Hello Mr Foster, was a pleasure to talk and discuss with you.
You are an intelligent person and we always learn a little more struggling or talking with smart people. Thanks for the talk and Best to You too.
Jocax

I think I'm going to have to apologize and bow out of the rest of this discussion.
The personal life is getting busier and I'm being forced to cut back on my time on-line.

So, rather than try to get in a "last-word" about the argument, I'll make my last word this:

I'm glad to read the thoughts, and hope that you find enriching conversation both on-line and off.

Best to you.

Good Day !

1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

Y Said: "Having the knowledge to do something is simply part of having the capacity to do it. These aren’t two separate things."

Not necessarily.

someone may have the knowledge to create a computer program but do not have the means to put it into practice, for example may have been paralyzed and blind. Similarly someone may have hands and eyes but do not know how to create a computer program. Thus have the physical ability and have knowledge are two separate hypotheses.

In addition, a person can have the knowledge to play chadrez but do not know how to cure cancer.

Ie each ability that God may have hypothetically, would need to have associated a chance conhecomento for this capability.

This implies that having infinite knowledge requires endless hypotheses, since the knowledge to, for example, cure cancer is not the same knowledge to know how to play basketball.

Y Said: "I didn’t say it couldn’t, but you are arguing that the Little Blue Devil is simpler on the grounds that it does not have knowledge. If it does have knowledge, how is it simpler than God?"

LBD is simpler than god because he do not have all infinite knowledge that God has.

The knowledge of LBD is *finite* so he has less hypothesis tha God.

For example: God knows how cure the cancer. LBD does not know how cure the cancer.

And each knowledge has embeded hundreds ( ou thousands ) of another knowledges, for example,

The knowledge to cure cancer is necessery knows:

-How to detect cancer cells

-How to kill cancer cells without kill good cells

-etc..

IS:“Both are gods, but my "little god" have less power than yours. So it is simpler than yours.”

YS: "Less power does not equate to less complex."

less power means less complexity when that less power is a subset of the greater power. For all LBD knowledge of hippoteses station also in God but * not * vice versa. not every god of knowledge in this LBD.

"“If you explain how something that knows 'how to create a rock' *implies* he can automatically create a bacteria and everything else too, I agree with you."

YS: "Being intelligent enough to create the universe would imply being intelligent enough to create a bacteria or a unicorn). "

There are things that do not just take intelligence you need to have knowledge. For example:

Anyone can be hyper super genius but can *not* know how to play chess, someone has to teach to play chess!

And you are wrong, create the baby-universe like a Big-Bang is easier than create bacteria.

The big-bang need relativy few knowledge : a lot of particle and energy and physical laws. Then the universe develops by itself.

I S: " “LBD can do good things and some not good.I can not set it to be a good or bad because it can act as humans sometimes are good times are bad.”"

Y S: "Then this makes it a more complex entity than God."

You are wrong because:

-LBD do not have to follow a rule to be good. he can act by random too, without rules.

-God can not act doing bad things. So , like as said before ,

God must act with *** infinite restriction hypotheses *** associated with preventing acts causing mischief

( he can not torture a child, for example )

So god is much more complex than LBD.

YS: "Claiming that it is mortal is most certainly a hypothesis about it’s nature."

IS: Claiming that it is NOT mortal is most certainly a hypothesis about it’s nature.

You argue that theologians have written hundreds of pages arguing such and such a thing as if it were an argument. This is not an argument is fallacy of authority.

If you do not know to defend the views of theologians and argues that I do not know that they know as if it were a logical response then you should get out of the debate because it uses and abuses of authority fallacy as if it were a logical argument .

I think the same about theist : " I’m not convinced that there’s a real desire to understand —but just to reject, or even mock, other people’s views."

------------------------------

2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

I S: ": “A being that permits the evil when could help to avoid this is not good. Is a bad creature.”

Y S: "But you have cut out all of my comments about why a good God might do this"

You found it, that God permits evil.

I did not cut the reasons why do not you gave them.

And no matter the particular reasons him so allows evil because the definition is an evil that could be avoided.

And if you have some reason this evil becomes a well then two things:

1- You are defending utilitarianism that allows something bad if a greater good turns in the future.

2 as a result The act was not an evil but a good. So you would be contrary to the premise that there was an act that was wrong.

And you're running away from the problem. I said that does not exist nehum lock or infringement on free will if someone or God help a child who falls into a hole and is eaten alive by ants and insects. Do you agree?

Do you think a person allowing this MAL if he could help would be good? (Yes or No) And God?

You still have not answered if a person can help this child who fell into the hole because God can not?

But I think we can conclude that "if God permits evil" it definitely is not good, because good things do not allow evil. (Especially if this evil does not lead to any future good)

IS:" “We should act to minimize suffering and maximize well-being.”"

YS: "Given the claim that everything is physical, why should we do this? "

We must do this in order to have a better world. If people do not follow this should be punished, (which is what the laws already do).

YS:"What physical thing makes suffering evil?"

Physically evil is what causes pain and suffering for no consideration the welfare of the future to offset this evil.

------------------------------

3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

IS: "“I’m saying that because of God's omniscience people have as much free will as a robot has. The robot follows its programming without knowing that there is a program he must follow. Similarly people follow your destiny already mapped out (in God's mind) without knowing that there is no other way forward.”"

YS: "First, this is true give materialism. This is exactly what people do if everything is physical."

NO, you are wrong. Because there is the uncertainty principle that put some randomization in phisical things.

There is not a route already mapped out that everyone has to follow (as in divine omniscience) the quantum random stops we know what we will do.

YS:"God doesn’t program people. He simply knows what they are going to decide"

No matter when God made the universe and people he programmed them or not. The fact is that people can not act or think or want something other than what God already predicted for them.

You agree that in our universe there time?

And in this BEFORE the person time to be born he already knew what people would want or do or think? And people could NOT think or want something other than what was in God's mind?

I think I am not being clear. I will re-wrote:

*SUPPOSE* before you born , God predict the following:

**** you will kill some one at 11/11/2018 as 13:00 hs ****

So the gods *real knowledge* is this : "you will kill some one at 11/11/2018 as 13:00 hs "

Ok?

I ask to you : "Can you not kill this person as gos had predict?"

remember : God can not change his prediction because he is perfect and do not fail.

------------------------------------

5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

If god do not create alll things at ONCE, then there is order in his creation.

That order is the time of the god.

Does not matter peopple claim god is outside of the time. It is simply no sense.

The time of the god is the order what he does.

So he has to follow his knowledge in the same order his thought.

Therefore it is a robot. he cvan not change what his predict for himself.

---------------------------

6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

" “have ability does not mean that will be done.”

YS: "This is supposed to be a proof. That is, you have claimed that it is completely, utterly impossible for a perfect being to create imperfect beings.""

But you said yourself he created an imperfect universe that has imperfect beings (humans).

So this is proof that it is not perfect because it created imperfect things.

The proof is this: perfect beings, by definition, do not create imperfect things.

If god created something imperfect, he was not perfect. End of logical conclusion.

-------------------------------

8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

If you want to go back to the beginning okay.

If God has infinite power he need not rest then the God of the bible there is no need for rest.

If God made things in several days qdo could do it all at once shows that God is schizophrenic or something without having to do a kind of wanderer with nothing to do, therefore deusnao could be perfect.

---------------------------

9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

YS: "So please present the proof that this must be the reason why God created the universe"

No , it is the opposite. I have post the proof and you do not refuted it. Again:

Or he (god) want to do something or not.

If he want to do something it is because something was not perfect. ( so it was not perfect !)

Because perfect things do not needs changes.

Otherwise

If he does not *want* to do and do it , then it is schizofrenic and not perfect.

End of proof.

For example if God was all that existed and all was perfect then there is not necessity

to create IMPERFECT beings. If god create imperfect beings when all was perfect this creation proof gos was not perfect.

----------------------------------

10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

YS: ". I pointed out that these people have given reasons why you are wrong, and you haven’t said anything in response to those reasons."

IS: Not.

You said me that person said in some place in some time about this things but do not show *what* is this reasons.

Only say that there is some arguments but not say what is .

YS: " What is your response to those reasons?

So far, it seems to be this: “GOD IS NOT SIMPLE ! ;

As if capitalizing the words made it true.

Actually, yes. God is simple. And many reasons have been given for that.”

God is not simple because it has too much embeded hypothesis in his definition.

You said god is too much intelligent but intelligence is DIFFERENT then knowledge !!

See some knowledge that not depends on intelligence :

- God know how to play chess ( H1 )

- God know how to play basket ( H2 )

- God know how to play Piano ( H3 )

...You are seeing?

- God know how to play cricket ( H1000 )

and anothers knowledge about the universe like :

- God know how many atoms have in the moon ( H1001 )

- God know how many rocks have in the moon ( H1002 )

- God know how many sand grains have in the mars ( H1003 )

...You are seeing?

- God know how many stars have in the galaxy "EGS-zs8-1" ( H10323432303 )

- God know how many atoms have in the star 120122 of the galaxy "EGS-zs8-1" ( H10323432304 )

...You are seeing?

- God know how many fotons the star 120122 of the galaxy "EGS-zs8-1" was produced ( H10323432304 10^1255 )

...

...You are seeing?

(I wonder also WHERE god holds so much knowledge.)

( It is good to note that the Blue Imp JN has no such assumptions built on his knowledge, so it is much simpler by Occam's Razor. )

Because this God is too much more complex than any another think

--------------------------------

13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

About the Uncertanty principle and non physical things I said :

"“For science there is no evidence of non physical things. So the principle is true until evidence of contrary.”

You said : "Science never takes the position that something “is true until [there is] evidence of [the] contrary”. "

You are distorting what I said. I did not say that * everything * is true until proven otherwise.

I said that the laws of physics, in particular the principle of uncertainty, which were written by * much * observation and tests,

are ** considered ** true until proven otherwise.

**No** scientific theory is considered a priori as **absolute truth**. It can be considered true while not prove false.

This is the principle of * falsifiability * proposed by Karl Popper.

Wiki: "Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false"."

"...he concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

You said "then it certainly hasn’t run tests on non-physical things"

You are wrong again:

Wiki: "...The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) offers a prize of US$1,000,000 to eligible applicants who are able to demonstrate a supernatural ability under scientific testing criteria agreed to by both sides. Based on the paranormal challenges of John Nevil Maskelyne and Houdini, the foundation began in 1964, when Randi put up $1,000 of his own money payable to anyone who could provide objective proof of the paranormal.[87] The prize money has since grown to $1,000,000, and has formal published rules. So far, no one has progressed past the preliminary test, which is set up with parameters agreed to by both Randi and the applicant. He refuses to accept any challengers who might suffer serious injury or death as a result of the testing.[88]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi

-------------------------------

14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

I said :

"A child is walking and falls into a pit or precipice and be there screaming and suffering

while being eaten alive by ants and other insects.

Why omniscient God does not help this child who dies in great pain?

Why God did not even give a quick death of this innocent child?"

You said : "“why do you expect you and I to know everything that God does?”

KKKKKKK! LOL :-)

It is as if the judge told the defendant:

'- In the face of such evidence presented what you have to say for yourself before sentencing?'

And the defendant says:

'-The Fact that I do not have a defense does not mean it does not exist!'

I'm accusing God of being an evil being. You are not defending their existence? Now you want that * I * defend its existence? It's really funny of you :-)

I'm proving you through the facts, putting a raw evidence, that their god, if any, would not be a good.

If you or anyone no can defend It this factual evidence it should be considered non-existent or a bad being, simply.

When I asked you: “Then for you "God permits evil" is correct?”

You answer: "Yes. I completely agree that God permits evil."

Why dont you this response here???

What your colegues of theism have to say about? they no have answer too?

--------------------------------

15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

YS " If you’re simply going to demand that I prove things, I’ll simply leave."

IS: You claim jesus existed without evidencesof this existence.

It is like I said before:

"If I write a paper that a green elf created the moon then this text is evidence that a green elf created the moon ?? Of course not."

YS: "First, no serious historian would say that there is no evidence for these things."

I change the words what I would say is:

"no serious historian would say that there is evidence for a "pink unicorny" in the middle of everest mountain."

In the same way there is no evidence of jesus existence other than what is wrote in the bible. See:

There is no historical reference to Jesus’ life, death or the crucifixion?nothing at all. John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence1 lists the following contemporary historians/writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus was supposed to have lived:

Apollonius Persius Appian Petronius

Arrian Phaedrus Aulus Gellius Philo-Judaeus

Columella Phlegon Damis Pliny the Elder

Dio Chrysostom Pliny the Younger Dion Pruseus Plutarch

Epictetus Pompon Mela Favorinus Ptolemy

Florus Lucius Quintilian Hermogones Quintius Curtius

Josephus Seneca Justus of Tiberius Silius Italicus

Juvenal Statius Lucanus Suetonius

Lucian Tacitus Lysias Theon of Smyran

Martial Valerius Flaccus Paterculus Valerius Maximus

Pausanias

According to Remsburg,

“Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.”

http://jdstone.org/cr/files/nohistoricalevidenceofjesus.html

If I write a paper that a green elf created the moon then this text is evidence that a green elf created the moon ??

Of course not.

The occan razoer still must be applied:

A) dead person resurrecting and ascending to heaven (without rockets) or

B) Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

A) Someone who has performed miracles that go against the laws of Physics or

B) Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

A)someone born from a virgin or

B)Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

By Occans razor we must to choose : "Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it"

You said " It needs to show that these things did not happen"

On a show court that a defense to be correct violate the laws of physics, do you think the judge would accept this defense?

--------------------------

17 – Argument: For the unneces sity of a Cause [Jocax]

"Then just use the word “real”. Calling something physical has always meant something different."

Could be synonyms without problems.

IS: “I´ve already explain it: If there is no law then everything is possible ( "P OR NOT P" is true )”

YS: "But this is completely wrong, by the laws of logic, as we’ve already seen."

No, P is impossible if P is a contradiction ( False ) .

If P is some non contradiction proposition, there is no premisses to conclude P never can be true !!!

If P is some non contradiction proposition, there is no premisses to conclude P never can be true !!!

So, P can be True if P can be true it is possible.

IS: " “I Agree that God could be created by JN, but tehere is no evidence that it was done.”"

Y S: ", it wouldn’t change my point. It will be done eventually, if your theory is correct."

As god have infinite hypothesis and the law: "nothing more can be created by JN" have infinite hypothesis embeded like:

-a particle can not be created

-a piano can not be created

-an elephant can not be created

- etc....

So God and the law "nothing more can be created" has the same probability to be created by JN.

"“you are wrong because the atheism is the denny of god(s). Therefore it *IMPLIES* a universe explanation without god."

explain a universe withou god is part of explanation of the unoverse, for example Big-bang theory is an explanation without god.

I said:

"(P or not P) means :

a) P is true

or

b) (not P) is true

The logic do not have preferences for (a) or (b), so, both has equal possibilities."

Y s : "No. “Logic doesn’t have preferences” doesn’t remotely, in any remotely rational way mean that “both have equal possibilities”.

lets call "Not P" = "Q". ( both not a contradiction )

There is no premisses in logic that P is more possible than Q.

**** If you are claim that "Q" is more possible than "P" you have to prove this Claim using only Logic. ***

I said the same : You really ought to read up on the laws of logical inference before arguing this.

YS : "Whether or not that is true, it is still complex."

anything else that you set will be more complex than the NJ

IS: “The power is not a hypothesis it is a *consequence* of the lack of the laws.”

GOd is too much complex because it has infinite knowledge. NJ has no one.

YS: " If you are proposing something that doesn’t follow logical rules, you may as well be proposing pure magic. This is no longer a rational discussion."

We can try to analyze it logically but hes not required to follow the laws of logic ..

11- Is the JN limited to our logic? Could it be illogical?

A: There are two interrelated concepts about the Jocaxian Nothingness: The Jocaxian Nothingness Object (JN-Object) and the Theory about this JN-Object (JN-Theory). The JN-Object is defined as something that has properties relative to the JN (P1 and P2) above. The theory about the JN (JN-Theory) is based on logic and explains how the JN-Object could have materialized our cosmos at random. It is possible to say that the JN-Object does not have laws therefore it does not need to obey logic, and is it correct, indeed. However, by analyzing the JN-Object from our classic logic, we are not attaching new possibilities to the JN-Object, but the opposite: we could, in fact, be limiting the possibilities of the JN-Object which means, maybe it could be more totipotent than we can imagine.

---------------------------------------

Okay here we go again:

1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

You have claimed: “Because this if God can create a virus then :

1-He have knowledge for it and

2-He has capacity to do this virus.”

Having the knowledge to do something is simply part of having the capacity to do it. These aren’t two separate things.

I wrote: "Beyond that, you need to explain how the “little blue devil” can have power to create without knowledge how to create (or vice versa)."

You respond: “Why your god can have power and knowledge and my LBD can not?”

I didn’t say it couldn’t, but you are arguing that the Little Blue Devil is simpler on the grounds that it does not have knowledge. If it does have knowledge, how is it simpler than God?

You write: “Both are gods, but my "little god" have less power than yours. So it is simpler than yours.”

Less power does not equate to less complex.

I wrote:"But this, again, assumes that God’s knowledge consists of many separate “hypothesis” (entities). God’s knowledge is not like that. It is a single “hypothesis” (entity)."

You respond: “If you explain how something that knows 'how to create a rock' *implies* he can automatically create a bacteria and everything else too, I agree with you. Otherwise , i dont.”

Being intelligent enough to create the universe would imply being intelligent enough to create a bacteria or a unicorn). Moreover, this simply assumes that God’s knowledge works the way ours does: as separate discrete facts. I don’t agree to that.

And that is the main point. I don’t particularly need you to agree. This is supposed to be an argument for atheism. It is supposed to show that God is more complex than your “Little Blue Devil”. This means that we need a reason to think that it is impossible that God could have his knowledge in the way I describe—simply assuming that this is impossible until I show otherwise does not establish that atheism is true.

You write: “LBD can do good things and some not good.I can not set it to be a good or bad because it can act as humans sometimes are good times are bad.”

Then this makes it a more complex entity than God. God is all good (which means that God is pure act). If the “Little Blue Devil” isn’t always good, then it is sometimes lacking in goodness. This means that it instantiates some things, and not others. This makes it a composite object (partially instantiated act, and partially potency). Hence, it is complex in a way that God is not.

You write: “The classical concept of God is erroneous because it does not realize that god with infinite power and knowledge implies, as I said, there is endless embedded assumptions.”

The concept doesn’t simply fail to realize this. The classical theologians have written thousands of pages on why God’s power does not involve “endless embedded assumptions”. They’ve answered that exact complaint, at length, many times. You don’t have to agree, but you can’t simply demand that this objection is true and that they’ve never noticed this.

It is hard to imagine anyone who knows much at all about classical theism who wouldn’t know that this argument has been refuted many times.

I wrote: “Claiming that ‘he died’ is another ‘hypothesis’.”

You respond: “No you are wrong , is not a hypothesis about JLV but an hipothesis what happen with it.”

Claiming that it is mortal is most certainly a hypothesis about it’s nature. A thing cannot die unless it can be changed or taken apart (i.e. made out of parts and therefore complex). It also assumes that the being exists within time (alive in the past, but dead in the future). This makes it still more complex (doing different things at different times—changing in the different ways that would require—would mean being composed of specifically arranged parts).

I wrote:"If you don’t already know the definitions of these terms in the context of classical theism, then you can’t claim to have a good reason that God does not exist."

You respond: “Or this "pure" predicate is just a way of trying to fool people by making it appear something divine, as if sheer existence was different from existence. Or something exists or does not exist.”

Anyone who believes this definitely doesn’t know much of anything about classical theism. You can accuse me of simply lying to you if you want but there are two problems with that.

First, you shouldn’t be in this conversation if you really thought that. You should just leave.

Second, you should know whether or not you’ve actually studied classical theism. If you haven’t (which sounds like the case), then it should be obvious to you that you aren’t making an educated decision when you reject it. You don’t need me to tell you that.

You write: “If you think that atheists are denying a different god it's up to you to tell them what kind of God is that which is different from what they think it is”

I agree that I should do this—when one of two conditions are met. Either I’m trying to convince the atheist that my position is correct (and therefore not subject to their challenges) or I believe that the atheist is genuinely interested in understanding what classical theism is.

With most atheists on the internet, I find that neither of these things are true. I’m not convinced that there’s a real desire to understand—but just to reject, or even mock, other people’s views. As a result, I’m rarely convinced that it’s worth the effort to try to persuade such people of views that they don’t seem interested in even understanding.

--------------------------------------

2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

You write: “A being that permits the evil when could hel to avoid this is not good. Is a bad creature.”

But you have cut out all of my comments about why a good God might do this, as well as my comments about the fact that (for this to be a real proof) you need to prove not only that all my suggestions are false, but that there can be no other possible reason.

You write: “It is a mistake to think that because there is no god there is no purpose or ethics in human life.”

But that wasn’t what I argued. I argued that there would be no purposes in human life if everything were physical. This is perfectly straight-forward, given that neither purposes nor ethics are physical things.

You write: “We should act to minimize suffering and maximize well-being.”

Given the claim that everything is physical, why should we do this? People may not like this—it may not help one achieve this or that purpose, but why could you point to a person and say “that is evil”, so long as you assume that everything is physical? What physical thing makes suffering evil?

-------------------------

3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

You write: “I’m saying that because of God's omniscience people have as much free will as a robot has. The robot follows its programming without knowing that there is a program he must follow. Similarly people follow your destiny already mapped out (in God's mind) without knowing that there is no other way forward.”

There are two problems with this.

First, this is true give materialism. This is exactly what people do if everything is physical.

Second, this not true of theism. God doesn’t program people. He simply knows what they are going to decide. That isn't the same as programming them. I’ve pointed this out already; if you disagree, you need to explain why these things are the same, not merely assert that they are.

Like this:

You write: “Their "choices" were already decided in God's mind even before they were born.”

Their choices weren’t decided in God’s mind. They are merely known to God, who is outside time (so certainly not ‘before’). Their choices were decided when they made their choices.

You keep asking the same question over and over. I’m simply not going to answer it anymore. Look at my previous posts if you want an answer to that.

--------------------------

5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

You ask: “You are saying god make all at once?”

No. Not at all. I’m suggesting the possibility that God exists outside of time. I didn’t say anything about what happens inside time.

Also, we seem to have forgotten the other objection. It has not remotely been shown that knowing what you are going to do means lacking free will. That simply doesn’t follow—and there’s a reason why know sophisticated

----------------------------------------

6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

I Wrote:"Do you have a reason to think that something which was absolutely perfect would lack the ability to create imperfect beings?"

You respond: “have ability does not mean that will be done.”

This is supposed to be a proof. That is, you have claimed that it is completely, utterly impossible for a perfect being to create imperfect beings. Whether or not “that will be done”, having the ability means this is not a proof of atheism.

You write: “I've refuted all. So if you do not show a reason to a perfect being create an inperfect thing then this proof will remain valid.”

First, no you haven’t refuted them all. I’ve not seen any convincing reason about any of them. Some of them, you haven’t even responded to at all.

Second, you need to do more than argue against whatever I happen to suggest. You need to prove that there can’t possibly be any reason whatsoever for such a being to to this. I haven’t even seen an attempt to do this.

---------------------------------------------------

8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

I understand that this conversation has shifted around, and it was well outside the point of discussion. Whether or not God involves infinite assumptions has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not God needs time to make up his mind about things.

Also, if you need to prove that God involves infinite assumptions for this argument to work, then this is a bad argument. You’d have to first prove that God doesn’t exist in order to prove that God doesn’t exist. That would make this second step useless.

---------------------------------------------

9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

You write this: “You always respond : " I could suggest a few, but don’t really want to argue about those. “ But never says no one.”

That is correct. I never name the specific things I think—that’s because I’m confident that I know how that will go.

I’ll suggest some things, and you’ll argue against those, claim that you’ve “refuted them all”, then never actually give me a reason to think that God can’t possibly have reasons other than that.

You are the one claiming to have a proof. So please present the proof that this must be the reason why God created the universe—and that there can’t possibly be any other reason.

-------------------------------------------

10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

This was not an argument from authority. I did not claim that anything was true because these people believed it. I pointed out that these people have given reasons why you are wrong, and you haven’t said anything in response to those reasons.

What is your response to those reasons?

So far, it seems to be this: “GOD IS NOT SIMPLE !”

As if capitalizing the words made it true. Actually, yes. God is simple. And many reasons have been given for that.

Also, it is the God that most Christians actually believe in. There’s no point in arguing against some other idea of God that I already reject.

---------------------------------

13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

I wrote: " I wanted to see evidence that this equation refers to more than the physical."

You respond: “For science there is no evidence of non physical things. So the principle is true until evidence of contrary.”

Science never takes the position that something “is true until [there is] evidence of [the] contrary”. That’s just bad thinking. No scientist in all of history ever said “this is true until we can find evidence that it is false”.

But, if science hasn’t found evidence of non-physical things, then it certainly hasn’t run tests on non-physical things. That means that it can’t possibly show us anything about what a non-physical entity might know.

------------------------------------

14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

You ask: “Why did not God gave at least a quick death and the child did allow her suffer so much before he died?”

To which, I respond “why do you expect you and I to know everything that God does?”. I’m asking you to prove that there is no possible reason whatsoever other than pure sadism. You need to actually prove this, not simply demand that yours is the only possible explanation. That’s simply sloppy thinking.

--------------------------------------

15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

“Not the case.It said that the Bible was not written by historians and that there nehumja evidence that Jesus existed. If you are claims that existed the onus of proof is on you and not me.”

You are the one claiming to prove atheism. As such, I thought I’d hear a proof of atheism. If you’re simply going to demand that I prove things, I’ll simply leave.

But I agree that the Bible wasn’t written by historians. Who on Earth has ever suggested otherwise? The Bible is believed (by historians) to be a valid primary source. That is completely different.

“no serious historian would say that there is no evidence for a "pink unicorny" in the middle of everrest mountain.”

Of course, they would. Please point to one time a serious historian has been asked about something like that and has refused to say that there is no evidence.

“No you are wrong. they are not evidence of what they themselves say be true.”

You really need to read up on the historical method. All ancient texts are evidence regarding the things they claim. This is the only way we know anything about history.

----------------------------------------------

17 – Argument: For the unneces sity of a Cause [Jocax]

You wrote: “Similarly the "physical" term would be the things that have real existence.”

Then just use the word “real”. Calling something physical has always meant something different.

You wrote: “I´ve already explain it: If there is no law then everything is possible ( "P OR NOT P" is true )”

But this is completely wrong, by the laws of logic, as we’ve already seen.

You wrote: “I Agree that God could be created by JN, but tehere is no evidence that it was done.”

I don’t agree with your claim that there is no evidence. But, even if that were true, it wouldn’t change my point. It will be done eventually, if your theory is correct.

You wrote: “Any one thing as a lion does not necessarily have to be good.”

And this is only proof of misunderstanding of the concept of divine simplicity and transcendence.

“you are wrong because the atheism is the denny of god(s). Therefore it *IMPLIES* a universe explanation without god.”

This doesn’t make it an explanation. The actual explanation would have to be something else.

“The logic do not have preferences for (a) or (b), so, both has equal possibilities.”

No. “Logic doesn’t have preferences” doesn’t remotely, in any remotely rational way mean that “both have equal possibilities”. This is simply confusing ontology with epistemology. You really ought to read up on the laws of logical inference before arguing this.

I wrote: "It seems like there is quite a bit more to it than existence. It has a number of properties that we’ve talked about."

You respond: “Its properties is a definition of a minimal state of a existing thing.”

Whether or not that is true, it is still complex. There seem to be a lot of things that we’ve added onto it.

You wrote: “The power is not a hypothesis it is a *consequence* of the lack of the laws.”

And yet you insist that power is an extra hypothesis when someone mentions God. Why isn’t power a *consequence* of the divine nature?

I wrote: " it is limited by logical possibility,"

You respond: “No !! You read wrong!!”

Then we’ve left all rational discussion at this point. There is nothing remotely sensical that could possibly be said about something that isn’t logical. If you are proposing something that doesn’t follow logical rules, you may as well be proposing pure magic. This is no longer a rational discussion.

As such, I’ll end my response there.

Good Day !

1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

I said "“I am assuming 'something' can have power to create but do not necessarly knows how to create,

and vice-versa : 'something' knows how to create but do not power for it.”"

YS: "Yes, and there is no reason to assume that. "

Because this if God can create a virus then :

1-He have knowledge for it and

2-He has capacity to do this virus.

So, for *each* of the infinite things that god can create there are at least 2 hypothesis :

1-Knowledge

2-Capacity

For each thing of gods power there are at least 2 hypothesis embeded.

infinite power implies 2 times infinite hypothesis

because this god is too much complex in terms of ocans razor.

YS: "Beyond that, you need to explain how the “little blue devil” can have power to create without knowledge how to create (or vice versa)."

Why your god can have power and knowledge and my LBD can not?

Both are gods, but my "little god" have less power than yours. So it is simpler than yours.

I.S: "The Jocaxian Litle Blue Daemon" do not knows how to create a pink unicorny, but god knows.”"

YS:"But this, again, assumes that God’s knowledge consists of many separate “hypothesis” (entities).

God’s knowledge is not like that. It is a single “hypothesis” (entity)."

If you explain how something that knows 'how to create a rock' *implies* he can automatically create a bacteria

and everything else too, I agree with you. Otherwise , i dont.

YS: "Composed of matter and/or existing in space. By that definition, is your “Little Blue Devil” physical?"

IS: Not because He create matter and space.

YS "If not, what is it?"

It is a entity like your god. What is your god?

You said Gods knlowledge is a single hypothesis.

It is not because someone that can create a rock could not create a bacteria.

Are differents knowledge.

So not point you say that knowledge to create everything is a single hypothesis, why not. Everything needs a knowledge to be able to create it. The knowledge that creates a rock is not the same knowledge that creates a computer.

Y said : "If you’re simply saying that it “could be”, then you haven’t offered a well-defined alternative, but a vague name without a clear definition."

No, you are wrong.

People can be good sometimes and sometimes being bad. Similarly the LBD can do good things and some not good.I can not set it to be a good or bad because it can act as humans sometimes are good times are bad.

The classical concept of God is erroneous because it does not realize that god with infinite power and knowledge implies, as I said, there is endless embedded assumptions.

The pair knowledge create a stone is not the same knowledge to create a bacteria. and vice versa.

Claiming that “he died” is another “hypothesis”.

No you are wrong , is not a hypothesis about JLV but an hipothesis what happen with it.

If you count this as hypothesis then, similarly, u would have to say that every thing your God did to create the sun, creating the moon, creating the stars, creating the sea etc are many other * hypotheses * of God also.

You said " God’s knowledge has always been understood to be a single, unified entity (one “hypothesis”)."

Tell me *how the knowledge to play chess is the *same* knowledge to create a galaxy or vice-versa.

If you show me this I will agree with you.

I said : “JN coud create anything, why JN could not create "JLBV"? JLBV could be created by chance, of course.( did you remember schyzocreations? )”

You said "Simply appealing to chance is not an explanation."

You are wrong . Of course it is possible. The origin of life is cientific explained by an event by chance.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

I s : " “Define "simple power", define "pure act", define "pure existence” “"

YS:"If you don’t already know the definitions of these terms in the context of classical theism,

then you can’t claim to have a good reason that God does not exist."

Or this "pure" predicate is just a way of trying to fool people by making it appear something divine, as if sheer existence was different from existence. Or something exists or does not exist.

YS: "This is what I find on just about every atheist website. They do a great job at refuting a completely different God."

If you think that atheists are denying a different god it's up to you to tell them what kind of God is that which is different from what they think it is

--------------------------------------

2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

I S: “Then for you "God permits evil" is correct?”

Y S: "Yes. I completely agree that God permits evil."

A being that permits the evil when could hel to avoid this is not good. Is a bad creature.

If a dog or even a human, can help a child who is being raped by avoiding it. Because God could not also help?

Did the dog, or human, this taking the free will of someone?

If the dog or the police scare the rapist so quit his evil act, because God could not do the same?

If it does it proves that God is evil.

Do you think God should not help that child? Why?

"According to modern atheism, everything is physical."

I Agree.

".... There are only people with different opinions about what we should do."

It is a mistake to think that because there is no god there is no purpose or ethics in human life.

We should act to minimize suffering and maximize well-being. So evil exists, the rape of a child, for example, is an evil to be avoided.

-------------------------

3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

Y.S.: "So, if you only think a person is forced if that person goes against her will, there is no problem here."

I'm saying that because of God's omniscience people have as much free will as a robot has. The robot follows its programming without knowing that there is a program he must follow. Similarly people follow your destiny already mapped out (in God's mind) without knowing that there is no other way forward.

Thus they are * not * responsible for their decisions !!

Their "choices" were already decided in God's mind even before they were born.

And they could never change this destination.

I think I am not being clear. I will re-wrote:

*SUPPOSE* before you born , God predict the following:

**** you will kill some one at 11/11/2018 as 13:00 hs ****

So the gods *real knowledge* is this : "you will kill some one at 11/11/2018 as 13:00 hs "

Ok?

I ask to you : "Can you not kill this person as gos had predict?"

remember : God can not change his prediction because he is perfect and do not fail.

--------------------------

5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

Y said : "More than that, you keep assuming that God exists in time. There is no reason to believe this."

You are saying god make all at once? There is no order in gods action? Everything happens at the same 'time'?

If there is no order, there is no sequence in the things that God did, then you are creating a new genesis.

because in all the sacred texts God does some things before others and therefore he is in time.

There is an order, a sequence in Gods creation.

I ask : "was created at the same time? There is no elapsed time to create everything?”"

Y S: "Not at all."

So god is in the time. If there is an order of event he does , then there is time.

because the time is count of event .

So exists before and after gods action.

if , for example, he predict to create the earth *after* the sum then he must follow his predicition.

He is obliged to have prediction because he is omniscient and must to know everything and he must to follow

each prediction because he can not fail.

----------------------------------------

6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

IS: "Do you think perfect being can create imperfect things?”"

YS:"Do you have a reason to think that something which was absolutely perfect would lack that ability?"

have ability does not mean that will be done.

IS: "“Why he would create imperfect things if he could create perfect ones?”"

YS:"There could be any number of reasons. . I’ve suggested a few, "

IS: I've refuted all. So if you do not show a reason to a perfect being create an inperfect thing then this

proof will remain valid.

---------------------------------------------------

8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

It is not giving sequence to the debate. We started discussing "A" but in the middle of the discussion

we came across a * difference * "B", and then a divergence "C" and we are then discussing this "C" deviation

and after that then return to "B" and then return to "A".

If you say now that "C" is different from "A" it is because the conversation came from "A" to "C".!

If you do not respond to "C" we can not go back to "A"

Because "A" depends on "C".

---------------------------------------------

9- Proof: God cannot be perfe ct. [unknown author]

You always respond : " I could suggest a few, but don’t really want to argue about those. "

But never says no one.

And you do not respond what I said:

Or he (god) want to do something or not.

If he want to do something it is because something was not perfect.

Because perfect things do not nees changes.

Otherwise

If he does not *want* to do and do it , then it is schizofrenic and not perfect.

For example if God was all that existed and all was perfect then there is not necessity

to create IMPERFECT beings. If god create imperfect beings when alll was perfect

this creation proof gos was not perfect.

-------------------------------------------

10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

Y S: "you have to prove that the long-standing reasons why philosophers like Aquinas, Leibnitz, Plato, Athanasius, Augustine, ..."

Wiki:

"Argument from authority, also ad verecundiam and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy.[1]

In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.[2] The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:[3]

A is an authority on a particular topic

A says something about that topic

A is probably correct

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[4][5][6] as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts"

GOD IS NOT SIMPLE !

In the past peoople things the earth was flat too. But it was not.

I already said that for each power to do something ( hipothesis ) there is an addicttional hipothesis of knowledge to use this power.

Because it has infinite hipotheses embedded in his power:

-he can cure cancer -> he knows cure cancer ( h1 )

-he can create a virus -> he knows how to create a virus ( h2 )

-he can create a star -> he knows how to create a star ( h3 )

.....

-he can create a galaxy -> he knows how to create a galaxy (h123.121.123.423.942 )

Did you perceive the quantity of hipotheses embeded?

and the knowledge to play chess is different of the knowledge to cure cancer, ins nt it?

---------------------------------

13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

I said : " Delta(X) * Delta(P) > ctte "

YS: " I wanted to see evidence that this equation refers to more than the physical."

For science there is no evidence of non physical things. So the principle is true until evidence of contrary.

So if you said god can goes against this principle , the onus of the prrof is yours.

------------------------------------

14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

Consider this fact that have occured many times in the world:

A child is walking and falls into a pit or precipice and be there screaming and suffering

while being eaten alive by ants and other insects.

Why omniscient God does not help this child who dies in great pain?

Why God did not even give a quick death of this innocent child?

If you say, as You said before:

You Said: "Yes. I completely agree that God permits evil."

I ask you if in this case is the same: "God permits evil."

And I ask to you :

Why did not God gave at least a quick death and the child did allow her suffer so much before he died?

It is because "God permits evil." too?

--------------------------------------

15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

YS: "It seems that we’re at least abandoning the (long since discredited) claim that Jesus never existed."

Not the case.It said that the Bible was not written by historians and that there nehumja evidence that Jesus existed. If you are claims that existed the onus of proof is on you and not me.

But we were straying from the topic that is quite simple.

YS: "First, no serious historian would say that there is no evidence for these things."

It is not a logical answer, see this:

no serious historian would say that there is no evidence for a "pink unicorny" in the middle of everrest mountain.

no serious historian would say that there is no evidence for against the existence of an elf in the center of the moon.

There is no evidence of this facts , only reports wrote by no-one knows exactly who wrote.

You said "The texts themselves are evidence (they are primary sources)."

No you are wrong. they are not evidence of what they themselves say be true.

If I write a paper that a green elf created the moon then this text is evidence that a green elf created the moon ??

Of course not.

The occan razoer still must be applied:

A) dead person resurrecting and ascending to heaven (without rockets) or

B) Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

A) Someone who has performed miracles that go against the laws of Physics or

B) Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

A)someone born from a virgin or

B)Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

By Occans razor we must to choose : "Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it"

You said " It needs to show that these things did not happen"

On a show court that a defense to be correct violate the laws of physics, do you think the judge would accept this defense?

----------------------------------------------

17 – Argument: For the unneces sity of a Cause [Jocax]

YS : " The word “physical” has lost it’s specific meaning and suddenly becomes useless as a term."

See which Santa, elves, witches, ghosts, etc .. do not exist but by no means cease to exist as concepts of mythology.

Similarly the "physical" term would be the things that have real existence.

However there may be things that do not obey the laws of our bubble-cosmos but obey the laws of another bubble-cosmo and vice versa.

Y S: "The problem is that you need to explain how something which is not physical in the “current science” sense could make universes. "

I ´ve already explain it: If there is no law then everything is possible ( "P OR NOT P" is true )

Y S: "It is specifically saying what I claimed above, that absolutely anything could happen as a result of this. Hence, (if there were such a thing as a “JN”) there would be no reason to think that God does not exist. Such a being could be created."

I Agree that God could be created by JN, but tehere is no evidence that it was done.

Y S : "To be clear, I don’t remotely believe in a “JN”.

My point is simply that it (if it did exist) it would be an argument for God, not against."

In fact JN coud be created God, but it could be create many bubble-cosme where our cosmos is one of them.

As god need much more hypothesis than a universe , it ' s more probable JN crested the cosmos first. Maybe God would create next?

You Said: " As a perfect, simple being, God’s non-existence is logically impossible. This is what is proposed."

As I already said before, God is not simple. JN is very much simpler than God (it has no intelligence) .

So JN is necessary not god.

I Said: " “a being that is *necessarly* good, has the property of goodness,”"

Y.S.: "This simply assumes that “goodness” is a separate property and that being something that is other than good"

Any one thing as a lion does not necessarily have to be good. Place goodness as a property is to restrict an infinite number of actions that could cause harm. That is to say that something is good implies that it can not act maliciously implying that he may not cause billions of actions that cause harm.

Because this "goodness" is a property that makes the being to be more complex.

I S: "“I said the *atheism* is the best response for universe appearance.”"

YS: "If so, then this is incorrect. Atheism isn’t an explanation of the universe. It has never claimed to be."

you are wrong because the atheism is the denny of god(s). Therefore it *IMPLIES* a universe explanation without god.

The universe appearance can be explained with god and without god. Atheism accept first option.

YS : "One could very well say “P may or may not be impossible. We don’t know.” (That is basically what ‘P or not P’ means)."

"P" Impossible means P is always false. So "Not P" is always true !!

(P or not P) means :

a) P is true

or

b) (not P) is true

The logic do not have preferences for (a) or (b), so, both has equal possibilities.

Therefore P is possible i.e. option (a) could happen i.e. P could be True.

** So P IS POSSIBLE. ** ( = can be true )

For example P = "Appears The Big-bang" ; By the logic P could be true. The big bang could appear.

Possible : Dictionaty:

adjective

1.that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc.:

2.that may be true or may be the case, as something concerning which one has no knowledge to the contrary:

You said: " it means that either it is true or it isn’t true.

Saying that one of these things is the case is simply not the same as saying that both are possible."

"P is true " or "NOT P" is true,

BOTH OPTIONS ARE EQUALY POSSIBLE TO BE TRUE. ( since , of course, P is not a contradiction like FALSE)

You can not say "P is true" is more possible to be true than "NOT P is true"

Both options are equaly possible to be true.

YS: "It seems like there is quite a bit more to it than existence. It has a number of properties that we’ve talked about."

His properties is a definition of a minimal state of a existing thing.

Anything else that has existence must be more than JN properties.

So JN has the minimum hypothesis that an existing being must have: No laws; No elements;

YS:" It creates things based on sheer possibility (therefore, it has power),"

The power is not a hypothesis it is a *consequence* of the lack of the laws.

YS: " it is limited by logical possibility,"

No !! You read wrong!!

"...It is possible to say that the JN-Object does not have laws therefore it does **** not need to obey logic ****,

and is it correct, indeed. However, by analyzing the JN-Object from our classic logic, we are not attaching new possibilities to the JN-Object, but the opposite: we could, in fact, be limiting the possibilities of the JN-Object which means,.."

YS:"Is this the claim to know that all talk of divine simplicity is wrong? "

IS:“Yes, is wrong like the talk that earth were flat.

IS:Intelligence have a lot of hypothesis embeded.”

YS:"Please give me your argument here, and then explain how the same thing doesn’t apply to the “JN”."

As god have infinite intelligence and power he has in his definition infinite embeded claim like :

-He knows play chess

-He know how to cure cancer and he has the ability for it

-he know how to create a star and he has the power for this

....

-he know how create xxxx and he has the ability for this.

For each thing god can do, or god can create , there are two embeded hypothesis: knowledge and power (ability) to do.

The JN do not have intelligence , it do not have knowledge so it only can create things by chance, at random.

YS:"It also assumes that God would exist inside a universe. "

Universe is the set of all existing things including God.

Because this cosmos is better than universe

So if god do something the count time is added. So gos is in the time of the universe.

"But if it was God, then he would be able to move outside of “that universe” into the others, or outside of all of them, and affect all the universes."

Not necessarly, depends on how JN have created him. JN could not give this property to god.

YS: "If the “JN” is in the universe, how did it created the universe? "

If the universe is set of all existing things then JN , at beggining ( time=0) is the universe.

" How does it create other universes, then?"

He could create another cosmos, buble cosmos with differents laws of physics.

The Universe is only one.

Okay, here we go for the next round:

1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

You wrote : "A problem with Occam's razor is that the sentence is *** not *** really about things (entia = entities), but about explanations or hypotheses. “

In context, these are the same thing. “Hypothesis” are proposed things (entities) which are meant to explain a fact. The only difference is that “hypothesis” is specifically a scientific term, whereas “entities” has a broader meaning.

You wrote: “I am assuming 'something' can have power to create but do not necessarly knows how to create, and vice-versa : 'something' knows how to create but do not power for it.”

Yes, and there is no reason to assume that—having the knowledge to create something is part of having the power to create it. It isn't a separate "hypothesis". Quite a few philosophers have pointed out the reasons why this so. If you are going to disagree with them, then you need to offer the reasons why, not merely assume that they are wrong.

Beyond that, you need to explain how the “little blue devil” can have power to create without knowledge how to create (or vice versa). Else, you aren’t actually proposing a simpler alternative.

You do write this: "The Jocaxian Litle Blue Daemon" do not knows how to create a pink unicorny, but god knows.”

But this, again, assumes that God’s knowledge consists of many separate “hypothesis” (entities). God’s knowledge is not like that. It is a single “hypothesis” (entity).

If you are going to insist otherwise, then you are simply arguing against a God that the theologians I’ve referenced have never proposed.

I asked: ”Is this a physical being or not?"

You respond: “Define physical.”

Composed of matter and/or existing in space. By that definition, is your “Little Blue Devil” physical?

If not, what is it?

I asked: ”Is this beings finite knowledge stored in separate thoughts (the way we humans store our knowledge)?"

You respond: “Could be the same way your god store knowledge. Why not?”

Because that wold give it all knowledge as a single “hypothesis” (entity). That being the case, it would know how to create a pink unicorn.

But did you mean that it “could be” or “it does, assuming it exists”?

If you’re simply saying that it “could be”, then you haven’t offered a well-defined alternative, but a vague name without a clear definition.

I asked: ”Is the being evil, amoral, or a mixture of good and evil (‘not necessarily’ isn’t a definition)?"

You replied: “Humans can be evil sometimes and good other times, can not?”

Yes, and humans are complex beings. There are far more than two “hypothesis” one would have to propose to suggest that something as complex as a human mind created the universe. The classical concept of God is far simpler than that.

I wrote: " No one has ever claimed that our idea of good is exactly the same as God’s."

You responded: “You are wrong because if God's good is , in realit y, an human evil idea. The definition of god coud not be said "good" !!!”

There is a difference between “not exactly the same” and “completely different”. We can have a different idea about goodness than God without thinking that God is completely evil. There is an enormous middle ground between these two.

You wrote: “I do not said JLBV torture peoples ,

just the opposite: After create the cosmos he died, so he can not torture peopple.”

Claiming that “he died” is another “hypothesis”. It also means claiming that he can die (yet another “hypothesis”) and claiming that he existed in time (still another “hypothesis”).

I could name quite a few more, actually, but the point is that the more we look at what the phrase “Little Blue Devil” means, the more complex it becomes.

“Beyond this I claimed god has *INFINITE* more knowledge and power than JLBV

so this reason is enough to chice JLBV.”

I know that you claimed this, but you haven’t shown why this can be the case. God’s knowledge has always been understood to be a single, unified entity (one “hypothesis”). It is one thing that can be used in many ways, not many things.

If you claim otherwise, then you’re arguing against a different God than anyone here has proposed.

I asked "Then you need to show why the ‘Jocaxian Nothingness’ would create just that thing, and not som ething else."

You wrote: “JN coud create anything, why JN could not create "JLBV"? JLBV could be created by chance, of course.( did you remember schyzocreations? )”

Simply appealing to chance is not an explanation. One has to first show that the entity (“Little Blue Devil”) is plausible given the background information. This has not been done (but more on that below).

I wrote: "I’ve never seen anything like a description of it that would show that."

You reply: “there is always a first time for a new concept”

Indeed, but you have to actually give the description. Saying things like “could be” and “not necessarily” doesn’t make it a first time. It means that there is still no description.

I wrote: "The God of Classical Theism has a unified, metaphysically simple power. That is, pure act , or pure existence”

You replied: “Define "simple power", define "pure act", define "pure existence” “

This would require some clearing away of common assumptions (which would take some time). I’ll get to that if this continues, but first there is a bigger point here:

If you don’t already know the definitions of these terms in the context of classical theism, then you can’t claim to have a good reason that God does not exist. These are the basics—the very beginning of understanding what theologians even mean by the word “God”. To not know what they mean is to have such a weak grasp of the concept that you won’t be arguing against the God theologians have suggested.

This is what I find on just about every atheist website. They do a great job at refuting a completely different God. Given the way they understand the term, I see why they reject it. My real response is that their understanding is completely wrong.

------------------------

2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

You wrote: “I am asking about free will , not about long-term results.”

You shouldn’t be. This “proof” is about the problem of evil, not free will.

“Then for you "God permits evil" is correct?”

Yes. I completely agree that God permits evil. I’d add that God doesn’t cause evil, but it’s always been part of theism that God allows people to make bad choices, rather than forcing us to make good ones.

You request: “Show me where you take this absurd claim : "According to atheism, there is no evil in the world at all.” “

According to modern atheism, everything is physical. There is no ultimate purpose to the universe. There may be things that are painful, or upsetting, or unhelpful to some purpose one has, but this is all subjective. If one were to say “my purpose is to fulfill my desires, regardless of who I hurt or kill in the process”, that is as valid as any other opinion (if atheism is true).

So, there’s no actual good or evil, given atheism. There are only people with different opinions about what we should do.

--------------------

3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

“forcing someone to act is to make it go against his will.

That is not the case. The person DO NOT KNOWS he has his destiny wrotten.

The person feel he could choice anythnk but in reality he *CAN NOT*,”

I’m not a compatibilist myself. There are a number of problems with this view of freedom.

Still, if you are a compatibilist, then what is the problem? Even if God’s knowledge were requiring that someone can’t do other than that knowledge, this isn’t making a person go against her will.

So, if you only think a person is forced if that person goes against her will, there is no problem here.

I wrote : " I was specifically saying that God’s knowledge would be different than it WOULD have been if you’d chosen something else."

You respond: “You are wrong because the *hypotesis* is God knows BEFORE you born you will kill someone. Than you can not change this.”

Re-read what I wrote above. I didn’t say that I “could change this” I said that God’s knowledge (in the past) would be different if I would (in the future) choose something else. This doesn’t require anyone to change anything.

That’s the answer to your question. You need to read it again to see why it directly tells you exactly what you’ve been asking.

What it certainly doesn’t do is force anyone to go against his will. It’s only if you insist that there are other ways of forcing people that this is even a problem (and that would be a bigger problem for atheism).

-------------------------

5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

I wrote: " I don’t start to disagree until you try to use that to claim that correct predictions force an action to happen."

You respond: “By hypothesis , god predictions is *always* correct.”

Yes, but this has absolutely nothing to do with my point. A correct prediction doesn’t force anything to happen.

More than that, you keep assuming that God exists in time. There is no reason to believe this.

You do try to insist that creation, somehow, means this:

“Please be clear, are you saying all things in the universe, and everything in the cosmos,

was created at the same time? There is no elapsed time to create everything?”

Not at all.

I said that there was no good reason to think that God was in time. I have no idea what this has to do with things happening inside the universe at different times.

---------------------------------------

6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

“Do you think perfect being can create imperfect things?”

It seems possible. Do you have a reason to think that something which was absolutely perfect would lack that ability?

“Why he would create imperfect things if he could create perfect ones?”

There could be any number of reasons. I’ve suggested a few, but the point is that we can’t simply assume that there is no such reason for this argument to work.

--------------------------------------

8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

There is a lot of talk about infinities here. Since I’ve already answered that issue above, I’ll simply point out that this “proof” was never about infinities. It was the assumption that God needed time to decide things, and (therefore) could not have decided to created time.

I simply reject that assumption. Talk of infinities doesn’t address that.

-----------------------------

9- Proof: God cannot be perfe ct. [unknown author]

“If he want to do then something was not perfect, it needs change. ( If something is perfect do not need change ) .”

I simply deny this. There is no reason to think that adding to what already exists must necessarily be because what already existed needed change.

It could be for any number of other reasons. I could suggest a few, but don’t really want to argue about those. If this is a “proof”, then we need proof that it can’t possibly be anything else. I don’t see any reason to think that.

-----------------------------------

10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [ Jocax]

I wrote :" Why should I agree to that? That isn’t remotely how I understand God. "

You respond: “The indian do not see what have inside the black-box too,”

This assumes that I don’t know the concept of God any better than your proposed “Indian” understands a computer (as a side point, every Indian I’ve ever met knows quite a lot about computers).

For the sake of this argument, it doesn’t really matter whether or not I do. In order to be a proof, you have to prove that the long-standing reasons why philosophers like Aquinas, Leibnitz, Plato, Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, Maimonides, Avicenna, and Averroes have given are completely, demonstrably false.

They’ve written quite a bit about exactly what God is, and why God is simple. Simply saying “well, those people didn’t really understand the concept of God” isn’t a response to them.

Until we’ve done that, this “proof” doesn’t prove that they were wrong. It just ignores what they’ve actually claimed and argues against a completely different idea of God.

-------------------------------------------

11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

Yes, I know what Ockham’s Razor is. I’ve been using it throughout this discussion.

---------------------------

13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

I wrote : "This is simply an equation, not evidence."

“This equation is a pillar of the science,”

I completely agree. It’s amazing.

It’s also not what I asked for. I wanted to see evidence that this equation refers to more than the physical. The equation itself isn’t going to tell us.

So, I completely agree that the equation is a great achievement, and accurately predicts behavior on a quantum level. Now, what is the evidence that supports the claim that it also predicts behavior on the non-physical level.

After all, scientists don’t merely write equations, they test them. For your claim to be science, it has to be tested. What experiment tested it?

------------------------------

14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

I wrote: "I’m asking how you know that there aren’t good reasons for not acting.

How do you know this?"

You respond: “All reason was refuted, like the "greater good" to the future, you have said before.”

I don’t recall that happening. I only remember you claiming that there couldn’t possibly be a good reason on the grounds that you, personally, couldn’t think of one.

That’s hardly a refutation. Please explain to me how you know that there can’t possibly be a good reason.

“I would also like to say that "the greater good" in the future amounts to utilitarian ethics that you reject.”

It certainly would, if one equated this with good behavior itself, and added nothing else to ethical theory than that.

That is I reject the utilitarian idea that this is all there is to ethics. I have no problem with the idea that it is one component of it.

“If you have another defense for you poor god tell me :-)

If you do not have another defense I consider him guilty for omission of help.”

Getting a little cheeky here. This sounds less like a search for the truth, and an attempt to indict a God that (for some reason) you seem to have a problem with.

If it’s the latter, I’ll leave you to it. I’m not interested.

If it’s the former, then please be careful in your reasoning. I’ve explained why my comment was not an embracing of utilitarianism. Please don’t run too far under the assumption that I take a view that I do not.

-----------------------------

15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

“No There evidence that Jesus has risen

neither of which:

Jesus was born of a virgin

or that

jesus has done miracles against physical laws.”

It seems that we’re at least abandoning the (long since discredited) claim that Jesus never existed. That’s a step in the right direction (for the sake of historical accuracy, if nothing else).

But, still, we have at least two problems:

First, no serious historian would say that there is no evidence for these things. This is just sloppy. The texts themselves are evidence (they are primary sources). The debate has always been about whether or not the evidence is sufficient.

Second, if this is to be a good argument for atheism, it needs to do more than demand evidence. It needs to show that these things did not happen—not simply insist that theists show that they did.

---------------------------------

17 – Argument: For the unneces sity of a Cause [Jocax]

Regarding the “JN” you write:

“Im termos of current science no, it is not physical because there is no laws.”

Okay, good so far, but then you write this:

“But in terms of the expanded science yes, it is physical:”

I completely agree that current science fails to investigate all reality. This has been a point I’ve made many times in the past.

However, what this article is calling “expanded science” is simply the unification of science and philosophy. That’s fine, but to say that the “JN” is “physical” under this definition, is simply to say that it exists. The word “physical” has lost it’s specific meaning and suddenly becomes useless as a term.

You’ve essentially claimed that the JN is a metaphysical object. The problem is that you need to explain how something which is not physical in the “current science” sense could make universes. My suspicion is that, the more one explains that, the more the “JN” will start to sound like God.

“A: There are two interrelated concepts about the Jocaxian Nothingness: The Jocaxian Nothingness Object (JN-Object) and the Theory about this JN-Object (JN-Theory). The JN-Object is defined as something that has properties relative to the JN (P1 and P2) above. The theory about the JN (JN-Theory) is based on logic and explains how the JN-Object could have materialized our cosmos at random. It is possible to say that the JN-Object does not have laws therefore it does not need to obey logic, and is it correct, indeed. However, by analyzing the JN-Object from our classic logic, we are not attaching new possibilities to the JN-Object, but the opposite: we could, in fact, be limiting the possibilities of the JN-Object which means,

maybe it could be more totipotent than we can imagine.”

This completely agrees with my objection.

It is specifically saying what I claimed above, that absolutely anything could happen as a result of this. Hence, (if there were such a thing as a “JN”) there would be no reason to think that God does not exist. Such a being could be created. In fact, there is good reason to think that such a being WOULD be created and (being outside of time, and having the ability to more through time) exists now.

To be clear, I don’t remotely believe in a “JN”. My point is simply that it (if it did exist) it would be an argument for God, not against.

I wrote: " God is not contingent by the technical sense as understood in classical metaphysics.

That is, his existence has no logical antecedents."

“I think it is wrong. Why do you thing this claim is correct?”

Because that has long been the understanding of God’s existence. As a perfect, simple being, God’s non-existence is logically impossible. This is what is proposed.

One needn’t believe that to be the case. That isn’t the point. The point is that one can’t simply insist that God is a contingent being in arguing against God’s existence (because one is arguing against a God that no one believes in).

You write: “a being that is *necessarly* good, has the property of goodness,”

This simply assumes that “goodness” is a separate property and that being something that is other than good (evil, sometimes good but sometimes evil, amoral) is not a property. I’ve seen no reason to think either of these things.

“I said the *atheism* is the best response for universe appearance.”

If so, then this is incorrect. Atheism isn’t an explanation of the universe. It has never claimed to be.

“If no one say "P is impossible" follow that "P Is possible" .”

Not true. One could very well say “P may or may not be impossible. We don’t know.” (That is basically what ‘P or not P’ means).

It doesn’t at all follow from that that P is possible.

“If P or not P, then so can appear the Unicorn may not appear as the unicorn, it means it's * possible * to appear the unicorn.”

No, it means that either it is true or it isn’t true. Saying that one of these things is the case is simply not the same as saying that both are possible. It is saying that one of them is the case. That’s all.

“Square circle is a contradiction, It is equ ivalent to P= "FALSE AND FALSE" logically is always false.”

Not at all. Logically speaking ‘P or not P’ holds for logical contradictions like square circles. It means ‘either true or false (in this case, always false)’.

So, yes. ‘P or not P’ applies (it always comes out as ‘not P’).

This is what that phrase means ‘either true or false’. Not ‘it is possible’. Those are different statements, and a good logician should know the difference.

“another Proposition like "Appear JLBD" is not logical contradiction , so it is possible.”

As a bit of a side point, I don’t accept that the “JN” contains no logical contradictions. I suspect that there are some hidden ones here (I’ll not name them right now, because that will get us too far off.)

You write of the ‘JN’: “It is simple because there is only one hypothesis : The existence. It is.”

It seems like there is quite a bit more to it than existence. It has a number of properties that we’ve talked about. It creates things based on sheer possibility (therefore, it has power), it is random, it is limited by logical possibility, it is metaphysical, but stands in causal relationships, etc.

If you are going to reject arguments for the simplicity of God, then you can’t argue that these traits can all exist in a metaphysically simple entity.

"Is this the claim to know that all talk of divine simplicity is wrong? "

“Yes, is wrong like the talk that earth were flat.

Intelligence have a lot of hypothesis embeded.”

Please give me your argument here, and then explain how the same thing doesn’t apply to the “JN”.

I simply don’t see a reason here. Which proponents of divine simplicity have you read? How do you know that they are wrong?

“You think you know or know how to operate a brain, a heart how to operate or build a computer are simple things?”

They certainly aren’t simple if that knowledge is stored the way humans do. But I don’t recall ever claiming that God has his knowledge that way.

“Nothing exist outsid of the time because time is the number of events happened inn alll universe(s)”

This is a very non-standard view of time.

It also assumes that God would exist inside a universe. I’ve never thought that, and have no idea why anyone else would.

“JN could create Universes isolated bubble universes that what happens in one does not influence the other. So there could be the creation of a god in one of the universes and not be God in another universe”

But if it was God, then he would be able to move outside of “that universe” into the others, or outside of all of them, and affect all the universes.

That would be exactly what I was suggesting.

“But I have said the JN IS THE UNIVERSE in his minimal state !!”

If the “JN” is in the universe, how did it created the universe? Does it not also exist outside of it? How does it create other universes, then?

I can see how the “JN” could be a wildly complex and improbable conjecture. I can also see how the “JN” could be simply another name for God. I can’t see how it could be neither of these things at the same time.

Good Day !

1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

I sayd "“No, occans razor say about numbers of *hypothesis* not about parts.”"

See again : "A problem with Occam's razor is that the sentence is *** not *** really about things (entia = entities), but about explanations or hypotheses. "

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

I said the power to create something needs at least 2 things

1-Knowledge ( how to do ) something

2-Power to do/create this thing.

You said : "This assumes that those two things are separate."

I am assuming 'something' can have power to create but do not necessarly knows how to create,

and vice-versa : 'something' knows how to create but do not power for it.

For example: anyone can learn how to make a beautiful statue in wood but does not have the wood nor the tools to do it.

And vice versa:

Anyone can own wood and tool and do not know build a statue.

So for each infinite things god can create, he must have the knowledge for it and must have the power to use this knowledge.

And more: "The Jocaxian Litle Blue Daemon" do not knows how to create a pink unicorny, but god knows.

So god have at least one more hypothesis more than JLBD.

Therefore JLBD is preferable in terms of ocan's razor.

If you have some reazon to say it is *impossible* JLBD to exist, please tell us and explain why.

"Is this a physical being or not?"

Define physical.

"Is this beings finite knowledge stored in separate thoughts (the way we humans store our knowledge)?"

Could be the same way your god store knowledge. Why not?

"Is the being evil, amoral, or a mixture of good and evil (‘not necessarily’ isn’t a definition)?"

Humans can be evil sometimes and good other times, can not?

"JLBD" too.

You said " No one has ever claimed that our idea of good is exactly the same as God’s."

You are wrong because if God's good is , in reality, an human evil idea. The definition of god

coud not be said "good" !!!

Wiki "In monotheism and henotheism, God is conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.[1] The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness)"

If "goodness" is not like human concept than it could not be written as god's definition, of course!!

You said "However, if you’re saying that this being sometimes does things that we all know to be evil (such as torturing people for no good reason), then you’re proposing some more complexity here. "

You are wrong. I do not said JLBV torture peoples ,

just the opposite: After create the cosmos he died, so he can not torture peopple.

Beyond this I claimed god has *INFINITE* more knowledge and power than JLBV

so this reason is enough to chice JLBV.

You said "Then you need to show why the ‘Jocaxian Nothingness’ would create just that thing, and not something else."

JN coud create anything, why JN could not create "JLBV"? JLBV could be created by chance, of course.( did you remember schyzocreations? )

YS: "I’ve never seen anything like a description of it that would show that."

there is always a first time for a new concept

You said " The God of Classical Theism has a unified, metaphysically simple power. ",That is, pure act , or pure existence

Define "simple power", define "pure act", define "pure existence"

"This really is completely strange."

This site is not "strange notions" ? :-)

------------------------

2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

I said :

"“When a policeman or a fireman, for example, help an innocent person to die with suffering

he's not taking the *free will* of anyone, right?”"

you said " People (like policemen) don’t know what the long-term results of a particular moment of suffering is going to be. "

**** You do not answer the question. ****

I am asking about free will , not about long-term results.

I S: "“Third, if you said "God permits evil" then god is not good.”"

Y S : "You need to support this claim."

You denny this claim? Then for you "God permits evil" is correct?

You said "If you accept modern atheism, then you deny that evil exists. "

I do not agree with it. Please Define evil .

Show me where you take this absurd claim : "According to atheism, there is no evil in the world at all."

--------------------

3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

YS: "How is saying that people do not have free will different from saying that people are being forced,

like puppets, to do things? "

Is diferent because force evolve goes against you will , ie,

forcing someone to act is to make it go against his will.

That is not the case. The person DO NOT KNOWS he has his destiny wrotten.

The person feel he could choice anythnk but in reality he *CAN NOT*,

it must necessarily follow that in God's mind.

So, its free will is a illusion, he think he has free will but , in reality, he does not have it. he must follow gods knowledge.

You said : " I was specifically saying that God’s knowledge would be different than it WOULD have been if you’d chosen something else."

You are wrong because the *hypotesis* is God knows BEFORE you born you will kill someone. Than you can not change this.

So I repeat the question:

"If god predicted , before you born , you will kill some one at 11/11/2018 as 13:00 hs then can you not kill this person???"

Consider TRUE the Hypothesis :"god predicted , before you born "

I am still waiting your response.....

-------------------------

5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

You said " I don’t start to disagree until you try to use that to claim that correct predictions force an action to happen."

By hypothesis , god predictions is *always* correct.

So if god predict that himself will create some star this must have to occurs. Correct?

he can not change his prediction, correct?

So he must folow his prediction for ever. Like a Robot.

IS: “For example. the bible says god *first* created the sun and *after* he created the beings right?”

YS: " not everything in the Bible is literal."

Please be clear, are you saying all things in the universe, and everything in the cosmos,

was created at the same time? There is no elapsed time to create everything?

---------------------------------------

6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

Do you think perfect being can create imperfect things?

Why he would create imperfect things if he could create perfect ones?

--------------------------------------

8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

I said :

"God is defined to be good. So he can not do bad things. So tehere is a limit what he can do , He is limited by goodness.

Like I said before, we coud have a GOD-B that have infinite power LESS a power to create a virus , for example.

So infinite power is equivalent to infinite clains. Because we coud have *infinite* Gods each with a different power.

Therefore your god is defined as a claim of infinite hypothesis of power embeded in his definition.

And , as i said before, *each* power to create something must be a knowledge *how* to create this stuff."

I think it is very important you perceive that could exist infinite possibilities for Gods

like I said before Your God can not do something that goes against his "goodness"

and could existe another God (God-G) that do not have this restriction to be good.

So we already have three definitions of god : God-G , God, God-B.

For each power we can have a different god that do not have this power.

be cause this we can have infinite differents gods each one different of anothers.

Ans each one have a set of hypotheses that define him.

So we have ininite kind of gods with infinite sets of definition.

-----------------------------

9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

You Ask: "How do you know that “having needs” and “random” are the only options?"

Or he want to do something or not.

If he want to do then something was not perfect, it needs change. ( If something is perfect do not need change ) .

If he does not want todo and do it , then it is schizofrenic and not perfect

I ask : Why a perfect God would do something that he do *not* want?

-----------------------------------

10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

I said " For the Indian this box is very simple it only has 6 sides and makes billions of things very quickly.

Similarly sees God as a black box that does it all.”"

You said :" Why should I agree to that? That isn’t remotely how I understand God. "

The indian do not see what have inside the black-box too,

for them all power emanates from that single black box that seens quite simple.

You also sees God as the Indians see the black box.

They fail to realize that for every power must be an associated knowledge.

Insist to say, for example, that if a god can operate a heart or cure a disease,

there may be * another * god who could ** not ** know how to do it.

So for * each * power, of the infinite that you claims that God has,

there should be at least one * built-in * hypothesis allowing (or setting) this knowledge from this power.

Thus, by Occam's Razor God with infinite power is extremely complex.

Because it has infinite hipotheses embedded in his power:

-he can cure cancer -> he knows cure cancer ( h1 )

-he can create a virus -> he knows how to create a virus ( h2 )

-he can create a star -> he knows how to create a star ( h3 )

.....

-he can create a galaxy -> he knows how to create a galaxy (h12312112342342 )

Did you perceive the quantity of hipotheses embeded?

-------------------------------------------

11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

Ok we can cut this number but is good have im mind about occans razor:

WIKI:

William of Ockham supposedly (see below) wrote it in Latin as:

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.[1]

This translates literally as:

More things should not be used than are necessary.

This means that if there are several possible ways that something might have happened,

the way that uses the fewest guesses is probably the right one.

A problem with Occam's razor is that the sentence is ******* not ******** really about things (entia = entities),

but about explanations or hypotheses.

---------------------------

13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

I said : "

Delta(X) * Delta(P) > ctte

There is no necessity of observer, this equation is applied to any particle ,

not only particle being observed."

Y said : "This is simply an equation, not evidence."

This equation is a pillar of the science, a principle, all physical quantum experiments agree with it.

Is the same like velocity of light in relativity: It is a principle , an axiome that all the experiments agree.

------------------------------

14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

I said "So, the facts are pointing out that this good and powerful God does not exist"

Y said: "I’m asking how you know that there aren’t good reasons for not acting.

How do you know this?"

All reason was refuted, like the "greater good" to the future, you have said before.

I would also like to say that "the greater good" in the future amounts to utilitarian ethics that you reject.

You say that an act is good or bad in itself, regardless of future consequences.

In this case I ask you: a child being raped and killed would not be an act in itself bad?

Regardless of whether or not a greater good in the future? (Or you are an utilitarian now?)

If you have another defense for you poor god tell me :-)

If you do not have another defense I consider him guilty for omission of help.

-----------------------------

15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

I said "

A) dead person resurrecting and ascending to heaven (without rockets) or

B) Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

A) Someone who has performed miracles that go against the laws of Physics or

B) Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

A)someone born from a virgin or

B)Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

By Occans razor we must to choose : "Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it"

"

You said: "No, that depends on one’s background information"

The fact is :

-No There evidence that Jesus has risen

neither of which:

Jesus was born of a virgin

or that

jesus has done miracles against physical laws.

As there is no proof that we should stick with Occam's Razor

You said: "or that historical data can’t be found in the documents later compiled into the New Testament."

By the way,

God was wrong to change the version of the Old Testament correcting it for the new testament?

---------------------------------

17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

IS: “Tell me what you think is "physical" and I answer you.”

YS:"Investigable via science. That is, composed of fundamental particles, space, time, and/or the quantum vacuum."

Im termos of current science no, it is not physical because there is no laws.

But in terms of the expanded science yes, it is physical:

Expanded Science: http://stoa.usp.br/cienciaexpandida/weblog/79248.html

"JN is a universe state where there is not laws, any kind of laws"

YS: "If that is the case, then anything and everything should happen there.

Logical contradictions, spontaneous creations, everything… including the creation/existence of God."

Yes because this I said in the text:

"11- Is the JN limited to our logic? Could it be illogical?

A: There are two interrelated concepts about the Jocaxian Nothingness: The Jocaxian Nothingness Object (JN-Object) and the Theory about this JN-Object (JN-Theory). The JN-Object is defined as something that has properties relative to the JN (P1 and P2) above. The theory about the JN (JN-Theory) is based on logic and explains how the JN-Object could have materialized our cosmos at random. It is possible to say that the JN-Object does not have laws therefore it does not need to obey logic, and is it correct, indeed. However, by analyzing the JN-Object from our classic logic, we are not attaching new possibilities to the JN-Object, but the opposite: we could, in fact, be limiting the possibilities of the JN-Object which means,

maybe it could be more totipotent than we can imagine."

http://stoa.usp.br/cienciaexpandida/weblog/68209.html

You said " God is not contingent by the technical sense as understood in classical metaphysics.

That is, his existence has no logical antecedents."

I think it is wrong. Why do you thing this claim is correct? If the cosmos could be created by another

being ando not God, it is not necessary.

You said : "I just disagree with the idea that God-G is simpler than God. "

No, you are wrong because a being that is *necessarly* good, has the property of goodness,

have to follow a LOT of hipothesis than GOD-G definition do not have !!

For example:

-God can not kill some inoccent child born in Africa at 22:00 ockloc at random (h evil-1)

-God can not cause pain to some inoccent family born in Alasca in 2023 (h evil-2)

-.....

-God can not cause suffer a Dog that is dying of heart (h evil -12437234272 )

There is infinite embeded hypothesis about goodness that god MUST follow to be Good.

Therefore God is more complex by occans razor than God-G .

"Ok I agree, but by "Occans razor" is the best response for universe appearance."

I said the *atheism* is the best response for universe appearance.

YS:"No one is saying “P is impossible”, but what you need to show is that P is possible if all that existed is a state of “JN”."

If no one say "P is impossible" follow that "P Is possible" .

If P can be True follow that P is possible, because it can be true.

P is Possible is defined when P can be true. Simple.

You said " (P or not P) doesn’t mean “possible”."

I think you did not understand.

"P" is a proposition such as "appears a pink unicorn"

If P or not P, then so can appear the Unicorn may not appear as the unicorn, it means it's * possible * to appear the unicorn.

You said "“a square circle is possible”. It isn’t possible."

Square circle is a contradiction, It is equivalent to P= "FALSE AND FALSE" logically is always false.

because square is a negation of circle and therefore false for ever.

But another Proposition like "Appear JLBD" is not logical contradiction , so it is possible.

Resuming "P OR NOT P" : P IS POSSIBLE IF IS NOT A LOGICAL CONTRADICTION or FALSE ALWAYS.

" I’m challenging your claim that the JN is the simplest possible thing."

It is simple because there is only one hypothesis : The existence. It is.

"“By Occans razor: Intelligence is a hypothesis/property thats is not necessary to have.”"

"Not necessary by what?"

To create the cosmos. JN can create the cosmos by chance.

"Is this the claim to know that all talk of divine simplicity is wrong? "

Yes, is wrong like the talk that earth were flat.

Intelligence have a lot of hypothesis embeded.

You think you know or know how to operate a brain, a heart how to operate or build a computer are simple things?

of course that all knowledge embeds a number of assumptions that JN has not.

Therefore God is extremely complex because it demands an infinite number of hypotheses for each embuitidas knowledge he has.

"Having other abilities doesn’t mean having more hypothesis. "

In general you are wrong. Some god-x can know how to build a brain but that even God-x can not know how to build a computer.

A god can know how to build a planet, but that God can not know how to build a bacterium.

" then it exists outside of time"

Nothing exist outsid of the time because time is the number of events happened inn alll universe(s)

"Hence, all such things (including God) would exist if the JN theory is true."

JN could create Universes isolated bubble universes that what happens in one does not influence the other. So there could be the creation of a god in one of the universes and not be God in another universe. You understand?

"Do yourself a bubble universe number 101212" and he did.

". Even you don’t believe it because it would also include the JN, meaning that it couldn’t have created the universe."

But I have said the JN IS THE UNIVERSE in his minimal state !!

"This is simply saying that time moves forward. That doesn’t mean that all things must move with it."

Time is a number of events. How this number could be lower?

Greetings to you!

1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

“No, occans razor say about numbers of *hypothesis* not about parts.”

These two things are directly related. God is a single entity (not really a ‘hypothesis’, as that isn’t a metaphysical term). Thus, the theist is only proposing one thing.

Proposing a being composed out of say, ten parts means proposing eleven things (ten parts and a reason why they were combined in that way).

"a statue made of sand grains of trillion is less complex than a small fly.”

I’ve never disagreed with this.

“First : The power to create something , like a Fly for example, needs at least two hypothesis:

1-The *knowledge* to create this object. ( And this knowledge needs anothers *millions* of knowleges too )

2-In addition to the knowledge you need to be able to create the matter of this object.”

This assumes that those two things are separate. Again, this is simply arguing against a God that no one has suggested. Classical Theists have never proposed that God has knowledge in the way that people do: as successive objects of cognition.

As it stands, assuming this means arguing against a God that no one is proposing.

“I define "JLBD" as being with *finite* knowledge and *finite* power and not necessarily good and nor omniscient, and he has the power to create a cosmos, not ininite ones , just one.”

First, there still needs more work to be done here. I’ve already asked several questions about this that haven’t been answered. Is this a physical being or not? Is this beings finite knowledge stored in separate thoughts (the way we humans store our knowledge)? Is the being evil, amoral, or a mixture of good and evil (‘not necessarily’ isn’t a definition)?

I’ve already suggested that answering these questions will show how this idea is more complex than God (that is, the actual God of Classical Theism, not the other God you’re arguing against). This isn’t a clear alternative until these questions are answered.

“I mean he can be good sometimes anos bad sometimes. Because our sense of goodness is not the same to him.”

This, if taken at face value, is exactly like God. No one has ever claimed that our idea of good is exactly the same as God’s.

However, if you’re saying that this being sometimes does things that we all know to be evil (such as torturing people for no good reason), then you’re proposing some more complexity here. This being has non-moral (and, consequently) irrational desires. This is an extra thing that Classical Theists are not proposing.

I asked: "Why does it have the knowledge that it does? Why does it have the particular power that it does? Why does it have both of these things? "

“I can say he could be creates by the Jocaxian Nonthingness.”

Then you need to show why the ‘Jocaxian Nothingness’ would create just that thing, and not something else. I’ve never seen anything like a description of it that would show that.

“But I ask you the same question about your God.”

This, however, is easy. The God of Classical Theism has a unified, metaphysically simple power. That is, pure act (in Aristotelian terms) or pure existence (in more modern terms). This is a single entity that can be used as power or knowledge (the latter being a sort of the former).

Theologians have written hundreds of pages detailing that out, but that’s the short version.

But, last, it is still an important question that you are proposing that a god exists in order to defend your atheism. This really is completely strange.

-------------------------

2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

“You are not understanding. I am saying that there is an incompatibility between the facts and the existence of a good God omniscient and powerful. And that * so * that God can not exist.”

I understand that. I simply disagree. I see no reason to think that an omniscient and powerful God would prevent people from misusing our free will—or otherwise lack good reasons for allowing evil actions to occur.

“When a policeman or a fireman, for example, help an innocent person to die with suffering he's not taking the free will of anyone, right?”

The list of objections here is long, but this is the main one:

Epicurus was talking about evil, not suffering. People (like policemen) don’t know what the long-term results of a particular moment of suffering is going to be. They try to prevent as many as they can because that is, as far as we humans know, the best shot at things working out well.

I see no reason to think that God would be in that same situation.

“Third, if you said "God permits evil" then god is not good.”

You need to support this claim.

This is a good video summarizing the reasons why God would permit evil:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKx7l7NhHww

Also, you need to answer my main issue:

If you accept modern atheism, then you deny that evil exists. According to atheism, there is no evil in the world at all. Thus, there’s nothing for me to explain unless you’ve already rejected atheism.

-------------------------------

3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

I proposed this example: "If I were to ask “have you finally stopped beating your wife?”,"

And you answered: “If , in fact , I was beating in my wyfe the answer coul be Yer or Not. Yes if I sopped. No if I am not stopped to beat her.

if I was not hitting it so the question is not applicable to me”

But this is a lot more than simply a “yes” or a “no”. It seems to me that you agree with this: one can’t simply demand that a question be answered with a simple “yes” or “no”.

That being the case, I’m going to skip to this:

I wrote: "I keep pointing out that knowing what will happen is different from forcing it to happen. "

“I am not saying someone will force to happen, but only the people do not have free will”

How is saying that people do not have free will different from saying that people are being forced, like puppets, to do things? That is exactly what ‘not having free will’ means.

“You do not realize the mistake:

If god *change* his knoledge about what you do, than his previous knoledge was *wrong" , so God was wrong in his prediction.

Do you undertand?”

Of course I understand. You didn’t understand my original comment. When I wrote the word “change”, I never meant to suggest that God would first believe one thing, then switch to believing something else (I’ve been saying that God doesn’t have his knowledge like this for some time). I was specifically saying that God’s knowledge would be different than it WOULD have been if you’d chosen something else.

Please be careful to understand that difference, and what I wrote will make much more sense.

-----------------------------------------

5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

“You know how to read?”

There’s a lot of insulting me starting to creep into this discussion. If this is going to degenerate into name-calling, I’m simply going to lose interest. Either you can make your case, or you can’t. Please don’t confuse my disagreement (particularly when we have something of a language barrier) as my not knowing how to read. My English skills are quite strong, thank you.

But, to get to the point:

““*** If **** the action do *not* match the prediction then the prediction was wrong.”

This is obviously true, but is completely beside the point.

This is what, in my mind isn’t being understood:

The prediction is based on the action, not the other way around. Yes, correct predictions will match actions. I agree with that. I don’t start to disagree until you try to use that to claim that correct predictions force an action to happen.

“There is time in our universe so , if god exist, it is in our time too.”

Not everything that exists is in our universe. I have no idea why we should assume that God couldn’t exist outside of time.

“For example. the bible says god *first* created the sun and *after* the created the beings right?”

In spite of what Richard Dawkins adamantly claims, not everything in the Bible is literal.

-------------------------------

6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

“I am proving to you that God can not be perfect so "god perfect" do not exist.”

But I haven’t seen the proof.

Specifically, what is the proof that a perfect being can never, under any circumstances, ever create an imperfect being?

------------------------

8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

We’re having this discussion about the complexity of knowledge elsewhere.

That being the case, I’ll skip the repetition here and ask how you know that God needs time to create (which is what this argument originally was)?

----------------------------

9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

To support the claim that all creation comes out of a need to be fulfilled, you write:

:because if gos do things without wants, like a random machine, or like a Jocaxian Nothingness,”

How do you know that “having needs” and “random” are the only options?

I can think of a number of other options, personally. How do you know that the ones you’ve named here are the only possibilities?

-----------------------

10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

I wrote: "So, you agree that, if God is simple (as he’s always been understood to be) then theism is the simpler view?"

You replied: “I agree if the simplicity is by occan s razzor point of view.”

Yes, I agree with that as well.

“I insist that you understand God as an Indian who observes a super computer in a black box. For the Indian this box is very simple it only has 4 sides and makes billions of things very quickly. Similarly sees God as a black box that does it all.”

Why should you insist this? Why should I agree to that? That isn’t remotely how I understand God. If you are simply going to try to change what it is that theists are saying, then you’re arguing against a God that no one believes in.

So I agree with you that this sort of “super computer” God doesn’t exist. But that doesn’t say anything whatsoever about Classical Theism.

-------------------------

11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

I’m going to cut the repetition from this argument. I don’t see anything here that shows that God could not be good.

----------------------------

13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

I wrote: "Please present the evidence for this."

Your response:

:Delta(X) * Delta(P) > ctte

There is no necessity of observer, this equation is applied to any particle , not only particle being observed.”

This is simply an equation, not evidence.

Please present evidence that this is the case even in situations which do not involve interaction between classical and quantum objects. What test was done of this idea? How was it done without causing classical and quantum objects to interact?

Please present that data. Let me know what the specific experiment was.

-------------------------

14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

“Here is the prove:

- An innocent child dying raped with suffering is bad, the opposite of good is something wrong ..

- The child's own desire and arbitrariness do not want this suffering to herself.

- Being considered good, to be good, do not want to happen this suffering with this child.

- Being good, with enough power to prevent such suffering would act against this evil and help the child ..

- If God existed it would be good and would have power and therefore help the child

-but The fact is that the child dies raped and unaided.

So, the facts are pointing out that this good and powerful God does not exist.”

This is simply a repetition of the argument from Epicurus.

I’m asking how you know that there aren’t good reasons for not acting. How do you know this?

---------------------------------

15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

“Do you agree that Obtion (B) is more occans compatible?:”

No, that depends on one’s background information, as I’ve written. A good historical approach would take background data into account.

But, mostly, I’ve been wondering how any of this shows that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or that historical data can’t be found in the documents later compiled into the New Testament.

All it shows is that, if one starts with materialist atheism, one finds non-materialist claims unparsimonious. But this is useless for determining the truth of the matter.

---------------------------------------

17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

“Tell me what you think is "physical" and I answer you.”

Investigable via science. That is, composed of fundamental particles, space, time, and/or the quantum vacuum.

But I’m interested in this:

"JN is a universe state where there is not laws, any kind of laws"

If that is the case, then anything and everything should happen there. Logical contradictions, spontaneous creations, everything… including the creation/existence of God.

You write: ‘”Traditional view" is *not* a logical response. God is not necessary , a lot another gods could create the universe,'

This seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what I’ve written. God is not contingent by the technical sense as understood in classical metaphysics. That is, his existence has no logical antecedents. It has nothing to do with other possibilities regarding the creation of the universe.

But this is an interesting question:

“Do you agree that God-G could create the universe?”

Yes, actually, I do.

I just disagree with the idea that God-G is simpler than God. From what has been said about the idea (both here and in professional philosophical writings), I’ve seen no reason to think so—and every reason to think that it is actually more complex than God.

You said "Even if this were true (I’m not convinced), this doesn’t do anything to show that atheism is true."

“Ok I agree, but by "Occans razor" is the best response for universe appearance.”

I’m always happy to see agreement. (I’ll save the disagreement for elsewhere).

“Of course P is possible! If P is true then P was possible. if P is impossible than could never be true.”

No one is saying “P is impossible”, but what you need to show is that P is possible if all that existed is a state of “JN”.

“P or not P” doesn’t prove that. It shows that it is either true or false, but there is a world of difference between “either true or false” and “possible”.

“While no rules were aleathorized everything were *possible*.”

How do you know that everything was possible? “True or false” (P or not P) doesn’t mean “possible”.

“Please find a logic teacher and ask him/her about that. lol :-)”

No, really. Actually do that. This is important to logical thinking. Saying that a claim is either true or not true. It means that it is one or the other that it can’t be both true and false at the same time. It doesn’t mean that it is possible.

To explain:

Anything is either true or false. So, the statement “there is a square circle” is either true or false. In this case it is false (not P). The statement “P or not P” still applies, but it doesn’t mean “a square circle is possible”. It isn’t possible.

I could do the same thing with any impossibility. “P or not P” simply doesn’t mean that a thing is possible.

At the very least, read the wikipedia article on this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

Of the JN, I wrote:

“I doubt that it is the simplest possible thing and want to know exactly what it is so that I can check to be sure."

“I challenge you to show something simpler than JN.”

But I’m not claiming this. I’m challenging your claim that the JN is the simplest possible thing. If you retract your claim that it is the simplest possible thing that could exist, then this is not an argument against theism—or even against any of the cosmological arguments for God’s existence.

“By Occans razor: Intelligence is a hypothesis/property thats is not necessary to have.”

Not necessary by what?

Is this the claim to know that all talk of divine simplicity is wrong? If so, give that argument, that would prove God’s non-existence to me without having to mention JN. How is it that you know that knowledge and will, as described by writers like Aquinas, are actually separate entities.

“includes a lot of another embeded hypothesis, because the beings that have *intelligence* must have”

Having other abilities doesn’t mean having more hypothesis. The same trait can be used in different ways, after all. How do you know that this isn’t the case here?

I wrote: "This is simply not how theists understand God."

“Theist do not understand logic very well i think.”

But this is simply demanding that your misunderstanding of theists is correct. Theists have proposed one thing, and you are arguing against something completely different. Whether or not you agree that they are right, you have to answer what they’ve claimed, not what you want to say that they claim.

“No, there is not. The future still will come. An infinite time to happen is equivalent to *never*.”

No it isn’t. It is precisely what is ahead of us. If it “still will come” then it will come. And, if something can happen in the future that creates a thing which exists outside of time, or can travel backward in time, then it exists outside of time, or else here and now.

“It is possible, but if the JN randomize a law like that "NO MORE THINKS WILL BE GENERATED" ?”

The only way for that to happen is for the JN to make your understanding of “P or not P” untrue. Else, there will always be that possibility.

Moreover, there’s no reason to think that this has to happen in time at all. Everything that is possible for JN to create should exist in the timeless state sans time. Only things (like us) that require time should have needed time to exist before being created.

Hence, all such things (including God) would exist if the JN theory is true.

“No because universe form definition is all that exists , including GOD.”

This isn’t the traditional definition of the universe. Even you don’t believe it because it would also include the JN, meaning that it couldn’t have created the universe.

But, if you’re going to claim this, I’ll simply reword what I said:

God would have been created outside of our spacio-temporal reality, and therefore would not be subject to time.

“It is impossible to travel back in the time because the count of events do not regreat only increases.”

This is simply saying that time moves forward. That doesn’t mean that all things must move with it.

Good Day !

1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

You said "More to the point, complexity “in terms of Ockham’s Razor” is the parts."

No, occans razor say about numbers of *hypothesis* not about parts.

Like I said before :"a statue made of sand grains of trillion is less complex than a small fly."

You said "The fact that power can be used in more than one way doesn’t make it more complex.

As before, I can use a rock in many ways, that doesn’t make it more complex than it otherwise would have been."

There are two mistakes in your claim, I will clear to you:

First : The power to create something , like a Fly for example, needs at least two hypothesis:

1-The *knowledge* to create this object. ( And this knowledge needs anothers *millions* of knowleges too )

2-In addition to the knowledge you need to be able to create the matter of this object.

So the power to create something needs a lot of extras hypothesis and therefore each thing god can create

there are a lot of extras hypothesis necessary to do this.

In the same way , Even the rock , each thing you can do with a rock you nees *KNOWLEDGE* to do this.

SO you are wrong when you say "So, no. it is not “an infinite claim”. It is a single claim."

Power to create or do Infinite things It involves infinite hyphothesis to *how* to create this things.

I define "JLBD" as being with *finite* knowledge and *finite* power and not necessarily good and nor omniscient, and he has the power to create a cosmos, not ininite ones , just one.

So JLBD is less complex to God and have less hypothesis than God.

I said "“Not necessarily always Good” "

I mean he can be good sometimes anos bad sometimes. Because our sense of goodness is not the same to him.

He do not needs be good ever.

You ask : "Why does it have the knowledge that it does? Why does it have the particular power that it does? Why does it have both of these things? "

I can say he could be creates by the Jocaxian Nonthingness.

But I ask you the same question about your God.

-------------------------

2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

You said "I said "Second, you are still assuming that God was a “hypothesis” invented to explain the suffering of the world. ""

You are not understanding. I am saying that there is an incompatibility between the facts and the existence of a good God omniscient and powerful. And that * so * that God can not exist.

I'm * not * saying it is needed a god to explain the suffering but the opposite, that suffering is explained by the * absence * of a good God.

You said "First, this simply ignores the issue of free will. "

This statement is a lie spoken for centuries to get away from the logic.

When a policeman or a fireman, for example, help an innocent person to die with suffering he's not taking the free will of anyone, right?

(Does the child like to die with suffering?)

On the contrary he is helping people satisfy their desire to live and be happy!

* Therefore God could also make the role the police or fireman do * when they are not present without taking the free will of anyone.

HELP SOMEONE IS NOT TAKE It is free will.help is not boot from someone your free will.

Second, if there is any reason for God not help it is for its existence defenders show that, because I refuted his last defense in relation to not help to maintain free will.

Third, if you said "God permits evil" then god is not good.

-------------------------------

3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

You said :"If I were to ask “have you finally stopped beating your wife?”,"

If , in fact , I was beating in my wyfe the answer coul be Yer or Not. Yes if I sopped. No if I am not stopped to beat her.

if I was not hitting it so the question is not applicable to me, would be like asking: "Do you like the ride on Mars? "

But I Ask you is different because *necesssarily* one of ths things will occur or you will kill or not.

So I repeat the question:

"If god predicted , before you born , you will kill some one at 11/11/2018 as 13:00 hs then can you not kill this person???"

You said "I keep pointing out that knowing what will happen is different from forcing it to happen. "

I am not saying someone will force to happen, but only the people do not have free will , they necessarily must follow what god knows trom them.

And you do not answer the contradiction:

You have said :

""Yes, you COULD choose differently than God knows you will, but you WON'T

(because, if you did, that would change God's knowledge so that he would know that you made that different choice)."

You do not realize the mistake:

If god *change* his knoledge about what you do, than his previous knoledge was *wrong" , so God was wrong in his prediction.

Do you undertand?

-----------------------------------------

5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

I said : “If the action do *not* match the prediction then the prediction was wrong.”

you said : "Not so. It could be that the prediction matches the action."

You know how to read? I'm talking about a hypothesis * IF *, so you have to assume that *if this hypothesis is true* etc ...

rewriting:

“*** If **** the action do *not* match the prediction then the prediction was wrong.”

It is too dificult read this claim?

You said : "Also, you seem to have cut the part where I pointed out that his assumes that God exists inside time. "

There is time in our universe so , if god exist, it is in our time too.

For example. the bible says god *first* created the sun and *after* the created the beings right? So there is time.

-------------------------------

6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

I said "“If you claim that perfect beings can create *imperfect* things , I thing it goes against perfection idea.”"

you said "You’re allowed to think that if you want, but unless you can prove that you’re right, this is not a proof of atheism."

I am proving to you that God can not be perfect so "god perfect" do not exist.

------------------------

8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

I said : "“A rock coul be used as a hammer and *coud* **not** be used as a step ou used as a tray."

you said : "Why couldn’t it? It is entirely possible to use a rock in the ways I named (and many others).

Power can be used in many ways. "

Because , in the first place there is necessity of knowledge to do this , so , each thing that coud be created

there is necessity the knowledge to how do this.

Second, you can not compare *your* power to do things with a rock with everything. I explain a bit:

God is defined to be good. So he can not do bad things. So tehere is a limit what he can do , He is limited by goodness.

Like I said before, we coud have a GOD-B that have infinite power LESS a power to create a virus , for example.

So infinite power is equivalent to infinite clains. Because we coud have *infinite* Gods each with a different power.

Therefore your god is defined as a claim of infinite hypothesis of power embeded in his definition.

And , as i said before, *each* power to create something must be a knowledge *how* to create this stuff.

----------------------------

9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

I said :"if something perfect do something is because this something he wanted to satisfy some desire.”

You said "How do you know this?"

because if gos do things without wants, like a random machine, or like a Jocaxian Nothingness,

then he would be not a perfect being, he would have a random / aleatoty power.

-----------------------

10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

You said "So, you agree that, if God is simple (as he’s always been understood to be) then theism is the simpler view?"

I agree if the simplicity is by occan s razzor point of view.

I insist that you understand God as an Indian who observes a super computer in a black box. For the Indian this box is very simple it only has 4 sides and makes billions of things very quickly. Similarly sees God as a black box that does it all.

But do not realize that for * EVERY * thing she does exist at least two embedded assumptions: 1-Knowledge to do; 2- The means to do.

For you understand this you need to think that there may be infinite gods with less complexity than their god, as I said before, there may be a god that does not have the power to create a virus, another god that does not have the power to be EVIL. Their god, for example, * is * less powerful than a god who can do evil things. So for every possibility must match a clause to that power.

-------------------------

11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

I said: “It dos not have importance if gos is made with parts or not.”

you : "Of course it does. The number of entities being proposed is precisely what Ockham’s Razor is about."

No, like I said before : a statue made of zilhoes of sand grains would be more complex than a fly.

The occans razor is about hypothesis :

WIKI:

William of Ockham supposedly (see below) wrote it in Latin as:

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.[1]

This translates literally as:

More things should not be used than are necessary.

This means that if there are several possible ways that something might have happened,

the way that uses the fewest guesses is probably the right one.

A problem with Occam's razor is that the sentence is ******* not ******** really about things (entia = entities),

but about explanations or hypotheses.

So other thinkers have come up with other versions:

"We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible." Ptolemy.[3]

----------------------------

13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

You said "Please present the evidence for this."

Delta(X) * Delta(P) > ctte

There is no necessity of observer, this equation is applied to any particle , not only particle being observed.

-------------------------

14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

I said : "“I show that a good God, omniscient and powerful is incompatible with the facts”"

You said : "I want to see why it is incompatible."

Here is the prove:

- An innocent child dying raped with suffering is bad, the opposite of good is something wrong ..

- The child's own desire and arbitrariness do not want this suffering to herself.

- Being considered good, to be good, do not want to happen this suffering with this child.

- Being good, with enough power to prevent such suffering would act against this evil and help the child ..

- If God existed it would be good and would have power and therefore help the child

-but The fact is that the child dies raped and unaided.

So, the facts are pointing out that this good and powerful God does not exist.

---------------------------------

15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

Do you agree that Obtion (B) is more occans compatible?:

A) dead person resurrecting and ascending to heaven (without rockets) or

B) Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

A) Someone who has performed miracles that go against the laws of Physics or

B) Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

A)someone born from a virgin or

B)Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

By Occans razor we must to choose : "Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it"

---------------------------------------

17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

You said "If you can’t say whether or not the JN is physical, then it is not well defined. It is a vague speculation, not a serious alternative."

Tell me what you think is "physical" and I answer you.

You said "as physical things cannot exist unless time and matter already exist."

In this definition "JN" is not physical, of course !

You said: "But I haven’t heard many properties. It’s been a very vaguely defined idea so far."

There are not many properties, but the *main* property is :

"JN is a universe state where there is not laws, any kind of laws"

You said : "You are allowed to think that, but it is the traditional view of God. "

"Traditional view" is *not* a logical response. God is not necessary , a lot another gods could create the universe,

so he is contingent.

The prove God is not necessary is "Jocaxian Litle Blue Daemon" could create the universe, or

the GOD-G the God is similar your god but he is not necessarily always Good.

Do you agree that God-G could create the universe?

You said "Even if this were true (I’m not convinced), this doesn’t do anything to show that atheism is true."

Ok I agree, but by "Occans razor" is the best response for universe appearance.

You said "If I’m reading this correctly, you seem to be saying that JN doesn’t create anything. Please clarify."

In the JN state , we have "P or NOT P" , P is any proposition.

For example P: "space and a lot of particles appear"

So from JN could P is true ............... OR ... NOT !

So from JN could not space neither particles appear !

You said "That is not what this means in logic. “P or not P” doesn’t mean a thing is possible."

You are wrong again.

Of course P is possible! If P is true then P was possible. if P is impossible than could never be true.

you said : " It means that a claim is either true or false. That doesn’t mean that it is possibly true. "

The FIRST schizo-creation is the start of the time.

So while JN do not create anything, there is no time not creation ,

but P still *could* occurs. So P was possible !

While no rules were aleathorized everything were *possible*.

Please find a logic teacher and ask him/her about that. lol :-)

I said "“it is the simplest thing that might exist. So it do not need explain to exist.”"

you said "That is not an answer. You actually have to describe it.

I doubt that it is the simplest possible thing and want to know exactly what it is so that I can check to be sure."

I challenge you to show something simpler than JN.

I said "“No, God have intelligence, JN not.” “God have goodness , JN not.”, God have omniscience, JN not.”,

“God can not do bad things because it is good, JN not"

you said "How do you know that the simplest thing isn’t a mind?", Does ignorance add to simplicity?,

By Occans razor: Intelligence is a hypothesis/property thats is not necessary to have. And Intelligence

includes a lot of another embeded hypothesis, because the beings that have *intelligence* must have :

-hability to solve a lot of problems that include:

. Mathematical problems

. Logical problems

. Physical problems

. Healthies problems

etc....

So , the intelligence-hyphotesis implies a lot of anothers hyphotesis and it goes against occans razor.

Of course, Ignorance does not.

Goodness is the same : something good mus have a lot of hypothesis to know if some thing is good or not.

So to be good is necessary: Not do some child suffer, mus know when somethong will cause pain or not and

infinite others things.

You said "Is this agreement that having more power doesn’t make one more complex?"

If JN have intelligence to *know* HOW to use this power I would agree with you!

But JN is not GOD and it do not know anything. Only "P or not P". where P is any possible proposition.

You said : " But this is an argument that all reality is as non-contingent as the JN itself.

The results of it spin out of it mechanically by the laws of logic. This paragraph agrees with me. "

I agree partially with you that JN is non-contingent.

and agree partially with you that OUR reality is non-contingent because :

The JN could generate bubble universes where they would not connected to each other, they would be isolated. Each could have different physical laws but that could still follow the logic. If the JN randomized * many * laws in a given universe bubble then surely this bubble universe follow the logic.otherwise you could be in an incipient state where compatibility logic of its physical laws could not yet be consolidated and a lot of randomness could be expected. perhaps our quantum mechanics reveals that our universe NJ did not end its processing and left some still loose laws !!

You said "This is just assuming that God has “infinite hypothesis”.

But this is just more of arguing against a God that no one actually believes in."

No, it not depend on the people believe or not. If God has *knowledge* to create infinite things then it mus have infinite hypothesis

one for each thing he can create.

Y.S.: "This is simply not how theists understand God."

Theist do not understand logic very well i think.

Y.S. "But there is infinite time. There is an infinite future ahead of us. "

No, there is not. The future still will come. An infinite time to happen is equivalent to *never*.

YS: "This would mean that, at some point in the infinite future, God will be created (if he hasn’t been already)."

It is possible, but if the JN randomize a law like that "NO MORE THINKS WILL BE GENERATED" ?

Do you undertand me?

The JN could aleathorize some law that avoid HIMSELF to generate more things.

So god could not be generated by it never more.

"You replied

“No, time is the number of events that existed in the universe

So the fisrt thing happen is the start of the time.”

That doesn’t mean that things can’t exist outside of time."

No because universe form definition is all that exists , including GOD.

If god does something than this happen is part of timer-count.

YS : " God will be made, and will have the ability to exist outside of time, and even travel back in time."

It is impossible to travel back in the time because the count of events do not regreat only increases.

Greetings and best wishes to you once again.

And otherwise, here we go:

1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

A chord has many parts. It is composed of quite a few discrete packets of energy in the form of compression waves.

More to the point, complexity “in terms of Ockham’s Razor” is the parts. It is the number of entities being proposed. In the case of theism, it is only one. In the case of the “Little Blue Devil” we’ll find out when we get a clear definition of what that is.

“Did you remember? Infinite power is equivalent an infinite claim”

I remember you claimed this. I don’t remember that being true. The fact that power can be used in more than one way doesn’t make it more complex. As before, I can use a rock in many ways, that doesn’t make it more complex than it otherwise would have been.

So, no. it is not “an infinite claim”. It is a single claim.

But my main point here is that you’ve still not told me much about what the “Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” is. It is simply not a viable alternative to God until we actually know what it is. “Some stuff happens in space” is a much “simpler” (in that sense) explanation of motion than General Relativity. It is not a rival of relativity because it is not actually an explanation at all.

You do try to give some explanation, so let’s get to that:

“I am proving that "LBD" , as a GOD, he can create the universe too.”

But what kind of “GOD” is “LBD”? You’ve specifically denied that it has some of the traits ofof the God of classical theism. You’ve elsewhere denied that it has certain traits of the gods of ancient polytheistic religions. So, you’ve specifically been saying that this isn’t a god.

“It have no infinite power, It is not necessarily always Good, It does not need have omniscience, it has *some* knowledge”

Saying “not infinite” doesn’t tell me what it is. But I assume you mean that it has finite power.

This is one thing that it has.

“Not necessarily always Good” doesn’t tell me anything unless you mean “it is partially good, but not fully”. Otherwise, this is simply not telling us anything.

“It has *some* knowledge” tells me quite a bit, however.

It means that this entity either has or is a mind.

If that’s the case, we have a mind with specific limitations on its knowledge. That means we already have a complex object—and need an explanation as to why it would have *some* knowledge, but not other knowledge. Why does it have the knowledge that it does? Why does it have the particular power that it does? Why does it have both of these things? Why does it exist in the first place? Atheists have consistently demanded that theists need to answer these questions about God. To be a better explanation than God, we need to hear supporters of the “Little Blue Devil” answer these questions.

Last, why on Earth would you seriously be arguing for a god as your favored explanation? How does saying that a god exists support your atheism?

-------------------------------

2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

I asked "Are you claiming that Epicurus is right?"

You responded: “Yes, all points He is right.”

Then I will expect you to support that claim. I’ll put my challenge below.

I said "Second, you are still assuming that God was a “hypothesis” invented to explain the suffering of the world. "

You replied: “Where I said this?”

I didn’t claim that you said it. I claimed that you are assuming it. You kept treating God as a bad explanation for the suffering in the world. I was telling you that God was never intended as an explanation of suffering.

So, as for the classic argument:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Epicurus

There are three very big problems that classical theists have been pointing out for centuries.

First, this simply ignores the issue of free will. It simply isn’t possible to make someone freely be good. This isn’t an argument for atheism until one can deal with the free will defense.

Second, this argument seems to be assuming that not being able to think of a reason means God can’t possibly have a reason. There is no reason to think this. This isn’t an argument for atheism until one can show that God couldn’t have reasons that haven’t occurred to people.

Third, admitting that evil exists (as one has to do even to give this argument) means running into the moral argument for God’s existence. What makes it the case that there is such a thing as real evil, and not just things that people don’t happen to like?

Atheists are often found denying that there is real evil, because real good and evil doesn’t make sense for a naturalist. Their existence points to theism.

---------------------------------------

3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

In response to me asking how you know that one can’t do differently than God predicts, you write:

“Because "omniscience" means knows *every thing* including your future thought. Do you agree?”

I completely agree that this is what it means. I also agree that it means that things will happen as an omniscient being would predict.

I don’t agree that this means that person, must do that, however. It only means that they will.

I keep pointing out that knowing what will happen is different from forcing it to happen. You keep responding by re-explaining to me that knowing what will happen means things will happen as you expect.

I agree, but that doesn’t remotely deal with what I’ve already said.

As to this:

“The answer must bem "YES" or "NO". I am waiting to this simple word. But I dont no why instead say YES or NO”

This is just silly. If I were to ask “have you finally stopped beating your wife?”, can I demand that your answer be just a yes or no? Can I insist that saying things like “I never started doing that in the first place” or “I don’t have a wife” are just refusals to answer directly?

This is simply a bifurcation fallacy. Demanding a yes or no answer is a debate trick, not a useful way to figure out what is true.

------------------------------

5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

“If the action do *not* match the prediction then the prediction was wrong.”

Not so. It could be that the prediction matches the action.

Also, you seem to have cut the part where I pointed out that his assumes that God exists inside time. We need either an answer to that or to drop this subject.

-----------------------------------

6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

“If you claim that perfect beings can create *imperfect* things , I thing it goes against perfection idea.”

You’re allowed to think that if you want, but unless you can prove that you’re right, this is not a proof of atheism.

-------------------------------------------------

8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

“A rock coul be used as a hammer and *coud* **not** be used as a step ou used as a tray.

Because we can have a rock that can not me used in all this things.”

Why couldn’t it? It is entirely possible to use a rock in the ways I named (and many others). Power can be used in many ways. That doesn’t mean that it is more than one entity.

---------------------------------

9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

“I said if something perfect do something is because this something he wanted to satisfy some desire.”

How do you know this?

------------------------

10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

“you would be right *if* each entity of atheist were the same complexity of your god.”

So, you agree that, if God is simple (as he’s always been understood to be) then theism is the simpler view?

If so, I think much more hangs on this assumption that power complex just because it can be used in many ways.

-----------------------------------

11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

“It dos not have importance if gos is made with parts or not.”

Of course it does. The number of entities being proposed is precisely what Ockham’s Razor is about.

But I don’t understand how anything you’ve written under this heading proves that God could not be good. None of it seems to even address that idea.

----------------------------------------

13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

“The uncertainty principle says clearly it is impossible. If yor god can know this position and velocity it is against the heisemberg principle.”

So you’ve claimed. I’ve asked for the experimental evidence that shows that this is relevant to omniscience, and not simply those of us relying on interaction between particles and classical objects.

I don’t see any of that here.

I’ll not comment on the rest, because this seems to me to be the crux of it. Please present the evidence for this.

-----------------------------

14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

“I show that a good God, omniscient and powerful is incompatible with the facts”

I don’t see where you’ve showed this at all. I’ve only seen demands that I prove that it is compatible. I’m simply not going to bother doing that.

I want to see why it is incompatible.

“If you are defending your existence that you should find arguments to resolve this incompatibility.”

But I’m not doing that. I’m merely challenging what you’ve called a proof. I already know what I think. I’m only interested in this discussion if you have a good reason why I am wrong.

I wrote: "Even if this showed that God would be evil (it doesn’t), it is no defense of atheism. All it would show is that whatever God existed would not be good. But it does nothing to show that there is no God,"

You replied: “No, you are wrong , this prove that christian god *( Good , powerfull, omniscient )* do not exist.”

Indeed, it would prove that (if we were able to prove this, rather than simply insist that I prove the claim is wrong).

But it still wouldn’t establish atheism. This really doesn’t defend the materialist view that modern atheists believe in.

---------------------------------

15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

This is now a reference to a no-name blogger. Yes, I agree that lots of non-professional quacks and no-name bloggers on the internet claim that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. The consensus of scholarship agrees with me, however, that these untrained people are simply wrong.

Then you ask the same questions. I’ll write the same thing in response: these simply assume that Christianity is almost certainly false. If one sees the reasons why these arguments for atheism are bad, and knows the real versions of the arguments for theism (as opposed to the fake versions of them internet atheists are always talking about), then these are much harder questions to answer than you seem to think.

---------------------------

17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

If you can’t say whether or not the JN is physical, then it is not well defined. It is a vague speculation, not a serious alternative.

Moreover, unless you are saying that it is not physical, then it cannot possibly be the answer to the question of existence—as physical things cannot exist unless time and matter already exist. It means that the JN would still not be the first thing.

What you do say is this:

“The importante of JN is its properties. It define it.”

But I haven’t heard many properties. It’s been a very vaguely defined idea so far.

I wrote: "In formal terms, the necessity of his own being. God, as a non-contingent object, cannot fail to exist."

You replied: “You are wrong.”

You are allowed to think that, but it is the traditional view of God. Unless you can prove (not demand that I prove, but prove yourself) that this can’t be the case, then you can’t simply claim that this is wrong and base an argument on assuming that it is wrong.

As such, this is a valid response to the question.

“I have said before ( item #1 ) the Jocaxian Litle Blue daemon coud create the universe. God is not necessary.”

Even if this were true (I’m not convinced), this doesn’t do anything to show that atheism is true. All it would show is that the cosmological argument doesn’t prove theism. Atheism would still be a completely unsupported view.

“The thongs created by JN coud not existed. JN coud not create anything”

If I’m reading this correctly, you seem to be saying that JN doesn’t create anything. Please clarify.

“ "P OR NOT P" could, of course, happen "Not P”.”

That is not what this means in logic. “P or not P” doesn’t mean a thing is possible. It means that a claim is either true or false. That doesn’t mean that it is possibly true. This is basic logic. Please find a logic teacher and ask him/her about that. It is a very important thing to know.

“So the rule "something to exist must be not contingent" it is a false rule.”

I didn’t claim that was a rule.

I suggested (not claimed) that contingent reality requires non-contingent reality for it’s existence. This is completely different.

“it is the simplest thing that might exist. So it do not need explain to exist.”

That is not an answer. You actually have to describe it. I doubt that it is the simplest possible thing and want to know exactly what it is so that I can check to be sure.

“No, God have intelligence, JN not.”

How do you know that the simplest thing isn’t a mind?

This is why you need to actually explain what JN is for this to be at all useful as an argument.

“God habe goodness , JN not.”

Again, how do you know that failing to be good makes one simpler?

“God have omniscience, JN not.”

Same question. Does ignorance add to simplicity?

“God can not do bad things because it is good, JN not.”

The ability to do bad things makes a thing simpler?

“So Jn is more powerfull than God and simpler than God.”

Is this agreement that having more power doesn’t make one more complex?

I asked: ”Second, you need to explain how something without intelligence can both exist and produce contingent realities. "

You responded:

"Let us show how the random generation of laws can produce a logical universe: suppose laws are generated randomly in a sequence. If a new law is generated and does not conflict with the others, all of them remain undamaged in the set of generated laws. However, if a law that conflicts with other laws previously generated appears, it replaces (kills) the previous laws that are inconsistent with it, since it must be obeyed (until a newer law opposes to it). Thus, in a true “natural selection” of laws, only a little set of laws compatible to each other would last. That answers a fundamental philosophical question about our universe: “Why does the universe follow logical rules?”

But this is an argument that all reality is as non-contingent as the JN itself. The results of it spin out of it mechanically by the laws of logic. This paragraph agrees with me.

“Because god has infinite hypothesis he must have to be created”

This is just assuming that God has “infinite hypothesis”. But this is just more of arguing against a God that no one actually believes in.

This is simply not how theists understand God.

I wrote "If there is a positive chance, as you agree here, then over the infinite time of the future, it will eventually happen. This is basic to probability theory"

You responded: “But here is not infinite time. The time have the start and will spend infinite to have infinite time.”

But there is infinite time. There is an infinite future ahead of us. This would mean that, at some point in the infinite future, God will be created (if he hasn’t been already).

I wrote "Since God would be created outside time, he would exist as much at one time as any other."

You replied

“No, time is the number of events that existed in the universe

So the fisrt thing happen is the start of the time.”

That doesn’t mean that things can’t exist outside of time.

So, its a strange argument for atheism, because it means that, at some point in the infinite future, God will be made, and will have the ability to exist outside of time, and even travel back in time.

If I believed it (I don’t, it's a wild speculation at best), it would make me more likely to believe in theism.