Re: Definition of God

[Virgil]

In article <tJ6dnfzm3LFqbo7YnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
> the facts in evidence:
>
> > Copi does not include the notion of might be ...
>
> Are you blind?
Septic is apparently blind deaf and dumb re things he does not want to
acknowledge, but sees things which do not exist when they support his
prejudices.


You are overlooking the phrase "IS IN FACT", Septic.

The astronomers claim of "IS IN FACT" and an agnostic "claim", if one
can call it that, of "might or might not be" are not equivalent, and any
one who claims they are, is himself guilty of the fallacy of the STRAW
MAN.

So it is Septic who is making all the fallacious arguments.

Or rather making the same false argument over and over as if repeating
his lie will make it true.

 

[Virgil]

In article <tJ6dnf_m3LFhbo7YnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
> the facts in evidence:
>
> > Copi [1953, 56] "Introduction to Logic"
>
> 1953??? Your library is in dire need of an update, old son. 8^)
>
> http://tinylink.com/?Z4BURs8itE

Anything that has been around since the time of Galileo is not going to
change between 1953 and 2006, Septic.

 

[Virgil]

In article <YMudnXl-d8PfZY7YnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Screwup Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> wrote:
>
> > "Screwup Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote :
> > >> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.
>
> Liar. I did not write that, that is YOUR argument (which is contrary to the
> facts in evidence), not mine. Please try to keep your attributions straight.

If you count ">"'s, Septic, you will note that the quote was NOT
attributed to you.

So that Septic's argument against Richard is a false one.

And Septic is WRONG! AGAIN! AS USUAL!!!

 

[Virgil]

In article <Hv6dnZSfNtHWhInYnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps on trying to argue contrary
> to
> the facts in evidence:
>
> > Copi does not include the notion of might be ...
>
> Are you blind?

Richard good deal less so that Septic, as Richard, unlike Septic, sees
what is there and does not see what is not there.

 

[wcb]

Gandalf Grey wrote:

>
> Barwell states:
>
>>>> When I dug up articles where the PT crew admitted
>>>> their PT god didn't exactly work,
>

Hello, I am Richard Hanson, noted liar.

I always lie and I never correct a lie or an error.
When Barwell posts, I lie.


>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
>>> theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
>>> subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
>>> theology.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
>> Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
>
> The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
>
> You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?

Why are you lying here when people can easily check
up on your bizarre and hate filled lies?

http://www.religion-online.org/
Process Studies Journal

Al this is from process theologysown journals!

Do you think people are so stupid they can't figure
this out if I post the URLs? Do you think nobody will
bother to check up and see what a brazen, pathological,
chronic liar you are?

123
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin

Even Charles Hartshorne, the preeminent interpreter of process thinking,
admitted that he could not reconcile his doctrine of god with relativity
physics. The author discusses the dichotomy between the two ideas and
offers some solutions.

Griffin is a long time process theology proponent.

Why do you lie a lie so easily debunked?
because you just do not care if you are a liar found out!
You must be desperate to keep reposting this lie!


--

You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.

Cheerful Charlie

 

[wcb]

Hello, I am Richard Hanson, noted liar.

I always lie and I never correct a lie or an error.
When Barwell posts, I lie.


September 11 - Gandy Grey:
> As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
> philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.



>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
>>> theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
>>> subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
>>> theology.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
>> Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
>
> The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
>
> You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?

Why are you lying here when people can easily check
up on your bizarre and hate filled lies?

http://www.religion-online.org/
Process Studies Journal

Al this is from process theologysown journals!

Do you think people are so stupid they can't figure
this out if I post the URLs? Do you think nobody will
bother to check up and see what a brazen, pathological,
chronic liar you are?

123
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin

Even Charles Hartshorne, the preeminent interpreter of process thinking,
admitted that he could not reconcile his doctrine of god with relativity
physics. The author discusses the dichotomy between the two ideas and
offers some solutions.

Griffin is a long time process theology proponent.

Why do you lie a lie so easily debunked?
because you just do not care if you are a liar found out!
You must be desperate to keep reposting this lie!
--

You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.

Cheerful Charlie

 

[wcb]

Hello! I am Gandalf Grey.
I lie and lie and lie and never correct my lies when called
on my lies. I am always wrong and never correct and error.
I spam the sam old errors and lies, errors and lies, errors and
lies again and again.

Because I am a pathological liar.

I lie because I have utter contempt for YOUR intelligence
and think I can fool you with obvious lies.

 

[wcb]

Gandalf Grey wrote:

"I am a flaming asshole liar."
Yes Gandy, you ARE!

Christianity let the GOP support mass murders for 35
years without really making an decent effort to stop them.

Gandalf thinks this is acceptable.
Christianity is a failure!

The last great genocide of the 20th century?
500,0000 dead Iraqi children killed by Bush's policies
of destroying iraq's water systems during Desert Storm.

100 million christians in Main Stream denominations and these
denominations did not arise as one and end mass murder.

Failure.

No matter how Gandy the LIAR paints it, mass murder went on
DECADES and the main stream denominations with 100 + millions
did not halt it, despite pretensious claims to be the only source of morals.

This after decades of other outrages, support for Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot,
Rios Montt, Pinochet, D'Aubisson of El Salvadior and many more.

The GOP stump broke christianity to never stood up agains evil and main
stream denominations with 100 + million members never decisively acted.

This is the only botton line that counts, American
Christianity's abject, utter failure despite having
numbers enough to decisively act.



Hanson does NOT have brains or competence to note teh bottom line.
despite having numbers to ebnd this steady support of mass murder,
genocide and evil, the churches collectively did nothing effective.


--

You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.

Cheerful Charlie

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h8f5c2gt5pjd6@corp.supernews.com...

> I lie and lie and lie and never correct my lies when called
> on my lies. I am always wrong and never correct and error.
> I spam the sam old errors and lies, errors and lies, errors and
> lies again and again.
>
> Because I am a pathological liar.
>
> I lie because I have utter contempt for YOUR intelligence
> and think I can fool you with obvious lies.

At last you've told the truth.

That's the first step.

>>
>>> I am now rewriting my Omnigenesis essay and sharpening it up rather
>>> considerably.
>>
>> Possible Translation: You mean this time it will actually be logically
>> valid?
>>
>
> Simplified, some what less confusing, still basically the same
> truth

Well, since your original argument was fundamentally flawed and NOT true,
you're probably still in the intellectual bog you began in.


> you are mentally incapable of understanding.

Yadda, yadda.

>
> You are a totally ignorant, unthinking fool.

Cough up the argument, save the taunts for your S&M friends.

>
> Again, OEC gods are claimed to be creators of all, all knowing
> via revelation.

Define revelation. In most modern religions, revelation is considered to be
an ongoing aspect of the church. It's not confined to the OT prophets.

> This logically creates omnigenesis and that creates
> metaphysical nihilism.

How does revelation imply creation? If I tell Fred what I plan on doing
next Tuesday and I don't tell Sally, I can be said to have revealed
something to Fred. Fred might even decide to call himself the prophet of
Gandalf. That doesn't mean I created the universe.

On the other hand, if your claiming that literally....." .....OEC gods are
claimed to be creators of all, all knowing via revelation," then all you're
saying is that the gods that are in the class of gods that are claimed to be
'omni-everything' [to use your pre-confabulated term], are in fact claimed
to be all knowing. And since 'all-knowingness' is already a part of your
'omni-everything class,' the only thing you're telling us is that the gods
that are claimed to be omni-everything are claimed to be omni-everything.

Redundant as well as being a strawman, since it's already been demonstrated
to you that

1. Modern religions do not all claim that God is omnipotent and omniscient
and neither did the original Hebrew texts state that God was omnipotent and
omniscient without internal contradiction.
2. Not all modern religions believe in revelation through holy texts
3. Not all modern religions believe that revelation is closed.
4. Not all modern religions believe that revelation is open.

Which leads us to wonder why or how revelation has anything to do with
anything.

>
> -----
> DOES GOD EXIST? STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - NO.
>
> 1. OMNIGENESIS, DETERMINISM, FREE WILL, METAPHYSICAL
> CHAOS AND THEOLOGICAL NIHILISM.
>
> 4.3 billion people believe in religions that have a god
> that is claimed to have created all, and is omniscient
> and omnipotent.

Which leaves a whole lot of people who don't believe that but still believe
in a god. Which leaves your original claim that 'god is easy to disprove'
totally without support.

> Omni-everything creator class gods (OEC).
> After OEC god religions, non-theistic religions like
> Buddhism are the largest religions. Non-OEC gods are also
> easily shown impossible

Apparently they aren't "easily shown impossible". Out of the piles of horse
manure you've served up to the group, you haven't come up with a single
argument that has succeeded in doing that so far. I doubt that there are
many people here who will have forgotten that the best you could do on that
subject was to offer a personal opinion that Non-OEC gods 'weren't very
important." Quite a proof.

>, but these are not very numerous
> nor important religions.

And true to form, there you go again. Two problems with the comment.

1. YOU don't get to decide what's important.

2. Commenting that a particular god of a particular belief or group of
beliefs is not 'important' is not PROOF that they cannot exist. Cheap
brush-offs don't equal valid conclusions.

You've stated:

> Non-OEC gods are also
> easily shown impossible

So prove it right here, right now. I think most of the readers are tired of
watching the BillyBob version of The Rehashed Theological Arguments on Revue
show. The recognizably logical parts of any of your articles aren't yours.
They're antique arguments that worked better before you started skewing
them. YOU, on the other hand, have shown NOTHING that's new, and NOTHING
that's shown that Non-omnipotent gods are "impossible."

You can pull your pseudo arguments out of the trash, you can re-edit them,
you can reword them, or even put sequins on them and they're still going to
be garbage, Barwell. They still don't prove that no god can possibly exist,
which is what YOU claimed you could do. Everything from then to now has
been you tapdancing around your original fraudulent claim that you could
disprove the existence of any possible god. All the sheer tonnage of your
piles of crap has been an effort on your part to avoid the truth that you
don't have one damned clue as to how to disprove the existence of any
possible god. All your manure and the only thing you have to show for it is
'well, if god exists, god isn't very important.'

> Omni - all, genesis - creation.
> Omnigenesis = creation of all.

No it doesn't. It means "all creation"

>
> Here I shall coin a word for further discussion.

Translation: Here you shall mutilate some words to try to disguise the fact
that you've got no game.

> Omnigenesis means creation of all, to the smallest
> physical detail. If god is in any way omniscient,
> and creator of all, then he in fact creates all,
> omnigenesis, to the smallest detail, all of creation
> to the smallest quantum level material, to the smallest
> Planck quantum distance, Planck quantum time, dimensions,
> fields, everything, all of it.

Sorry, but you flop right here, as usual. If the Big Bang were the creator
of all, there is no logical necessity that the Big Bang would have to
manufacture everything in the universe down to the smallest detail. There
is no valid logic that necessitates that a first cause must create
everything in detail.

The rest of your argument is fatally flawed by your first and fatal mistake.
In short, it's the same garbage argument, propped up with more sophistry.

If you've got an argument that disproves the existence of any god, cough it
up, Barney. The majority of readers here have read better disproofs of the
orthodox god of Xianity than anything you could possibly come up with. If
you've got something new, trot it out or take a hike.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h8frmt2t9jl1a@corp.supernews.com...

> "I am a flaming asshole liar."

Yes, you are.

 

[wcb]

Nixon, Vietnam lies. Secret bombing of Cambodia.
Support for evil Greek Junta. Torture and imprisonments do not bother nixon.
Support for Argentinian Generals and the Dirty War.
Support for Brazilian Generals and their dictatorship.
Evil. Torture and murder.
Support for illegal overthrow of Allende goverment
and support for murderous, torturing Pinochet regime.
Ghastly murderous CIA phoenix program.
Support for murderous Indonesian government.
Take over of Papua and East Timur in 1969.
Mass murders ignored.


American Christians yawn languidly, see nothing wrong with
any of this and give Nixon, an evil man a 60% vote in his
re-election.

No matter how much support for evil, torture, mass murder and illegal acts
Nixon does, Christian America approves and votes their approval.

It is not about Vietnam alone but a long series of shows of support for
evil, far right, genocidal, torturing, murdering thugs around the globe.

Under Nixon, christians did not care and decades later still did not care
enough to use their vast numbers, 100 + million in main stream
denominations to decisievely end such horrors.

To this day they still are not prepared to do so if this should
happen again.


--

You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.

Cheerful Charlie

 

[wcb]

Nixon, Vietnam lies. Secret bombing of Cambodia.
Support for evil Greek Junta. Torture and imprisonments do not bother nixon.
Support for Argentinian Generals and the Dirty War.
Support for Brazilian Generals and their dictatorship.
Evil. Torture and murder.
Support for illegal overthrow of Allende goverment
and support for murderous, torturing Pinochet regime.
Ghastly murderous CIA phoenix program.
Support for murderous Indonesian government.
Take over of Papua and East Timur in 1969.
Mass murders ignored.


American Christians yawn languidly, see nothing wrong with
any of this and give Nixon, an evil man a 60% vote in his
re-election.

No matter how much support for evil, torture, mass murder and illegal acts
Nixon does, Christian America approves and votes their approval.

It is not about Vietnam alone but a long series of shows of support for
evil, far right, genocidal, torturing, murdering thugs around the globe.

Under Nixon, christians did not care and decades later still did not care
enough to use their vast numbers, 100 + million in main stream
denominations to decisievely end such horrors.

To this day they still are not prepared to do so if this should
happen again.
--

You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.

Cheerful Charlie

 

[wcb]

Gandy repeats his tired old lies.

Why? gandy, how many times are you going to lie?
My quotes came from old process theology hnds.
david Ray Griffin. Not as you lied and lied and lied, outside hostile
critics.

What does this lie gain you?

Sympathy? Supporters?
Why lie and lie and lie?

Because you must be stupid and desperate and intellectually feebleminded.


>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
>>> theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
>>> subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
>>> theology.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
>> Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
>
> The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
>
> You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?

Why are you lying here when people can easily check
up on your bizarre and hate filled lies?

http://www.religion-online.org/
Process Studies Journal

Al this is from process theologysown journals!

Do you think people are so stupid they can't figure
this out if I post the URLs? Do you think nobody will
bother to check up and see what a brazen, pathological,
chronic liar you are?

123
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin

Even Charles Hartshorne, the preeminent interpreter of process thinking,
admitted that he could not reconcile his doctrine of god with relativity
physics. The author discusses the dichotomy between the two ideas and
offers some solutions.

Griffin is a long time process theology proponent.

Why do you lie a lie so easily debunked?
because you just do not care if you are a liar found out!
You must be desperate to keep reposting this lie!



--

You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.

Cheerful Charlie

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h8gl412ujrp99@corp.supernews.com...

> Under Nixon, christians did not care

That's a lie and it's been proven to be a lie over and over again.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h8gncdluopue1@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> Nixon, Vietnam lies.

Barwell and Barwell lies.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h8guaesgkla82@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Barwell repeats his tired old lies.
>
> Why?

I don't know. I guess you're a crank.

 

[wcb]

http://www.flagrancy.net/timeline.html

In a campaign that is probably best described as institutionalized genocide
some 1 million Vietnamese combatants and 2-4,000,000 South East Asian
civillians (DRV statistics, including Laos and Cambodia) were killed during
this US stage of the war (estimated anywhere between 10-20% of the
population, or proportionately 27 million Americans), with over half the
Vietnamese casualties inflicted in South Vietnam, the ostensible
protectorate of the United States. Likewise the US managed to kill some
17,000 US troops - one third of all US casualties were reportedly caused by
American-deployed landmines and cluster ordinace.


--

You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.

Cheerful Charlie

 

[wcb]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...aug06,0,6350517.story?coll=la-home-headlines;

Civilian Killings Went Unpunished

Declassified papers show U.S. atrocities went far beyond My Lai.
By Nick Turse and Deborah Nelson, Special to The Times
August 6, 2006

The men of B Company were in a dangerous state of mind. They had lost five
men in a firefight the day before. The morning of Feb. 8, 1968, brought
unwelcome orders to resume their sweep of the countryside, a green
patchwork of rice paddies along Vietnam's central coast.

They met no resistance as they entered a nondescript settlement in Quang Nam
province. So Jamie Henry, a 20-year-old medic, set his rifle down in a hut,
unfastened his bandoliers and lighted a cigarette.


ADVERTISEMENT

Just then, the voice of a lieutenant crackled across the radio. He reported
that he had rounded up 19 civilians, and wanted to know what to do with
them. Henry later recalled the company commander's response:

Kill anything that moves.

Henry stepped outside the hut and saw a small crowd of women and children.
Then the shooting began.

Moments later, the 19 villagers lay dead or dying.

Back home in California, Henry published an account of the slaughter and
held a news conference to air his allegations. Yet he and other Vietnam
veterans who spoke out about war crimes were branded traitors and
fabricators. No one was ever prosecuted for the massacre.

Now, nearly 40 years later, declassified Army files show that Henry was
telling the truth ? about the Feb. 8 killings and a series of other
atrocities by the men of B Company.

The files are part of a once-secret archive, assembled by a Pentagon task
force in the early 1970s, that shows that confirmed atrocities by U.S.
forces in Vietnam were more extensive than was previously known.

The documents detail 320 alleged incidents that were substantiated by Army
investigators ? not including the most notorious U.S. atrocity, the 1968 My
Lai massacre.

Though not a complete accounting of Vietnam war crimes, the archive is the
largest such collection to surface to date. About 9,000 pages, it includes
investigative files, sworn statements by witnesses and status reports for
top military brass.

The records describe recurrent attacks on ordinary Vietnamese ? families in
their homes, farmers in rice paddies, teenagers out fishing. Hundreds of
soldiers, in interviews with investigators and letters to commanders,
described a violent minority who murdered, raped and tortured with
impunity.

Abuses were not confined to a few rogue units, a Times review of the files
found. They were uncovered in every Army division that operated in Vietnam.

Retired Brig. Gen. John H. Johns, a Vietnam veteran who served on the task
force, says he once supported keeping the records secret but now believes
they deserve wide attention in light of alleged attacks on civilians and
abuse of prisoners in Iraq.

"We can't change current practices unless we acknowledge the past," says
Johns, 78.

Among the substantiated cases in the archive:

? Seven massacres from 1967 through 1971 in which at least 137 civilians
died.

? Seventy-eight other attacks on noncombatants in which at least 57 were
killed, 56 wounded and 15 sexually assaulted.

? One hundred forty-one instances in which U.S. soldiers tortured civilian
detainees or prisoners of war with fists, sticks, bats, water or electric
shock.

Investigators determined that evidence against 203 soldiers accused of
harming Vietnamese civilians or prisoners was strong enough to warrant
formal charges. These "founded" cases were referred to the soldiers'
superiors for action.



Single page
CONTINUED

--

You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.

Cheerful Charlie

 

[wcb]

Gandalf Grey wrote:


Nixon was evil, American christians did not care.

Nixon, Vietnam lies. Secret bombing of Cambodia.
Support for evil Greek Junta. Torture and imprisonments
do not bother Nixon.
Support for Argentinian Generals and the Dirty War.
Support for Brazilian Generals and their dictatorship.
Evil. Torture and murder.
Support for illegal overthrow of Allende goverment
and support for murderous, torturing Pinochet regime.
Ghastly murderous CIA Phoenix program.
Support for murderous Indonesian government.
Take over of Papua and East Timur in 1969.
Mass murders ignored.

American Christians yawn languidly, see nothing wrong with
any of this and give Nixon, an evil man a 60% vote in his
re-election.

No matter how much support for evil, torture, mass murder
and illegal acts Nixon does, Christian America approves
and votes their approval.

It is not about Vietnam alone but a long series of shows of
support for evil, far right, genocidal, torturing, murdering
thugs around the globe.

Under Nixon, christians did not care and decades later still
did not care enough to use their vast numbers, 100 + million
in main stream denominations to decisively end such horrors.

To this day they still are not prepared to do so if this should
happen again.
--

You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.

Cheerful Charlie

 

[wcb]

Gandalf Grey wrote:

>
> Dorothy Day, Peter Maurin and the Catholic Worker Movement ... Dorothy
> Day, Prophet of Pacifism for the Catholic Church ... The influence of the
> Catholic Worker during the Vietnam War is explored in detail in American
> ... www.cjd.org/paper/pacifism.html