Chung Alert

Al · medicine forum Guru Joined: 08 Jun 2005 Posts: 385

STAND BACK!!

Chung's posts are becoming a tell that he has "bullshit" all over his
forehead!!

Ringleader Of The Torment · medicine forum addict Joined: 08 May 2006 Posts: 65

In article <e5qavl14f1@enews3.newsguy.com>, Al says...

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD · medicine forum Guru Joined: 25 Mar 2005 Posts: 8540

Flying Rat wrote:

wbarwell · medicine forum addict Joined: 13 Dec 2005 Posts: 96

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD w
IS THERE A GOD? NO.
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - PART 1.

1. First of all, this proof "God" does not exist
is aimed at an entire class of gods, not
particular gods. This is the class of gods that
are omni-everything and creator of all. If I can
disprove an entire class of gods, all particular
gods that belong to that class are collectively
disproven too. This is an efficient, and sensible
approach to disproving god, by which I mean the
god of major religious and theological traditions.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Brahamanistic
Hinduism and other claimed gods of this class.

This of course does not disprove all possible
gods, nor in Part 1 is this meant to do that, it
is meant only to deal with the gods that are
the main problem for this world, the gods of
4 1/2 billion believers. The god that is the
source of fundamentalism, bigotry, fanaticism,
anti-intellectualism and backwardness.

There are a few other classes of gods but
numerically speaking, by numbers of believers,
these are not that widespread or very important.
Animist gods, such as found in Voodoo and
nature gods and the like. It is possible to sort
other kinds of gods into a few classes of gods and
likewise disprove each class. That shall be
considered in later parts.

Here I am primarily looking at the class of
omni-everything creator gods. This should not be
taken to mean other classes of gods cannot also
be likewise disproven.

Or that such secondary classes are totally
unimportant. But basically the omni-everything
class of gods is so far above any other god that
once it is debunked, its hard to step down to
distinctly second rate gods. Its like stepping
down from a Cadillac to a bicycle.
If we can thus disprove that class, we have done
most of strong Atheism's work.

No other class of gods, a lessor kind of god,
can plug the hole left by the debunked Grand
Gods, the omni-everything creator gods of
classical major religions and theological
systems, either. These systems have all based
themselves on a set of claims about god that
lessor classes of god cannot fulfill, precisely
because to do so, they would have to become again,
omni-everything gods to fulfill the
omni-everything claims made for god in these
traditional systems.

2. A BASIC DEFINITION THE CLASS OF
OMNI-EVERYTHING AND CREATOR OF ALL GODS.
I sometimes call this the Grand God of
Grand Theology. Or the Grand God
for short.

3. NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD
There is no evidence whatsover for god. One may
search the best textbooks of the best divinity
schools and seminaries and philosophy departments
of the best universities in vain for evidence.
2500 years of philosophy and theology have
produced no good hard, undeniable evidence at all.

4. ALL WE HAVE TO WORK WITH IS ASSERTIONS

A. All we have to work from is claims, or
assertions made about god. I have chosen the
following 8 assertions as they are all part of
all great and large religions and theological
traditions of the world. Most of 4 1/2 billion
believers will agree with most of these, and these
are all dogmatic to most mainsteam religions.

B. If we can show these create contradictions, we
can show that the class omni-everything creator
gods, the Grand God, cannot exist. All we have to
work with are assertions and logic, but this is
all we need. I need not use anything more to
achieve my goal.

5. THE 8 MAJOR ASSERTIONS I WILL WORK WITH

The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:

A. God is personal, God has will and
consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.

These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism. I have chosen the
specifically because they are in fact assertions
made about god traditionally by these religions
and are all that is needed to show this class of
Grand Gods cannot exist.

Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.

6. WE CAN THUS ABSTRACT A GENERAL CLASS OF
OMNI-EVERYTHING GOD FROM THESE 8 GENERAL
ASSERTIONS.

A. We can abstract a class of gods,
omni-everything, creator gods from these 8
characteristics. We could probably drop G. and
collapse B. into A.
We can ignore other claims though such claims
as god's mercy, justice and love are also affected
and could be used to strengthen the argument.
Many of these are destroyed anyway by considering
A. - G. But the idea is to use minimal number of
basic claims found in all major religious and
theological traditions. If these do the job of
disproving this class of gods, that is all we
need. Anything else is a luxury.

B. There are other attributes of god, that god is
eternal, infinite, that god is simple and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above or are destroyed by
discussion of the 8 attributes discussed above.

C. It does not mean we cannot later consider
such secondary claims as many are also rather
useful at showing this class of gods is
impossible. Some are rather amusing in this
regard. But they are secondary and not critical
for the main argument here.

7. CLASSES OF GODS

A. It is important to note here in 2., that this
is a definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods. This is key to this
disproof which is general in nature.

B. If we disprove the entire class of gods by
examining the logical implications of a few
claims, all secondary claims are also destroyed.
We need not examine claims of god's simplicity or
whether god is immanent or transcendent or other
similar claims. We need not break down
omnibenevolence into secondary associated claims
such as such as mercy, justice, or implied claims,
though we might mention their destruction
in passing when appropriate, and damage done to
such concepts of damnation, or punishment or sin.

C. If we disprove a class of gods, those gods
belonging to that class are also disproven. Jesus,
Allah and other gods that properly belong to the
class of omni-everything creator gods are
simultaneously disproven if we succeed.
all known gods and possible new or obscure gods
are all dealt with, we need not worry about a god
we have never heard of it it is of this class.

D. Tertiary claims are also likewise disproven.
Mohammed is not a prophet of god and Jesus was not
son of god. Moses did not meet god on the
mountain, God did not promise all of Canaan to
Abraham. God did not part the Red Sea. God does
not speak to prophets.

8. THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS

Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level. I chose these since the majority
of believers 4 1/2 billion approximately belong to
these traditions and related religions and sects.

THE PROBLEMS OF AN OMNI-EVERYTHING, CREATOR GOD

9. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.

The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
It is found in Christian writer Lactantius's
"Treatise on the Anger of God".

A basic formulation is:
A. God is defined as powerful
B. God is defined as as good.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not powerful as claimed.
E. Or God is not good as claimed.
F. Or god is neither powerful or
good.
G. Or god is not existant.

It should be noted the original version as found
in Lactantius does not use the words omnipotent
or omnibenevolent, these are much later
restatements of the original problem of evil which
works just as well without these terms.

10. THE FREE WILL DEFENSE

A. The free will defense of the problem of evil
goes back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It
is still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by many other
theologians, old and modern.

B. God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to
do evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.

11. THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DISPROVEN. FIRST WAY

God has free will.
God is has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.

A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god-like
free will and a god-like good nature.
D. Inability then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
good.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.

So god can have free will and a good nature and
still be said to have free will despite never
doing evil. Man can thus also have this and
inability to do evil is not a sign of lack of free
will. We both would have potential to do evil, but
simply don't. Here, the free will defense fails,
the problem of evil remains.

13 OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
FREE WILL DISPROVEN PART 2.

God is defined as creator of all in these
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.

A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.

14. OMNI-EVERYTHING GODS HAVE THUS SELF
DESTRUCTED.

A.The Grand God of Grand Theology is thus self
destroying, it is incoherent and contradictory as
a theory and such a god is impossible.

B. Further more such a situation makes god a
problematic idea. If there is no free will and if
thus god makes all decisions to the smallest
physical extent possible, at all times, then not
only is this god not good, but evil, a
contradiction, but it destroys all of this
purported god's secondary attributes. In such a
universe, mercy, justice, god's alleged love of
mankind are all incomprehensible nonsense. It
makes no sense to create a man to do evil acts
and condemn him to eternal torment forever for
something god decided, not that man.

C. Any system of theology that claims god created
all and that god is omniscient, knowing the
future, faces this problem and dissolves into
total incoherent nonsense, a reductio ad absurdum
that makes a mockery of all religions based on a
god that is allegedly creator of all and
omniscient, knowing the future. As we will see,
omnipotence, time and creation will combine
(in future parts) to create a far more powerful
disproof of this class of gods.

15. THE SITUATION SO FAR.

1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
6. This destroys all other claimed secondary and
good attributes of god.

16. GOD AND TIME.

A. Both Augustine and Boethius described god as
being transcendent to time, outside and beyond it.
Thus there is no past, present, or future to god,
all is now. Since all is now, god must have
create all things at once at once. Including
again, our every act, thought and inclination.
God is said to be out of time because otherwise he
must affected by time, which would mean he is not
as defined, all powerful or omnipotent. But this
means he is omniscient and again, we have no free
will.

B. As seen, explicit claims of omniscience, and
creatorship of god doom free will and more. Any
claim god is outside of time forces us to the
claim god is effectively omniscient.

C. But if we drop claims god is out of time and
now is affected by time, god cannot be as claimed,
omnipotent. And since omniscience, foreknowledge
of the future is important to the concept of
prophecy, that secondary assertion fails too.
Prophecy is a key concept of traditional religions
and theologies of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

17. MANY SECONDARY AND LESSOR ATTRIBUTES ARE
DOOMED BY THE CONCEPT OF OMNIPOTENCE AND
CREATORSHIP OF GOD

A. If evil exists, god is evil. We have no free
will which means secondary attributes of God such
as mercy, love, justice are pretty meaningless
in face of a god that creates many of us morally
evil. Heaven, hell, damnation, sin, punishment,
salvation, nothing much makes with such an
omniscient god. Augustine's free will defense of
God in face of Epicurus's problem of evil is
utterly undone by his claim god is sovereign over
time because he is all powerful, or omnipotent.

B. Besides these attributes being destroyed, this
destroys all religions that dogmatically claim
god is omniscient, creator of all and has these
secondary tributes.

18. TIME CONTRADICTS GOD'S CREATION OF ALL.
A. If we say god is omnipotent, all powerful, he
is outside of time then free will is impossible
and all else is simply an Universe utterly alien,
incoherent and mad and most certainly not anything
the great theological traditions tell us it is.

B. To avoid this, if we say god is not outside
of time, this then implies time is outside and
beyond god and he cannot have created it. Thus
contradicting claims of being the creator of all.
Especially ex nihilo as many religions claim.

C. Thus the another contradiction pops up
dooming a major claim, god created all. Theology
cannot keep the claim god is outside of time or
keep the claim god is subject to time, as then
they lose Omnipotence and creatorship of the
entire universe as dogmatic claims.

19. Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand Theology itself as a
methodology. As pointed out, this destroys the
claims and viability of an entire class of
possible gods, all secondary and tertiary
claims for such a god of this class also
fail, as do dogmas or secondary or tertiary
claims hanging off this class of gods in anyway.
This dooms religions based on such gods too.

19. If this entire class of omni-everything
creator gods cannot exist as defined, specific
gods cannot, nor can claims such as this or that
Grand God sent this or that revelation to man or
some prophet or did this or that. This there are
no grounds to use these religions to deny rights
to say, homosexuals, or to claim Genesis myths are
true since they are god's word and thus evolution
must not be taught in schools.

20. This Grand God is thus disproven and is
utter irrelevant to anything real and existant.
And this is not the last of the problems of the
class of Omni-everything gods that are creators
of all.

21.
A. Omniscience and creatorship of all doom free
will, the alledged goodness of god and important
concepts like sin, salvation, punishment, mercy,
love and justice of god besides.

B. Omniscience implies either strong
determination, or creation of all things to the
smallest physical extent, or god out of time,
again creating all at once and dooming free will
and again many secondary assertions made for god,
mercy, love, et al.

C. Free will defenses fail in two ways and cannot
save god from the Epicurean problem of evil.

D. Omnibenevolence creates conditions for god
that are destroyed by contradictions between
omniscience and creatorship, and problems
of free will.

E. God's alledged goodness and omnipotence
combine to destroy god's alledged goodness
as seen in section 11. Evil is still a problem
for a good and omnipotent god who creates us.

F. Omnipotence imlies time is not a limit
on god which becomes a problem.

G. Time is a problem for god as it forces one
into a dilemma, time either means all is created
at once, creating B. above, or showing god is
affected by time which implies god is not creator
of all as claimed.

And there are more problems that will be
considered in other parts to come. Such as the
nature of logic, and the rules and laws of the
Universe. But here at this point we can see that
an omni-everything god that creates all is
impossible to sustain as an existing class of
gods. Religions that rely on such a god as their
basic foundation are also disproven thusly also.

(End of Part 1)
*************************************************

--
"Its the hit dog what yelps."
- Mark Twain

Cheerful Charlie

Cardinal Numbaz · medicine forum Guru Joined: 05 Dec 2005 Posts: 323

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Cardinal Numbaz · medicine forum Guru Joined: 05 Dec 2005 Posts: 323

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
<snip>

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD · medicine forum Guru Joined: 25 Mar 2005 Posts: 8540

wbarwell wrote:

pbamvv@worldonline.nl · medicine forum beginner Joined: 21 May 2006 Posts: 4

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schreef:

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD · medicine forum Guru Joined: 25 Mar 2005 Posts: 8540

pbamvv@worldonline.nl wrote:

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD · medicine forum Guru Joined: 25 Mar 2005 Posts: 8540

Al wrote:

Scott Richter · medicine forum beginner Joined: 18 Jan 2006 Posts: 20

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <nospam2@heartmdphd.com> wrote:

Mark K. Bilbo · medicine forum Guru Joined: 03 May 2005 Posts: 470

Previously, on alt.atheism, Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD in episode
<1149325274.238101.149880@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>...

Mark K. Bilbo · medicine forum Guru Joined: 03 May 2005 Posts: 470

Previously, on alt.atheism, Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD in episode
<1149338717.973165.138480@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...

Al · medicine forum Guru Joined: 08 Jun 2005 Posts: 385

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

raven1 · medicine forum beginner Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 29

On 3 Jun 2006 02:01:14 -0700, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<nospam2@heartmdphd.com> wrote:

Google