Proving the Bible is false in few words.

[Caecilian]

How are 'being an ethical automaton' and 'being the instigator of reality' contradictory? I don't see any inconsistency. If anything, it seems rather elegant, since it removes the whole issue of ethical intent from the business of creation.

Well it was only that you used the phrase to suggest options which I'm suggesting weren't there. Now you're dropping the choice from your argument.

You seem unclear about what I'm arguing here, so I'll go over it again:
1. There are certain actions, intentions, perhaps even concepts which are 'good' i.e. morally positive.
2. A being is 'good' if it chooses to follow good actions, have good intentions, use good concepts etc. Choice is important here. For example, if someone were to be forced to be good, that wouldn't make them a good person, the reason being that the good thoughts/ deeds/ whatever weren't their choice.
3. God, as defined by yourself, is a being that by its very nature can only think/ act / whatever in a good way. Goodness is not a choice for god.
4. Therefore god is not good. Rather, god is a sort of ethical automaton that has no choice in ethical matters.

Having thought this over a bit, I think that I'd go even further. It seems to me that your version of god must always follow the single most moral course of action, which clearly entails that he has no choice about anything. In other words: god isn't just an ethical automaton, he's an automaton- period. God does not have free will.

No it wasn't. Your point was that schmod illogically limited = God. and I showed how shmod didn't = God unless the restriction was logical.

I don't see that Schmod's limitations are any more or less logical than god's. They're equivalent, and I have been saying this all along.

I don't define God as having no causal effect. I allow for the possibility that this could happen. My only caveat being that he would, to be consistent with the logical construct, never be seen to have effect.

You've misunderstood me here; perhaps I didn't write very clearly. But never mind- your response raises a much more important issue. You actually seem to be saying that:
1. God really could be causally impotent (!!).
and
2. Even if god can cause things, its a necessary part of his nature that his influence should be impossible to detect.

The problem with this is that if the influence of something is impossible to detect, even in theory, that its hard to see how it could possibly count as a cause. Causes are, after all, linked to their effects by chains of cause/effect. If there is no possibility of discerning the chain, then there is no way of ascribing causation.

So in addition to being an automaton, god has no causal powers at all. Great. Thats one omnipotent deity that we have here.

The universe is God and he is also more than that. It can never be a satisfactorily scientific description, other than to say, non scientific. ie... it can never be known. This is a theological answer, and theological logic. Nomologic has no bearing.

Theological logic ?!

Horse shit, more like it.

[fr0d0]

You seem unclear about what I'm arguing here, so I'll go over it again:
1. There are certain actions, intentions, perhaps even concepts which are 'good' i.e. morally positive.
2. A being is 'good' if it chooses to follow good actions, have good intentions, use good concepts etc. Choice is important here. For example, if someone were to be forced to be good, that wouldn't make them a good person, the reason being that the good thoughts/ deeds/ whatever weren't their choice.
3. God, as defined by yourself, is a being that by its very nature can only think/ act / whatever in a good way. Goodness is not a choice for god.
4. Therefore god is not good. Rather, god is a sort of ethical automaton that has no choice in ethical matters.

There you go introducing the choice back into the equation. Like this has any bearing on the positive entity. You have no thing, then some thing. This 'thing' has no choice but to be a 'thing'. Does that preclude this thing from being a thing? Apparently so in your reasoning.

What you're saying about God is what theologians already agree upon. God has no choice in being good - that is God. God is good. You're supporting the theological argument.

Having thought this over a bit, I think that I'd go even further. It seems to me that your version of god must always follow the single most moral course of action, which clearly entails that he has no choice about anything. In other words: god isn't just an ethical automaton, he's an automaton- period. God does not have free will.

Absolutely. I agree.

I don't see that Schmod's limitations are any more or less logical than god's. They're equivalent, and I have been saying this all along.

No, you're condition for Schmod was logical except for his inability to affect purple. Do you see how that is not equivalent?

I don't define God as having no causal effect. I allow for the possibility that this could happen. My only caveat being that he would, to be consistent with the logical construct, never be seen to have effect.

You actually seem to be saying that:
1. God really could be causally impotent (!!).
and
2. Even if god can cause things, its a necessary part of his nature that his influence should be impossible to detect.

1. you just said the opposite of what I said
2. correct

The problem with this is that if the influence of something is impossible to detect, even in theory, that its hard to see how it could possibly count as a cause. Causes are, after all, linked to their effects by chains of cause/effect. If there is no possibility of discerning the chain, then there is no way of ascribing causation.

So in addition to being an automaton, god has no causal powers at all. Great. Thats one omnipotent deity that we have here.

Everything and nothing is complete evidence of Gods direct action or inaction. Depending how you look at it, which is kinda the point.

Theological logic ?!

Horse shit, more like it.

I lol'd at that one too

[Paul the Human]

Well shit! I'm convinced! Pass me some of that Kool-Aid!

Mmm. Hand picked cherry. My favorite flavor.

[tackattack]

Fr0d0 I would add that God would have the choice on the how, when, and where in our space time to act. His actions would always be for the most moral conclusion, that would only be the what.

[Caecilian]

There you go introducing the choice back into the equation. Like this has any bearing on the positive entity. You have no thing, then some thing. This 'thing' has no choice but to be a 'thing'. Does that preclude this thing from being a thing? Apparently so in your reasoning.

What you're saying about God is what theologians already agree upon. God has no choice in being good - that is God. God is good. You're supporting the theological argument.

Having thought this over a bit, I think that I'd go even further. It seems to me that your version of god must always follow the single most moral course of action, which clearly entails that he has no choice about anything. In other words: god isn't just an ethical automaton, he's an automaton- period. God does not have free will.

Absolutely. I agree.

Bolded added

So what are you saying here? Perhaps this:

God is (is ontologically identical with) goodness.

Which makes god a concept rather than an entity. Another interpretation would be that god is some sort of platonic essence of goodness, but really I hope that you're not saying that. Platonic essences are, to put it mildly, philosophically dubious.

Either way, god gets relegated to being a sort of abstractum. And abstracta don't have causal powers, can't create universes, and don't enter into personal relationships with people.

Beyond that, I honestly can't think of anything that you might mean by 'god'. You clearly want to identify him as some sort of entity rather than as an abstractum, but equally clearly you're not willing to accept the entailments of god being an entity. It all sounds incoherent to me.

Jumping to the other important part of your post:

The problem with this is that if the influence of something is impossible to detect, even in theory, that its hard to see how it could possibly count as a cause. Causes are, after all, linked to their effects by chains of cause/effect. If there is no possibility of discerning the chain, then there is no way of ascribing causation.

So in addition to being an automaton, god has no causal powers at all. Great. Thats one omnipotent deity that we have here.

Everything and nothing is complete evidence of Gods direct action or inaction. Depending how you look at it, which is kinda the point.

So you accept that the influence of god cannot be detected, even in theory. It therefore follows that:
1. Anything that could be explained with reference to god, could be explained at least as well without reference to god. Thus 'god' has zero explanatory value.
2. 'Miracles' either didn't happen, or have a naturalistic explanation.
3. Following on from 2, the bible becomes a collection of myths.

And what is true of god is also presumably true of other putative immaterial entities, such as angels and souls. So perhaps you'd like to agree or disagree with the following:

All facts, including all phenomenal facts, are metaphysically necessitated by the microphysical facts. If P is a statement that reports all the microphysical facts and Q is a statement that reports all phenomenal facts...then:
(Entailment Thesis) P -> Q is metaphysically necessary.

Think carefully, fr0d0. The quote above is a widely accepted formulation of materialist monism.

Do you want to join the Dark Side, fr0d0?

[fr0d0]

So you accept that the influence of god cannot be detected, even in theory.

No

[Caecilian]

So you accept that the influence of god cannot be detected, even in theory.

No

So how does that relate to this:

Fluké Wrote:
So, for all practical purposes, such a God may as well not exist.

And that's the crux of the theological argument. You cannot know

And this:

My only caveat being that he would, to be consistent with the logical construct, never be seen to have effect.

How is 'never be seen to have effect' different from 'undetectable even in theory'?

[fr0d0]

What I said was, it can be completely detected and not detected at all, depending on your outlook. We're crossing assent with empirical proof here. Of course God can never be proven empirically, but faith from the assention of evidence we accept and trust is enough to believe.

[Caecilian]

What I said was, it can be completely detected and not detected at all, depending on your outlook. We're crossing assent with empirical proof here. Of course God can never be proven empirically, but faith from the assention of evidence we accept and trust is enough to believe.

Okay, thats fine. No empirical evidence for god can ever be found, so if a given phenomenon has an explanation, there will always be a naturalistic explanation for it. The rest of my post is therefore unaffected. I'll repeat myself.

It therefore follows that:
1. Anything that could be explained with reference to god, could be explained at least as well without reference to god. Thus 'god' has zero explanatory value.
2. 'Miracles' either didn't happen, or have a naturalistic explanation.
3. Following on from 2, the bible becomes a collection of myths.

And what is true of god is also presumably true of other putative immaterial entities, such as angels and souls. So perhaps you'd like to agree or disagree with the following:

All facts, including all phenomenal facts, are metaphysically necessitated by the microphysical facts. If P is a statement that reports all the microphysical facts and Q is a statement that reports all phenomenal facts...then:
(Entailment Thesis) P -> Q is metaphysically necessary.

Think carefully, fr0d0. The quote above is a widely accepted formulation of materialist monism.

Do you want to join the Dark Side, fr0d0?

The dark side is beautiful fr0d0, and you're already half way there.

[nickos777]

the way to prove beyond doubt that the bible is not true is to listen to me,just because i am the CURENT messiah!messiahs are centennial!that would make ME the 'millenial messiah',i.e.the one who the future of religion hangs on!listen, i know it may be hard to take-what proof do i have? no 'hard proof',just a hell of a lot of 'coincidences' and 'circumstantial evidence'. most of it is on my website but unfortunately i have been told i am not allowed to post its address, at least, not yet!don't blame me,blame the moderators!i would LOVE for you to look at my site! basically i was blinded about 4 or 5 months after hearing 'you are the new messiah' one night in my bedroom.i regained my vision and said 'funny if theres a shooting star as well'...that VERY second there were several-king of heaven? there is a lot more information on my site, if you want the address i suggest you private message me!

p.s. i decided in 2002(about 1.5 years after the voice)that the word 'god' is a 'collective noun' which means 'all angels'(think of the Ash album 'free all angels'.ABOVE the angels(and demons for that matter)are two colossal alien beings who are playing a game of life with the solar system(think of the name of a song by the metal band 'pissing razors'-'box life')there are clues everywhere BUT nobody knows HOW to look for them because it seems to me the human race is completely OBSESSED with the life of a man who lived TWO THOUSAND years ago,i.e.jesus.what about perseus(son of zeus)-couldn't mary iof magdalin have been a 'resurrection' of medusa?i have read that medusa was 'the leader of a band of priestess who wore masks. and the Sirens-wailing banshees? what about the 3 Fates=the three 'goddess' who 'measured the life of Man'? the fact is that EVERY messiah/christ figure is confronted with these three 'evil'women and each messiah deals with them differently. i'm sorry top say that jesus LOST to them,i.e. the woman who 'anointed' him with expensive oil was openly mocking him,and so he lost.

can god's existence be proven?no. can it be ascertained HOW god works?yes.possession is everything!i.e. angels visit the earth,possess thereby influencing actions of one maybe two people who in turn have a great effect on other lives.