From: Walter Watts (wlwatts@home.com)
Date: Fri Jan 25 2002 - 17:30:44 MST
Just wanted Joe Dees to know;
I have kept this wonderful summation in my billfold for some time now for easy
reference.
Thanks, Joe.
Walter
joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
-- Walter Watts Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc. "To err is human. To really screw things up requires a bare-naked command line and a wildcard operator."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:41 MDT