55 MST
On 25 Jan 2002 at 8:16, David Hill wrote:
I will do this one more time:
The classical attributes of a deity are singularity ("there can only be
one") omnicience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful),
omnipresence ('(S)He's everywhere!"), omnibeneficence (all-good), and
omnisoothience (all-true). One can immediately see that the attributes
of omniscience and omnipotence cannot simultaneously inhere in a
single universe. If a deity were omniscient (knew everything), then it
would know the future and thus be powerless to change it, but if it were
omnipotent (all-powerful), then it could change the future, and therefore
could not know it for certain. It's like the simultaneous impossibility of
an irresistable force and an immoveable object; if one of these two
deific properties exists (and they are considered to be the most
important two), then the other logically cannot.
Furthermore, If deity were everywhere, it could perceive nothing, for
perception requires a point of view, that is, a spatiotemporal
perspective other than that of the perceived object from which to
perceive that object. Deity being omnipresent (everywhere), there is
nowhere that deity would not be, thus nothing it could perceive.
It gets even worse. Deity must be perfect; in fact, perfection is what is
broken down into all those 'omni' subcategories. thus, a perfect deity
could not even think. Thought is dynamic, that is, to think, one's
thought must move between conceptions. Now, thought could
conceiveably move in three directions; from perfect to imperfect, from
imperfect to perfect, and from imperfect to imperfect (from perfect to
perfect is not an alternative, perfection being singular and movement
requiring distinguishable prior and posterior). But all of the three
possible alternatives contain either prior or posterior imperfection or
both, which are not allowably entertained in the mind of a perfect deity.
There's much, much more that I could add, but this should more than
suffice to demonstrate that asserting the existence of a deity
possessing the attributes that most consider essential to it deserving
the deific appelation mires one in a miasmic quagmire of irretrieveable
contradiction, once one journeys beyond emotion-driven faith and uses
one's noggin to divine (Luvzda pun!) the nonsensical and absurd
consequences necessarily entailed.
>
> Show the proposition to be false or accept its possibility.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
> Of Nicholas Johns
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 7:32 AM
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: RE: virus: Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 22:02:51 -0700
>
>
>
> With the advancement of computing power comes the revival of the solipsist.
>
> I know nothing, yet I believe I know everything.
>
> >From: "David Hill" <dhill@spee-dee.com>
> >Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
> >To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> >Subject: RE: virus: Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 22:02:51 -0700
> >Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 07:17:57 -0600
> >
> >Y'all still seem disinterested in the proposition that all the carefully
> >crafted arguments on Truth, beauty and God are moot simply if they are
> >wrong. And we can't tell whether they are or not because we can only trust
> >in experience or faith (Faith: the inability to consider the proposition
> >that you may be wrong) and we can't trust in those either.
> >
> >I personally cannot discount the possibility that one morning I will wake
> >up
> >and find writ large over the morning sky:
> >
> >"GAME OVER PLEASE INSERT ANOTHER KRASNIKL"
> >
> >
> >"Any sufficiently elaborate simulation is indistinguishable from reality"
> ><ME>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
> >Of
> >David McFadzean
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 11:07 PM
> > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > Subject: virus: Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 22:02:51 -0700
> >
> >
> > Approved: intermix
> > Message-ID: <009f01c1a546$725d5ea0$6d8414d8@therion>
> > From: "Sehkenenra" <Sehkenenra@netzero.net>
> > To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> > Subject: Re: virus: Kirk: Standing my ground
> > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:17:30 -0800
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset="iso-8859-1"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > X-Priority: 3
> > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
> > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
> > [David Hill]
> >
> > David Hill] <SNIP>
> > Again, the problem is all in the semantics.
> >
> > -Nicq MacDonald
> >
> > "For centuries our race has built on false assumptions. If you build a
> > fantasy based on a false assumption and continue to build on such a
> >fantasy,
> > your whole existence becomes a lie which you implant in others who are
> >too
> > lazy or too busy to question it's truth." - Renark von Bek, The Sundered
> > Worlds (Michael Moorcock)
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:41 MDT