John C, you have been urged: *"If you are an atheist, prove that God does not exist."* *I am not an atheist, an atheist needs a god dy deny, the concept does not fit into my worldview, but that is besode the point. What is more relevant:*
years ago on another list I received a similar outburst - more politely than Roger's - and replied: "Wrong position. I do not have to PROVE a negative, if the positive is questionable. Prove the 'existence' of god FROM OUTSIDE THE BOX (no dreams, no ancient teachings, no feelings, no faith, no assumptions/presumptions or questionable written sources (like a Bible?) including such supposition) and THEN I will prove you wrong. End of discussion. The person left the list. John Mikes On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John Clark > > If you are an atheist, prove that God does not exist. > If you can't, you are a hypocrite in attacking those that do believe that > God exists. You haven't a leg to stand on. > > > Roger Clough, [email protected] > 9/10/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* John Clark <[email protected]> > *Receiver:* everything-list <[email protected]> > *Time:* 2012-09-09, 10:37:05 > *Subject:* Re: The poverty of computers > > On Sat, Sep 8, 2012� Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > >You call yourself an atheist, >> > > I do, but that's only because I also have the rather old fashioned belief > that words should mean something. > > > which means you reject every notion of God, of any religion, does it not? >> > > Apparently not. If we live in a world where words mean whatever Jason > Resch wants them to mean then I'm not sure if I'm a atheist or not. However > I do know that the idea of a omnipotent omniscient being who created the > universe is brain dead dumb. And I do know that I have never heard any > religion express a single deep idea that a scientist or mathematician > hadn't explained first and done so much much better. You tell me if that's > good enough to make me a atheist or not. > > > you cannot simply reject the weakest idea, ignore the stronger ones, >> > > That is just about the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard in my > life! The key to wisdom is to reject weak ideas and embrace strong ones > regardless of where they originated. > > > rejecting the idea of Santa Clause won't make you an atheist >> > > I am a Santa Clause atheist and you are a Thor atheist, and in fact you > are a atheist for nearly all of the thousands and thousands of Gods that > the Human race has created over the centuries, I just go one God further > than you do. > > > In my post, I showed that the notion of God as eternal, immutable, >> unlimited, self-existent truth appears in many religions. Do you reject >> this concept of God? >> > > No, I don't reject that true things are true, and I don't reject that a > being that was eternal and knew everything that was true would have > superpowers, and I don't reject that Superman in the comics had X ray > vision or that Harry Potter was good at magic. Perhaps you find this sort > of� fantasy role-playing philosophically enlightening but I don't. > > > I have studied some of the beliefs of other religions. >> > > So have I and I've concluded that to a first approximation one religious > franchise is about as idiotic as another. > > > I am showing the common themes: "self-existent" and "cause of existence" >> > > Just saying that God caused Himself to exist without even giving a hint as > to how He managed to accomplish that interesting task is as vacuous as > saying the Universe cause itself to exist with no attempt at a explanation > of how it works. > > >> The following sentence has identical informational content: "in the >>> beginning was stuff, and the stuff was with stuff, and stuff was stuff". >>> Funny ASCII characters do not make things more profound. >>> >> >> > Logos is not a meaningless term, >> > > Logos has more meanings than you can shake a stick at, none of them > profound; "Logos" can mean a reason or a speech or a word or a opinion or a > wish or a cause or a account or a explanation or many other things; when > religion says "in the beginning there was logos" it means "stuff"; but I do > admit that "logos" sounds cooler than "stuff" and is more impressive to the > rubes. > > > and therefore the above expresses a meaningful idea about the notion of >> god, >> > > Yes, the sentence "at the beginning of stuff there was stuff" is not only > meaningful it is also without question true, its just not very deep. Oh > well, you got 2 out of 3. > > > which is almost word-for-word identical to Keppler's quote below. >> > > If God is geometry like Kepler thought then I'm not a atheist. If God is > an ashtray then I'm not a atheist either. > > > mathematics is a form of theologh. >> > > OK two can play this silly word game, theology is the study of the > gastrointestinal tract. > > > > Only a fool would say truth does not exist so with that definition >>> God certainly exists. >>> >> >> > Ahh, so you are not an atheist after all. >> > > In the English language I'm a atheist but In the Jasonresch language I am > not, the definition of "God" in that language is whatever it takes to be > able to say "I believe in God". The important thing is to be able to chant > those 4 words in your mantra, what the words actually mean is of only > secondary importance. > > > This is not re-inventing language to keep the ASCII letters "God", this >> concept of God has existed in Hinduism for thousands of years. >> > > I might be impressed if only you had bothered to say what "this" is. > > > I had quotes from religions texts saying that "The infinite truth is the >> source of Brahman", >> > > So the Brahman has infinite truth because He is omniscient and He is > omniscient because He has infinite truth; and a black dog is a dog that is > black and a dog that is black is a black dog. This is the level of > profundity that I've come to expect from religion. > > > and "Brahman is the totality of what exists". >> > > If Brahman and Universe are synonyms then Brahman certainly exists, but I > am not impressed by the depth of Indian religious thought. > > > This is Platonism before Plato, and not so easy to refute. >> > > That is absolutely true, it would be very very difficult to refute that > the totality of existence exists; but I'm not sure that proves that the > ancient Indian philosophers were deep thinkers. > > > Do you really see no connection at all between the notions of >> mathematical truth and some of the ideas found in these religions? >> > > I think that saying "God is mathematics" does not help in the slightest > degree in figuring out how the world works and provides zero philosophical > value; although is sounds nice as long as you don't think about it. > > > I see you ignored the names of God in Islam, >> > > Names? What the hell difference would it make if God's name was Seymour > Butts or I P Daily? > > > as well as the Sikh mantra, which are very clear on this. "There is one >> creator whose name is truth", and among Islam's names: "The Eternal, >> Immutable, Truth". >> > > Do you really care what these jackasses sing in their mindless mantras? I > don't. > > > Platonism is the most common viewpoint of modern mathematicians, and >> this leads to the existence of infinity. >> > > OK, there is no largest integer. What does that have to do with a > omnipotent omniscient conscious being who created the universe? > > > many religions already profess that God is the infinite: >> > > Crossword puzzles are more fun than this sort of silly wordplay. > > > "Everything that is", "Totality of Existence", >> > > So everything is everything. Wake me up when religion says something > interesting. > > > � John K Clark > > � > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
