Debate sobre o Diabinho Azul Jocaxiano  (   https://social.stoa.usp.br/ateismo/forum/the-imp-blue-jocaxian  )
que acontece em :

http://www.strangenotions.com/answering-the-5-objections-to-proving-gods-existence/


Aqui vão minhas respostas ( a maioria com ajuda do  google translator):
==========================

1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]
Not because the creature's name is blue devil this creature has to be blue. It has the power to materialize only blue. This simply means that not always be blue.
Moreover, it is because something is not done in parts (which is not necessarily the case) that necessarily can not create the universe.
-----------
2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]
If a creature leaves 40,000 die innocent children drowned when she could avoid this creature is to be kind? In my opinion is bad. And why this same creature attend a prayer if it is not saved from death inicente one child?
----------
3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:
It is not a matter of force. And rather a matter of not having free will.
If all actions are determined, even if not force, also there is no free will.
You can choose or do something else that God predicted would you do?
---------
4-Argument: By the Occam’s Razor [Jocax (?)]
All shows that there are about God's existence can also be attributed to JN blue imp.
-----------
5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:
You're telling me that God does not know exactly what it will do in the next 1 million years?
-------------
6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:
You are saying that man is the most perfect finite creature that can exist?
---------------
7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:
The infinite regress does not end with a being of high complexity but with a being of minimal complexity as the "Jocaxian Nothingness"
-------------
8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]
So why God would take some time to create the universe? Why it would take seven days to have infinite power? And why you need rest? God tired?
-------------
9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]
If God needed something it was because he was not perfect. Something was missing to him.
-------------
10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]
Then what is the purpose of creating something and then destroy it?
-------------
11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]
Why God would create something that he already was sure, because your omniscience, which would cause much suffering?
-------------
12-Proof: by the universe definition, God could not have created it. [Jocax (?)]
So the theistic change God's definition, not as creator of the universe but of the cosmos.
-------------
13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental * * principle of quantum mechanics. This principle is incompativem with omniscience.
-------------
14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]
God could not create himself clones?
-------------
15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]
There is evidence that the Holocaust existed, but there is not even evidence that Jesus ever existed!
-------------
16- Argument: By the Kalam’s Theorem [unknown]
If God does not exist an infinite time in the past so it came at time zero.
Or he created you own, or does not exist, or anything JN created :-)
-------------
17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]
And why is not plausible the cosmos have stemmed from nothing? Since this is possible?

=======================================================================================================

Hello ! Here we go :-)

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

Why do you think somethink has infinitelly less intelligence, less power  have the same ou more complexity than god?
Moreover I show you that god is not necessary.
The litlle blue deamon is sufficient enough to create the universe and therefore god is not necessary.  
Do you agrree?
-------------
2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

Tell me what the mean  "God is good" if He allow innocent child suffer until dead.
What is the mean "good" ?
So, are the people wrong to think they pray to God and God do some think bad to them? ( as it does with the children who have suffered )
-------------
3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:
You said: "Please explain how my knowing that my wife will choose tea over coffee is proof that she has no free will to choose coffee."

Your known is not a 100% real forecast/prevision  if you have a 100% certainty she would not have choice.
Because if she could choice another option your prevision was not true.

Answer: "you can choose something different that God predicted for you?"
-------------
4-Argument: By the Occam’s Razor [Jocax (?)]

Ok this argument is similar to argument #1, ( but not equal ).
-------------
5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

If god have mandatorily to follow *exactly* you prevision for yourself he do not have free will.
He has to follow your prevision for yourself until the end of the time like a robot that follow its programmation.
-------------
6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

If finite creature can not be perfect why god would create them?
If finete creature can be perfect, (and god make them), why the human being was corrupted?
-------------
7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:

What reason do you said  god is minimun complexity if he has infinite intelligence?
The litle blue devil has less intelligence and the Jocaxian Nothingness has no intelligence at all, so
both are less complex than god and both can create the universe.
-------------

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

Even god not need to rest.
There is no reason to god spend time to create the cosmos.
If got spend time to think he has no infinite intelligence.
-------------
9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

"Who ever claimed that God needed something? I specifically challenged that idea."

Why god would create the cosmos if he did not have necessity to do this?
-------------
10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

The fact that someone create and after destroy something  is incompatible with infinite intelligence.
Because schizofrenic people create and after destroy.
I think it is an evidence to theist explain the reason of this schizofrenic behavior.
-------------
11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

Is different argument because perfection do not implies goodness .
If god is omniscient he knows millions of innocent child would suffer until dead *before* create the universe,
therefore he is guilty to that badness.
-------------
12-Proof: by the universe definition, God could not have created it. [Jocax (?)]

"creator of all that exists other than God himself"  this definition is better, including creation of evil :-)
-------------
13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

I do not agree. The  Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle places *no restrictions* on its applicability.
".. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously."
-------------
14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

It is a different argument because claim god could help and avoid childs  to die with a lot of suffering.
Namely god could help people but not do this. He knows children is suffering burned, drowned, suffocated, raped, cut, live food etc. but does nothing despite its infinite power.
-------------
15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

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:
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/nohistoricalevidenceofjesus.html
-------------
16- Argument: By the Kalam’s Theorem [unknown]  

I Agree that nothing, not God can exist an infinite past because infinite past is impossible.
-------------
17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

It is wrong says that something can come from JN is erroneous.
Because in nothing theire is no physical laws , nor restrictions laws.
So we can use only logical to analize the JN.
The tautological sentence is always true:  "Something happen ou sometihng not happen"

It is illogical claim only "something not happen" is true.

By the logical "something happen" can be true because there is no other premises.

http://www.strangenotions.com/answering-the-5-objections-to-proving-gods-existence/

=========================================
Hello ! Nice day ! :)

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

Is wrong your definition of simplicity
Because a lot of sand grains linked with glue would be but simple than a fly brain.
In the same way an human brain will be simpler than a sand and cement statue if this statue has sand enought.
Of course the brain is more complex than a lot of sand glued . So your definition of complexity is not right.

Moreover, I did not say how many pieces that "the litle blue evil deamon"  are made.
He can be made like a piece of your god.  So it is less complex than god and if god was very simple ,
anyone could create a god to yourself, like a lamp genious to personal user rsrs.

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

Then you are tell me every suffering in  all histoty of the world is good and necessary to a greater good?
So if someone shut a lot of child in the school he is doing a great good?  
Because if not, god do not allow, so no one would be arrested because they doing a well.
So , your logic implies every prisoner should be released because the suffer he caused is necessary to a greater good.
-------------
3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

You said "I don't see how a 100% certain prediction does any more to rob a person of free will than any other prediction. "

Ok let's clarify some points first when I say 100% sure I do not mean a human and fallible certainty but a sure and infallible God.
Second, it is not a prediction of only one or other choice but absolutely all about a person's choices.
Therefore, there is no possibility of this failure and therefore be sure the person has no will to change these predictions it should act exactly like a robot following your schedule, only that the programming would be the divine predictions.

You said:
"So, yes, any person can choose something different than what God knows that person will do (as in, they have the ability to do this)"

If this is true than God fail and He is not omniscient. Because He does not really knows about the future.

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

You said "Knowing that you will do something does not mean having to do it."

And so the God of knowledge is flawed and he did not really know what will happen in the future.
-------------
6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

Why God  created imperfect beings if he could create clones of himself? he does not have the power to this?
Create imperfect beings proof god dont have power or he is imperfect too.
-------------
7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:
But this does not alter the reason that something intelligent is found requires an intelligent creator. In this case God would need a creator too, God's father.
-------------
8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

If God needs time to decide and then create things so he does not have infinite intelligence or infinite power. A being with infinite intelligence spends no time to settle create something. And a being with infinite power nor spends nehum time to execute what you want.
-------------
9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]
The fact that he created things besides himself proves that he had needs and so he was not perfect, he had shortcomings.
-------------
10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

If God has an infinite power and intelligence he would not wait any long to get what he wants. If only because he already knew everything would happen in the universe, not even have to create it. Is not it?
-------------
11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

If God knows which souls go to heaven and which will not by creating the universe and then destroy it and let the good souls in heaven?why it simply did not directly put the good souls in heaven? He did not have knowledge of it?
-------------
13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

Nope, the heisemberg principle do not make restriction about omniscience, on the contrary, proves that such oniosciencia can not be true.
-------------
14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

You said "I don't see how "God could help and avoid childs to die" is different than "God could prevent imperfection". Suffering would be an imperfection."

well, first you have to explain why finite beings can not be perfect.
second, if humans beings like firefighters, caps, etc  can help humans why god can not? He does not have power enought?
-------------
15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/
-------------
16- Argument: By the Kalam’s Theorem [unknown]

If God does not exist in an infinite amount of time then it was created. Then who created God? Nothing JN? lol
-------------
17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

You said: " I said that nothing is simply not a thing—and therefore does not create other things."

this premise does not exist on the contrary the tautology "may or may not happen" lets things happen


==============================
Hello ! Nice day !
1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

You said "My definition of simplicity is the one used to support Ockham's Razor. "

Me too!
However the Occam's Razor does not say that the complexity or simplicity depends diretamentedo number of shares that something is formed.
Anyway I never said anything about how many parts is formed the "JN blue devil" in the same way that you did not say how many parts is formed god.

Still, the razor of Occam says you should ** not add unnecessary hypotheses ** to a theory or concept ..
If the creator has the power to create a universe is unnecessary to state that it can create a million of them, like your god.
Thus, by Occam's Razor blue devil is simpler!
-------------
2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]
I asked, and you still have not answered why firefighters, police officers, doctors, nurses can help children burned morrerm, estrupradas, drowned and etc. and God can not do it? Men have more power than God? or God has no power?
-------------
3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:
 
 You have said "So, yes, any person can choose something different than what God knows that person will do (as in, they have the ability to do this). "
 
 I said : "If this is true than God fail and He is not omniscient. Because He does not really knows about the future."
 Do you agree god does not know about the future ( what a person will do in the future ? )
 and therefore he is not omniscient?
 -------------
5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

You said " As I said, knowing that you will do something does not mean having to do it."

Of course in this case the knowledge is fake because the prevision fail.
So, god fail in his prevision then he is not omniscient!
Otherwise it would necessarily follow that what he foresaw for him,
ie he would have to follow his predictions about their actions as a robot follow your schedule.
-------------
6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

You say without any proof that finite beings are always imperfect.
I god is perfect and have power to create perfect beings (like clones of himself ) and do not this
then he is imperfect. He had prefered create imperfect beings so he is not perfect.
unless you think that sadism is part of perfection
-------------
7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:

You are saying that there may be smart things that do not need an intelligent creator?
If yes , I agree !  The darwin evolution say the same :-)
-------------
8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

You said "Who ever claimed that God needs time to decide and then create things? I've never suggested this"

Yes!  it is what I am saying:
Exactly. All that would need to be created should be done instantly, without any outlay of time.
"In other words, the universe would have to have been created at the time of God's creation. If God has never been created, then the universe also could never have been created."
-------------
9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

Why God would create something if he does not want to create something?
If he criu something unintentionally he is a clumsy and therefore is not perfect.
-------------
10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

There is a lot of reason to create some life and after kill all of them, one of them is the person is sadistic.
If you agree that god can be sadistic then I agree with you,
Otherwise if he is good and omniscient it is not the case because theres paintfull in this process.
So, you have to give a reason to god-good make people suffer and after a long time destroy all.
Becausse a sadistic god would do this not a good one.
-------------
11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

I do not agree with you that if someone creates millions of innocent children knowing beforehand who will die painfully and then puts his plan into practice killing them with suffering is a being good. Rather it proves that this being is not kind. If you have a good reason for this god of psychopathic behavior you must show us.
-------------
13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

See, an electron is fired and will hit a bulkhead. During the course if God says to the scientist the position and the * exact * speed of the electron, Do you think this does not hurt the principle of Heisenberg uncertainty?
Of course it hurts because the principle says that you can not know this accurately.
-------------
14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

If any being who * can * help a child to be burned or raped or drowned or eaten by worms or bacteria and * does nothing * and makes them suffer until death is a clear reason to be judged * guilty * for crime omission.
So God is to blame for all this suffering and death as would have the power to prevent such atrocities.

Moreover, as said before, I say that all evil is necessary for the greater good in the future then the rogue killers and rapists should be released since they promote a greater good for the future.
-------------
15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

'Jesus NEVER existed': Writer finds no mention of Christ in 126 historical texts and says he was a 'mythical character'
Writer Michael Paulkovich has claimed that there is little evidence for a person known as Jesus existing in history
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2776194/Jesus-never-existed-Writer-finds-no-mention-Christ-126-historical-texts-says-mythical-character.html#ixzz3m7M2OgGi


Besides these almost no evidence of the existence of Jesus we can use the Occam's Razor and choose:
A- A dead resurrected and ascended to heaven (no rocket) or
B- Someone writing lies on a piece of paper or book and people believe?

A- Someone has done miracles that contradicted the laws of physics or
B- Someone writing lies on a piece of paper or book and people believe?
-------------
16- Argument: By the Kalam’s Theorem [unknown]

God can not be out of time because the time is the amount of events that hapenned.
If God was out of time it is why God did not exist or did nothing.
-------------
17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

You are wrong see Wiki:
A formula of propositional logic is a tautology if the formula itself is always true regardless of which valuation is used for the propositional variables.

There are infinitely many tautologies. Examples include:

(A \lor \lnot A) ("A or not A"), the law of the excluded middle.
This formula has only one propositional variable, A. Any valuation for this formula must, by definition, assign A one of the truth values true or false,
and assign \lnotA the other truth value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

If A='something happen'  then

(something happen) or not ( something happen )

so you can say ONLY  not ( something happen ) is true.

======================================================


Hello god Afternoon!

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

You said God is "God is a single, unified entity." and because this is more ocan's razor compatible.

How do you know how god is made? You do not know this.
If you do not have a "X-ray" of god you do not know how god is.
More over pimitive people think a black-box with a hyper-computer inside is unified entity because theys can not see inside computer.

You can not see inside god to say he is simple and *unified*.
Is a black-box computer unified for you too?


Moreover, we do not knows how is formed god or litle blue !

The ONLY things we know about god and the litle blue is about their capacities , their power.

Then we have to analyze through their capacitys or power.  See this two hipoteses:

-A being 'D' has power to solve only a QTD  mathematics and logical problems.
-A being 'G' has power to solve  QTD + ILIMITED   mathematics and logical problems.

Of course , 'G' has more hipothesis than 'D'.
So,  God is more complex than the litle blue Daemon.

If do not agree with this I have a better:
-A being 'G' that is always a good being.
-A being 'D' not necessary is good

So 'G' has an extra hipothesis : he is good being.

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

you're always telling me :
"The fact that you don't, personally, have an answer to this question doesn't remotely mean that 'xxxxx' have no answer. It means that the answer hasn't occured to you yet."

The prosecutor says:
"You were caught with the knife bathed in blood on the victim still dying."
Defendant says:
"The fact that you do not find a solution to my innocence does not mean I'm not innocent.It means that the answer hasn't occured to you yet."

**** The onus of proof is yours **** because the evidence points to his god is guilty.

So,  every thing/evidence that point God is very evil you will say " I suggested that God would have good reasons for not doing what you think he ought to do."

In any case the evidence is there and it's up to you to make the defenses of your god or simply agree that it does not exist.

You have some defense to solve the contradictions of a good God and the wickedness that He could avoid?

--------

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

You're contradicting yourself. Or God knows what you will do in the future or do not know.
I ask you again:
You can choose something other than what God predicted that you would choose?
For example, if God foresaw, even before you were born, that you would kill a person, you could choose not kill that person?
Yes ou No ?

-------

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

Do You agree that if, for example,
God predicted that he would create Andromeda on the second day so he necessarily would have to build Andromeda on the second day?
And if he does not do it ( this prediction ) he would have predicted wrongly?

-------

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

Again the evidence points for god imperfect.
The onus of the proof is yours.
If God make imperfect beings (we) then he is responsable for this act.

If God made imperfect men he is responsible for it and for all the consequences that their actions are leading. If these imperfect beings he created are leading to much suffering then it is his responsibility to these sufferings because he knew that this would happen when you created them, including the death of several innocent children Murders committed, raped, burned alive, eaten alive by bactétias and worms etc ..

And do not tell me that I have to find an answer to these contradictions of a good God !!! rsrsr The onus of proof is if I ever I pointed out that it is bad or does not exist.

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

7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:

I agree to withdraw this argument if you agree that Darwin's theory is sufficient for the evolution of intelligent life without the need for an intelligent creator.

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

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

I do not quite understand what you mean but, you agree that everything that God did not need time to do it? or rest? So if he needed time or rest it is because it really is not all-powerful?

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

Here you are being confused by the word "want" just means the will, or the need to satisfy a desire. If God wanted something, it will, is because it was not complete, was imperfect.
 Because something perfect is complete.

-------

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

You answer :"When did I claim or agree that God will destroy all life? "

Not you!  The science tell this, especifically The entropy law says it.

If god already knows everything will happen and that the universe he created will end
and all life would dead then I'm accused him to be bad (imperfect ) because all live will be died for His guilty.

----------

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

I tell you be a kind not allow innocent ceianças were raped, burned alive, drowned and dead with a lot of grief if he had the power to help them and yet do nothing. Do you think being a kindly allow these atrocities without reacting?

-------

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

The origin of the idea of the principle of uncertainty is about a thought experiment on measurement, however, it became a postulate of quantum mechanics and is independent of any measurement.

So if God knows the position and velocity of the particle it would be violating this principle of quantum mechanics. The quantum mechanics does not talk about infirm exception * type it is valid only for humans, not gods!


---------

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

You are saying every thing that hapen , does not matter how much suffer is involved,
everything that happen is *always* good for the good of the future.
Is not it?
Then, for this kind of thought, if you release prisioner, or arrest them, does not matter, is the same
because everything happen will be good at end.

For example if you see some child being rapped you would think :
"if I not help her it will be  good because this suffer is good to the future.
because nothing that happens is actually evil. Everything has a purpose for a better future."

So this kind of thoght leads for no etic behavior.

-----------

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

To be or not historian does not mean that what one person wrote is false or correct. Moreover who wrote the Bible were also not historians.
But this does not invalidate the argument:
It is more likely that the Bible is false than many physical laws have been violated. A magic today, at that time, one could also go through messiah very easily :-)

----------

16- Argument: By the Kalam’s Theorem [unknown]

God could not be out the time:
"The Jocaxian time of the leak Theorem states that:

If two systems are not isolated from each other, and if one of them there is time, then the other will also time.

Proof:
Time is the relationship between events. If one of the systems is time and they are not isolated from each other, then these events may also be correlated from the other system. Therefore, the first system in which there is time can serve as a time stamp for the second system. So, the second system will be time well.

We can use these two theorems to argue against the existence of God:
God can not be timeless, because it would violate the JN theorem of time leakage: If in our universe time occurs, and how our universe is not isolated from God, it follows that time also occurs to God. In addition, at TJPC there is no need for God to create the first phenomenon, and this refutes the argument of St. Thomas Aquinas according to which the movement requires a first mover that would be God. It also refutes the idea of ??an eternally existing God, as this would contradict the corollary of the beginning of time."

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

You are wrong because in a Jocaxian Nothingness  State
only the tautologies we can  applied in this state because there is no rules i.e. no premisses.
We can analize only with the pure logic without premisses .


You are wrong to use any premise (metaphysics or not) beyond the very logic precisely because the state does not allow assumptions because there are no laws. So all we have is the logic. So you can not choose the option (not happen) as the only possible because a premise is necessary:
(A v ~ A) ^ (~ (A)) -> ~ A
You would be postulating the premise ~ (A) and you can not use the laws of our physical universe to deny that nothing can come into nothingness.

So the logical tautology (A v ~ A) ém possible for something to happen. (A)

===================================

Nice Day !
(Sorry if some times I use the google tradutor ).

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

Well,
 if  you can say your god is a unified entity why I can't  say the same?

 You said: "this entire argument was based on rejecting God on the grounds that he was too complex."
 
 No!
 You do not got the argument. The argument is based in Ocan's razor:
 I am saying that "The Litle Blue Devil" ( LBD ) is * simpler * than God and can create the Universe.
 
 So you should choose the LBV and not God as the creator of the universe.
 This is the real argument.
 
 Thus,  for example,
 you claim that GOD is good , well,  this is a not necessary  hypothesis and LBD do not need to have it.
 So LBD has at least one hypothesis less than God. Therefore it's preferable than God.
 
 -------------
 
 2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]
 
 In reality the onus of proof is on who goes against the ocan's razor.
 
 There is suffering of innocent children dying and there, on one side,
the unnecessary hypothesis of a good ghost and Almighty,
on the other hand that there is this god ghost.

Thus, by Occam's Razor should choose the theory under unnecessary hypotheses in the case, the second hypothesis.

In other words:  
The fact is that there are innocent children suffering and dying.
And there are two theories:
The first theory says that there is a good ghost, omniscient and almighty that does nothing for these children.
The second theory says that such a god ghost does not exist.

Thus, as the first theory involve unnecessary assumptions, we get the second theory: God ghost does not exist.
If you claim the first theory is true you have to proof this.

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

No, you are wrong.
If you did something different than  God's knowledge (destination)  then God fail his knowledge and he is not omniscient.
If you can not do anything different you have no choice, all 'choices' are prohibited and you never could choice any of them.

And you still not answer the question:
If god predict, before you born, that you kill some person, you can change this destination. You have to kill this person.
So, you do not have free will. You must follow your destination ( inside mind of god ) .

And one more question : you disagree you said before? :
You have said:
"So, yes, any person can choose something different than what God knows that person will do (as in, they have the ability to do this). They have every power to do that."

If the person do this , than implies that  god *fail* the forecast He did.

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


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

You said: "If God predicted that he would do something, then he would do it—but this is not because his prediction is making him do things.
Rather, it is because his doing something in the future informs his prediction."

No, prediction is knowledge *before* happen.
So, if he knows everithing he will do , then he can not change this forecast. He must follow it until the end with not change. Like a robot.


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

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

Again, the onus of proof is on who goes against the ocan's razor.

We have as fact the universe is not perfect because the men is not perfect.
So, we have 2 theorys:
1-a ghost with super powers and super knowledge , a perfect one, creating imperfect beings.
2-A universe only ( without this ghost )

The second theory has less hipothesis so is preferable than first one.
because this we have to choice the second theory.
If you choose the first you have to poof the extras hipothesis (god + superpower+super knowledge ) is true.


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

7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:

 Do you agree that Darwin's theory is sufficient for the evolution of intelligent life without the need for an intelligent creator ?
 
 The theist of  intelligent design says not.  See wiki:
 "..Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view[1][2] that
 "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[3.."
 
If you agree with me we can delete this topic.

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

You said :"God could have created everything instantly, but chose not to."

This sentence is something like:
"He's strong but decided not to use his strength" or
"He's smart, but chose not solve problems" or
"He's good, but solve be bad this time" or
"I could do quickly, but chose to delay"

I think the onus of proof is yours.
Because the second hipothesis is "there is no god". It is simpler than these.

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

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

if a being wants something it is because something is not perfect.
If everything perfect would not want that. So if God wanted something it's because not everything was perfect, something had to be done to improve.
Something is perfect when there is room for improvement, so God was not perfect, there were things to be done to improve.

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

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

You are saying that god will break the physical law to stop entropy?

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

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

The fact is that innocent children in every age every year are abused, raped, drowned, cut, eaten by bacteria, dead from hunger and etc .. all with much suffering and pain.

So we have two theories:
1-There is a good all-powerful god that could help these children wanted.
2-There is no such ghost-god.

By Occam's razor we should stick with the theory 2 unless there is evidence that such atrocities are necessary and a good explanation of why ests million children had to suffer. The onus of proof lies on those who contrary to Occam's Razor.

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

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

"I'd like to see the experimental verification of the claim that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies to cases that do not involve measurement."

here is:

"...Minimum kinetic energy
    An important consequence of the uncertainty principle is that a particle confined to a particular region of space has a minimum average kinetic energy...."
    


Another:
"This is ** not ** a statement about the inaccuracy of ** measurement ** instruments, nor a reflection on the quality of experimental methods; it arises from the wave properties inherent in the quantum mechanical description of nature. Even with perfect instruments and technique, the uncertainty is inherent in the nature of things."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html

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

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

You are not clear what you are saying.

Choose one:
1-Every suffer on the word had and has a proposal for the future good, in other words:
 all the suffering that exists or existed in the world has a purpose for the greater good in the future or now.
 
2-There is, or was, a suffering that * not * caused, and neither will cause, a greater good.

In the first case, every thing any person do is good. If someone raped another one  is good !
So theres is no moral everything happen is good!!

In the second case,  God is bad because coud help and did not. He is guilty for omission.

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

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

Not all histoprians agree Jesus existed.
And who wrote the bible were not historians so they were not experts on how to verify documents from the past !

what you tell me this phrase "all religious and nonreligious believed that the earth was flat"


Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'
Biblical scholars will be appearing at the 'Covert Messiah' Conference at Conway Hall in London on the 19th of October to present this controversial discovery to the British public.
http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

The reason is because there is not any evidence from his existence.
Even the "Shroud of Turin" fail in carbon test.

Moreover,  you do not show how percent of historians that make searches agree with jesus existence.

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

16- Argument: By the Kalam’s Theorem [unknown]

If you agree we can delete this point.

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

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

Nope.
JN is not a premisse.
The JN is a theory of an object that we suppose to exist to apply the logic.
If JN was a premisse than it is true and end.
If the JN was a premise it should be considered true and would be the end of the analysis.

You said " Logic cannot be applied without premises. "

You are wrong see the site:

"...They tend to specify that an argument starts with a set of premises, and I have never seen any restrictions placed on the cardinality of that set. Disallowing sets with exactly zero premises strikes me as exactly as unnatural as disallowing sets with any odd number of premises. ..."

"...For example, the argument
P or not P
has zero premises and arrives at a tautological conclusion (as must all valid arguments with zero premises).
And the validity can be expressed syntactically, as its sole step is justified as the introduction of a known tautology...."

"...some logic texts allow that an argument can have no premises, though as others have noted, it is a matter of convention whether we extend the definition of “argument” to include single sentences or not...."

"..One example of a contemporary logic textbook which includes single sentences under its definition is Nicholas J. J. Smith's Logic: The Laws of Truth (2012):

In our usage, an argument is a sequence of propositions. We call the last proposition in the argument the conclusion…. The other propositions are premises ….
There may be any finite number of premises (**** even zero ****). (page 11).."

"..So, in summary: An argument with no premises is reasonable and meaningful...."


http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21144/can-there-be-an-argument-without-premises


You said "You also seem to think that metaphysics does not apply because "there are no laws"."

No only physical laws , but even metaphisical laws.


You said " I postulated the premise "there is nothing" "

Its is wrong because there is the Jocaxian Nothingness. Its is nothing its a being.

You said " Or, more directly, nothing cannot create something."

Here are two mistakes:
1-There is something : the JN
2-Is not part of the logic this premisse ("nothing cannot create something"). So you can not conclude this.

only we vae is ( P or NOT P )
and we can not conclude  "P is true"  or conclude  "NOT P"  is true
eventually P can be true ans eventually "NOT P" can be true.

=========================================================================





Good Day !

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

You said "I can say that God is a unified entity because that has always been the understanding of what God is"

It is not a logical good response.
As I said before, in the past  has always been the understanding the earth is flat, and they were wrong.

Moreover , say it is a 'unified entity' do not means it have no parts:

'Unified' means integrated not necessarily made in the a single piece.
See dictionary:
"u·ni·fy  (yo?o'n?-fi')
tr. & intr.v. u·ni·fied, u·ni·fy·ing, u·ni·fies
To make into or become a unit; consolidate."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unified

Another site :
 
unified means :
unaided
murky
integrated
implicated
When people or groups are all on the same page, working for the same goals and doing the same thing, they are unified.
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/unified

SO you can not say God have no peaces only because he is 'unified'.

You said the Jocaxian Litle Blue "JLB" is more complex than god because it is compose of parts:
You said :
"God, as traditionally defined, is far simpler than the proposal of a physical creature (i.e. “little” and “blue”). The Little Blue Devil is composed of parts in a way that God is not."

As I've explained earlier I said the name of "JLB" not means he is necessarily little or blue. So your answer is wrong.

Moreover Your GOD has 2 more hypothesis he is : (1)Omnscient and (2)Good
So he has at least two more hypothesis than "JLB"  then GOD is more complex than "JLB" in therms of occan's razor
therefore "JLB" is prefereble than GOD as candidate of universe creator.

You said "A volcano, for instance is simpler than an insect."

The insect can do many things volcano can not.
The insect can: Flying, walking, seeing, hearing, eating, sex, play up, solve thousands of problems for food or sex, deviate from obstacles, identify sexual partners, avoid predators Not to counting the thousands of metabolic processes occurring in your body to keep working. That is, the insect power is greater than the volcano.

And the insect infected with a bacterium or a virus that wiped out an entire population or species. The volcano can just kill whoever is next. So the insect can be more powerful than the volcano.

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

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

God is a ghost because they say it exists but never appears, and when people say he acted no one sees.

You said :  "Second "the onus of proof" is most certainly not on whomever "goes against [Ockham's] Razor".
It is on the person making the claim. That has always been the nature of logic"

It would true if only *one* person did the claim. Not two.
If two or more person claim the opposite the other(s) then the onus of proof is who "goes against [Ockham's] Razor".

The evidence favor occan's razor,if someone goes against evidence then he goes against occan's razor too.

Suppose two people A and B claim different things:
They Claim:
A-The box is empty !
B-The box has an elf !

A-The earth have air !
B-The box do not have air!

A-The earth has life!
B-The earth has no life !

A-The box have some air inside!
B-The Box has no air!

A-The guy is guilty!
B-The guy is not gulty!

A-There is no life in the sun!
B-There is life in the sum!

Did you see?
All of this sentence are clains.
If some onde clain : "The earth have air!"  he do not have to proof this.
The evidence favor occans razor, goes against evidence goes against occans razor.
but if someone say "the box has an elf"   this goes against occans razor because this goes against evidences.
in the same way the onus of the proof is not of someone who claim "there is no life in sun" but some one says the opposite.

There is suffering of innocent children dying and there, on one side,
the unnecessary hypothesis of a good ghost and Almighty, the I said:
A-God does not exist.
and
B-God Exists

The onus of proof is "B" because god goes against occans razor.

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

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

Even you have physical 'ability' to make something different ,
It is *impossible* to you choose something different the god knowledge. Because if you did somethong different god had fail in his knoledge.   Your physical ability is not your real possibility.

Answer  Yes ou NOT:
 
If God knowledge forecast you will shot and kill someone in 11/11/2020 at 13:05.
Could you NOT kill this person at 11/11/2020 at 13:05? Yes or Not?

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

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

I think you are rolling or not understand because the thing is quite simple.
Lets start all over again, I will draw to you:
If, for example, God makes a prediction that after him to create the stars it will create the Earth.

Prediction:   (before) Stars  ---->  Earth (after)

It can change its own forecast? Create And first the earth and then the stars?

Real Act: (before) Earth ----> Stars (after)

Yes or no?
Of course He can not change!
If He changes he would have missed its own forecast.

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

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

You said: "No, the "onus of proof" is on the person making the claim. This is absolutely basic. "

So, you said "God exist"  therefore ** you ** have to proof its existence !!


(If there is only one person yes but, NO if  two person says  two  different claims !
if person A says  "X"   and person B says "Not X"   the onus of proof is who goes against occan's razor. )

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

7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:

You said "Okay, you seem to have dropped the claim that intelligent beings always require intelligent creators."

You do not understand: The theist of design intelligent think this way not me.
*they* says : every thing intelligent needs an intelligent creator.  ( I do not hink so! )
So they have to conclude god needs an intelligent creator too.


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

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

You said : "my statement is very much like the sentences you list. But I don't need to prove that is true, because I merely suggested it as a possibility. "

We have a tool when there is two possibilitys : The occans razor:

1-There is a being with super power + omniscience + goodness

2-No necessarily was god that makes the universe

By occans razor we have to choice the secons option,  
even as those who make the first statement (the onus of the proof )  has to prove it.

You said "I keep being told that I suddenly need to prove everything."

Ok, you do not have to *proof*  but i am saiyng the occans razor is not a proof criterium but a tool to make logical choices.
So, I am saiyng that there is no necessity of postulate the god existence. There are abnother simpler choices than god.


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

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

I said : "if a being wants something it is because something is not perfect.
If everything perfect would not want that. So if God wanted something it's because not everything was perfect, something had to be done to improve."

You said "I don't see any logical reason why there can't be a being that wants to do something for reasons other than having a need."

Because , at beggining , second theists, there is no universe, so * there is only God *.
and if god is perfect all that existed is perfect.  
If all is perfect there is nothing to do!
There is no reason to do something.
That is the reason.
If God did something then something was not perfect.

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

You said : "I suppose that is a possibility. It is also possible that God will move the minds of some or all people to another universe. "

If we fail to follow ocan razor we will fall into a crazy world where everything is possible. So we can say that actually live in the mind of a pink unicorn invisible galloping by hyper universes toward 29 dimension where paradise awaits us with 297 beautiful virgins ... This is also a possibility, right?

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

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

You did not understand. Who defined God were theists and He is set to be a kind and powerful. Unless you change the goodness criteria there is a contradiction between the facts and God's definition.

You said : "God explains the universe, contingent reality, moral truth, meaning, history, fundamental metaphysics, minds, and an entire host of other things with a single entity."

You speaks about god as an Indian would speak of a big computer: "He makes billions of calculations per second,
makes prediction of the time, wins Chess anyone, designs bridges and buildings and thousands of other things all in one black box!"

It's not because you put billions of capabilities in a single word or entity (god) that this automatically makes it simple.
Just as the Indian sees the computer as something simple it actually is not.

Of course there is another possibilities form all happen the universe as for example, The litle jocaxian blue , our the Big-Bang+Science  or the jocaxian nothingness.  God present contradictions.

The atheism is more elegant and simple vision because need no god. So there is at leas one less hypothesis.

And you do not answer the contradiction:
suffering children until dead and a powerfull God-Good.

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

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

You said: "I have no idea how this sentence shows that the uncertainty principle includes cases that do not involve measurement."

Because this statement says that particle can not stop even no one do measurement in it.

Wiki: "In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously."

"...Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused[4][5] with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty.[6] It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems,[7] and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.[8] It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects ** regardless of any observer ** .[9]..."

The principle is inherent in the universe and makes no exception of some god or entity that could circumvent it

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

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

I said :
"Choose one:
1-Every suffer on the word had and has a proposal for the future good, in other words:
all the suffering that exists or existed in the world has a purpose for the greater good in the future or now.
2-There is, or was, a suffering that * not * caused, and neither will cause, a greater good.
In the first case, every thing any person do is good. If someone raped another one is good !
So theres is no moral everything happen is good!!
In the second case, God is bad because coud help and did not. He is guilty for omission."


I think you did not understand anything about this topic.
I said that there is suffering of innocent children that were inconsistent with the definition of a good and powerful God and
that even humans as police and firefighters can help innocent victims then why a good God also could not help these children?
You countered saying that maybe God would not act because we need this suffering occurs for GREATEST GOOD.
So I argued that all suffering is for a "greater good" then everything you do, any evil any theft, any rape which causes suffering and pain in which God does not help its victims is why it is necessary for the greater good and
therefore these actions are actually good and god left evil do this act because it would cause "greater good".
This implies all evil anyone do where god do not help is because is good at end.
Understood?


If there is no "greater good" God is bad because coud help and did not. He is guilty for omission.

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

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

I showed you two researchers who have done research and found that Jesus did not exist. And you do not even know that there is no proof given that Jesus existed. Even the holy dudario proved to be a fraud. And you did not show me a statistic of how many historians (not priests) who have researched and agree that Jesus existed. Note that the Bible was written over 100 years after the death of Jesus, so it was something written by people who did not live at the time. The evidence points that Jesus does not even existed.

Besides this,  there is 2 possibilityes:
If we had to choose one of the options below, which one would be more likely or easier to happen?

A dead person resurrecting and ascending to heaven (without rockets) or
Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

Someone who has performed miracles that go against the laws of Physics or
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 ""a theory of an object that we suppose to exist to apply the logic" is *exactly* what a premise is."

No, the premisse is a statement we suppose true.
If JN was a premisse then it was true and end. There is nothing to do.

"P or not P has zero premises and arrives at a tautological conclusion"

You said "Is false."

You are wrong because

(P or Not P) ==> (P or Not P )

or

(A=A)  ==>  ( P or  not P )

That is "P or not P" , can be a conclusion.


You said : "Also, "P or not P" isn't a tautology."

You are WRONG again, see:

"...In formal two-valued logic (i.e. logic based on the two principles: (1) that nothing can be both true and false at the same time and in the same way, and (2) that every statement is either true or false), the statements ‘P ? P’ (interpreted in English as ‘If P then P’ or sometimes and less accurately as 'P implies P'), ‘P v ~P’ (in English, 'P or not P' or 'Either P is true or not P is true'), and ‘P ? P’ (interpreted in English as ‘P if and only if P’ or sometimes and less accurately as 'P is logically equivalent to P’) are all tautologies. Each of them is always true...."

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Tautology

You said "If it is a being, then it is definitely a premise. Why are you supposing that it exists? What explains it's existence?"


I think there is a confusion between JN-object and JN-theory:




There is no premisse it is a definition of existence ! See the text:

"We shall interrupt a little in order to open up an explanatory digression.
We are dealing with ** two **  types of “Jocaxian-Nothingness”:
the physical object named “JN”, which was the universe in its minimal state with the properties described above;
and the theory which analyses this object, the JN-Theory. The JN-Theory, the theory about the JN-object (this text),
** uses logical rules ** to help us understand the JN-Object.
But JN-object itself does not follow logical rules, once there are no laws it must obey.
 Nevertheless, I do not believe we will let possibilities to JN-object escape if we analyze it according to classic logic. However, we must be aware that this logical analysis (JN-Theory) could maybe limit some potentiality of JN-Object."
 
Question :  "Why are you supposing that it exists?"
answer   : Because it solve the problem of origin of universe.
 
 
 Question :  " What explains it's existence?"
 answer   :  because the "nothing" is the simplest thing to exist.
 

 You said : "The only way you can start using the word "eventually" is if you are also supposing that time exists."
 
 No!  The logic not says the time exists !  "P or not P" do not need time.
 
 I thing I used the wrong word :
" eventually – finally
Be Careful!
Don't use 'eventually' when you mean that something might be true. Use possibly or perhaps."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eventually

In portuguese is different!

=====================================================================================

 
Good Day !


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

In which part of the Bible, or holy book, it is written that God does not have pedações?
Even the human body is unified and integrated but is composed of organs.
God * not * this defined in terms of the parties that compose it but through its three properties: omniscience, omnipotence and goodness.

Even if you put that omniscience is linked to power it * not * mean that any one that has power has omniscience too.
So the "LBJ" have some power but not necessarily have omniscience. Ie the "LBJ" has this hypothesis less than God.

You said : "a being that is pure existence ..." !?!
What is the differecence "pure existence" of existence?
Something exists or not exists , there is no necessity of "pure". What "pure" means?

You ask "But you claim that the “Little Blue Devil” is simple, but you’ve yet to tell me what it is"

It  is simplicity in terms of occan razor. The "LBJ" (Litle Blue Jocaxian) has fewer hypotheses than God.
The "LBJ" need not be omniscient , nor need to be good,  not need to have infinite power!
So it has less hypothesis than God and should therefore be the preferred choice as the creator of the universe.

As you have not refuted the "JLB" is simpler than God or the JLB would be impossible to exist,
dry that JLB is a choice more logical and better than God.

About the power of God and the power of "JLB":
Let us consider the power as the sum of all that is possible, for example:
1-create the SOL, 2-Create the moon, 3-move mountains, 4-open oceans etc ...
Each of these power items can be considered a hypothesis of power.
Therefore, power of the "JLB" is contained * * in God power since everything JLB can make God can also,
but not everything that God can do JBL can.
The power of JLB is contained in God's power.
Thus god features endless power hipótesis more than JLB is therefore more complex in terms of Occam's razor than JLB.


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

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

Ghost is when you do smart things and no one can observe / explain naturally.
The air, for example, is not a ghost because it makes things intelligent and can be detected.

You said " I merely questioned your claim that the suffering in the world somehow proved that God doesn’t exist. "

Its not me that did this claim, was Epicurus / Hume :

“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
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8199-is-god-willing-to-prevent-evil-but-not-able-then

You ask "Second, you are still assuming that God was a “hypothesis” invented to explain the suffering of the world. "

Where I said this?
I think You do not understand ,
I am saying the opposite, I am telling God is incompatible with the facts.


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


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

You said "I’ve already answered that question. I could decide something different, but that doesn’t mean I will."

No! you are wrong!

If god , even before you born,  forecast that you *DECIDE* something "X" and ACTS with this decision.  
Than you can *NOT* decide another thing different than "X" nor acts different than god forecast.

Because if you decide "Y" ( different than "X" ) or acts different gods forecast then this implies god fail in His forecast.

And you still not answer to me:

"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???"


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


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

You said "You keep assuming that the future decision must match the prediction. But that is not right. ..."

You are wrong again. See the dictionary:

verb (used with object), forecast or forecasted, forecasting.
1. to predict (a future condition or occurrence); calculate in advance: to forecast a heavy snowfall; to forecast lower interest rates.
2.to serve as a prediction of; foreshadow.
3.to contrive or plan beforehand; prearrange.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forecast

another:
: to say that (something) will happen in the future : to predict (something, such as weather) after looking at the information that is available
Full Definition of FORECAST
transitive verb
1 a :  to calculate or predict (some future event or condition) usually as a result of study and analysis of available pertinent data; especially :  to predict (weather conditions) on the basis of correlated meteorological observations
b :  to indicate as likely to occur
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forecast

and you continue "...Rather, it is the prediction that must match the future decision."

If god is perfect and ever right yes each prediction will occur,  so the future decision is the same of the prediction
and it is the idea !!  Each god prediction will be gods decision , so
if god, for example, predict it will create the sun or will create the galaxy or kill the universe HE CAN NOT CHANGE his own prediction.
He  must have to follow his prediction, like a robot follow his programation.

You said "He has all his knowledge at once. He doesn’t “change his mind” the way people do."

Yes, like a ROBOT he has its programation (the forecast) and cannot change his mind (his programation) he must to follow it. :-)

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

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

I think you did not understand. The logic is as follows:
1-perfect beings create perfect things.
2-A being created something imperfect.
So this can not be perfect.

I god is perfect he can not create imperfect things.

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

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

I think you Estacom a wrong idea of Occam's Razor. The razor says that we should not add hipótesis desnecessariasa a theory or concept.

Wiki:
"... The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well,
the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected...."

You said: "But all this is to say that the three things you name are separate entities within God."

As I said before , infinite power is equivalent to infinite assumptions :
1-Can create a sun ; 2- can create a galaxy ;3-can cure cancer ; 4-can solve fermat problem ; 5-can see your mind ...infinite things

So, god idea has infinete built-in assumptions.

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

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

You said "There is simply no reason to think that “If all is perfect, there is nothing to do!”.
 It is entirely possible that a lone, perfect being could decide that as-yet-uncreated beings should be made. "

and so, god decide to create IMPERFECT beings!!! lol  :-)

No, is not possible , because this gos against perfection : someone perfect do not fill loneliness, solitaire or  a lone.

So if all was perfect then create imperfect universe implies god was not perfect he changed a perfect universe to another imperfect.

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

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


You said :"And this has nothing to do with Ockham’s Razor. “God is perfect” is a much simpler statement than “God, the being that is defined as perfect, cannot be perfect”, for whatever that’s worth."

you are wrong in thinking that the ocan's razor applies to sentencing intaxe. And what if the sentence has many other words that it is less compatible with Occam's razor than another sentnça that has fewer words. This is a big mistake.

You said : "But that’s not much, because Ockham’s Razor is not nearly as applicable to every possible question in the way that atheist
 websites seem to think it is. "

I thing you are wrong , can you show me where Occans razor can not be aplyed?

All juridical or scientific findings there is the application of Occam's razor.
For example if an engineer weighs a piece on the scale and brand 1Kg he's assuming that: the balance is correct,
the piece is not one imagined it, there is not a goblin projecting balance of numbers in his mind,
that he is not taking a hallucination that seeing 1kg when in fact the balanca brand 10kg and,
like these hypotheses he is discarding endless others also are possible.
So when you say that God may have other ideas when it points out that life in the universe will end,
you are also claiming without evidence just as I said earlier about the pink unicorn:
"If we fail to follow ocan razor we will fall into a crazy world where everything is possible. So we can say that actually live in the mind of a pink unicorn invisible galloping by hyper universes toward 29 dimension where paradise awaits us with 297 beautiful virgins ... This is also a possibility, right?"

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

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

You said : "God explains quite a few things. Thus, the idea is simpler than an atheist approach because a single entity is being
used to explain things that atheists need to explain through many separate entities. "

I see several strange things. How you can be sure that, as well as our human body there are several organs,
God can not be made up of several integrated parts?

Another thing, as I said before, grouping all the answers in a word called "God" and say that he explains All thiings ,
it is illogical because, as I said before,
to say that God has infinite power equivalent * really * in postulate endless assumptions and statements without
no explanation or evidence as they arose.

For example a "god-A" that can everything your God can,  but by definition of God-A , he 1-can not create the moon,
and 2-he can not create the virus, it would be a possible God.
This god-A has a bit less power than your god, but it would be possible to be God.
So when you define what your God saying he can do everything you are actually setting endless (infinite) hipótesis,
a much larger number of hypotheses of what scientists do when they explain the universe with a number * FINITE * of entities.

Because this scientists do not use GOD, God indeed is very very much more complex ( # nember of hiupothesis ) than a materialist view.

There fore is wrong what you said "for anyone who does want to decide the matter based on Ockham’s Razor, theism is the simpler option."

It is not true.

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

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

You said : "This is true within science (as this is a scientific principle). It is not some magically applicable fact that expands to all reality."

Strange you see me talking about magic when all kinds of magical events prove not of science but of the Bible,
with talking snakes, resurrecting the dead , virgin birth  and etc ..

I think you must read this sentence:
"It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems,[7] and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a *** fundamental property of quantum systems *** , and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.[8] "

There is no necessity of measures to this principle can be applied . See:
"...Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is not a result of our lack of proper measurement tools. The fact that we can't precisely know both the position and momentum of an elementary particle is, indeed, a property of the particle itself.
It is an *** intrinsic property of the Universe *** we live in...."

ABout measures:
"...To reiterate, uncertainty follows from the mathematical definitions of position and momentum, *** without consideration for what measurements you might be making *** . In fact, Bell's theorem tells us that under the hypothesis of locality (things are influenced only by their immediate surroundings, generally presumed to be true throughout physics), you cannot explain quantum mechanics by saying particles have "hidden" properties that can't be measured directly.

This takes some getting used to, but quantum mechanics really is a theory of probability distributions for variables, and as such is richer than classical theories where all quantities have definite, fixed, underlying values, observable or not. ..."


The quantum mechanics does not make restrictions or caveats on what type of entity (if god or no god) would have some privilege on this knowledge. Therefore we can not say that quantum mechanics puts God as an exception to this principle.

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

You said :" Really, can you not imagine any situation in which good comes out of a bad thing? Or are you claiming that every time good comes out of a bad situation, then the bad situation is suddenly good?"

Not me, but You!

Lets come back again:

Suppose an innocent child being raped to death.
I ask you: "Why God does not protect the child?"
If men can, as police and firefighters, can protect a child if they are around, why God does not protect her
and  let her be killed with great suffering ?

This EVIDENCE points to god is bad !  If you have defense to him, please put it here.

But surely YOU will tell me "God has a defense but me and you do not know what is, certainly is to a greater good!".

dont you?

Ok, if ALL suffer that god could help and did/do not is to greater good then every thing we do that cause a suffering
and death will be to a greater good, because if was not to a greater good, god would help.

So does not matter we do, if god does not help it is because what we did is to greater good.
Then I ask to you :

what Hitler did was for the greater good?


You said "I’ve never said that an action is good if good comes out of it. "

So I ask to you : "If an action is not good, WHY GOD DONT HELP?"

You said "You’ve been saying these things. "

NO!  I am not saying this things ! You  made me understand this, because:
You said : "You need to show that there are no reasons for this suffering—not simply that no reasons have occured to you."
           "We can agree that suffering exists, but that does nothing to show that there is no good reason for it."

The evidence points to God is guilty by default. If you have something to defend God must show,
otherwise the sentence will be maintained.
It is wrong you want the prosecutor who accuses God (I) arrange proof of his innocence,
the claims that you should be able to arguments to defend it that felony charge for help omission
 


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

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

"A growing number of scholars are openly questioning or actively arguing against Jesus’ historicity "
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/06/5_good_reasons_to_think_jesus_never_existed/

Evidence that Jesus Never Existed
http://www.solarmythology.com/appendixd.htm

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.
There are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/

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

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

You said "Rather the point is that this doesn’t explain where the physical object JN came from. What explains it’s existence?"

JN is not necessarly "physical" in the sense of matter but in the sense of existence.
Then
I can ask you the same about the god: " how god came from and what explain it s existence?"

Answering about JN I answer:

He is the simplest existing thong possible, because it has no intelligence, nor goodness , it has only free.
So it has no necessity of explanation abut your existence anything is more complex than him.

"P or not P "
yes god could come from JN. But is improbable.
and it is necessary something without rules like JN to god comes out.





====================================================================================


Good Day !

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

Have parts or not  have parts does not imply that God is or is not simple or complex. A chord, for example, has no parts but we can contain very complex. What sets the complexity in terms of Occam's Razor are the hypotheses and not its parts.

You said : "And it wouldn’t matter anyway. "   
I agree.

You said " But it doesn’t automatically mean that perfect power doesn’t include omniscience, either. "

I am *not* saying the jocaxian Litle Blue Daemon (JLBD) is perfect. It is not perfect because it do not have infinite power.

So it has infinite less embeded hipotheses than god have.
Did you remember? Infinite power is equivalent an infinite claim:
-can create avirus
-can cure cancer
-can predict the future
-can create 1000000000000  stars
-can create 12199239232993 planets
-can create a pink unicorny
-can read you mind
- etc....

So as JLBD have infinite less hypothesis than it is more ocam's compatible than God
and therefore JLBD is prefered to be choice than God.

An here en the argumento of JBLD  but you still
say : "He is existence itself. He doesn’t have any lack, any way in which he could be improved."

This claim goes against a being that create an *imperfect* universe with *imperfect* beings inside.


You said: " What sort of thing are you proposing when you suggest that a “Little Blue Devil”."

I am proving that "LBD" , as a GOD, he can create the universe too.
There is no necessity of a God with infinite power to do this creation.

You ask me :
"Okay, great, but what does it have? What is it? Is it good? Bad? Is it physical? Platonic?"

It have no infinite power, It is not necessarily always Good, It does not need have omniscience, it has *some* knowledge
but *NOT* infinite knoledge = omniscience.

So it is very very much simplier than your god.

So, "LBD" can be definite as a *Finite God".


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

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

You said "Are you claiming that Epicurus is right?"

Yes,  all points He is right.

repeating:
You ask "Second, you are still assuming that God was a “hypothesis” invented to explain the suffering of the world. "
Where I said this?
I think You do not understand ,
I am saying the opposite, I am telling God is incompatible with the facts.
“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

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

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

I said "“If god , even before you born, forecast that you *DECIDE* something "X" and ACTS with this decision.
Than you can *NOT* decide another thing different than "X" nor acts different than god forecast.”"

You ask :"How do you know this?"

Because "omniscience" means knows *every thing* including your future thought. Do you agree?

Dictionary: "having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things. "

Do you think god can *not* knows what you will decide in the future?

If God knows that a person will decide "X" in the future, you are telling a person can decide anotherthing different?  

If you are righ the god did a mistake, he was wrong.

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?

And I search your answer and I do not find it.

Again,
You said : "I’ve already answered that question. I could decide something different"

If you decide different than god had predict about your decision, than god was wrong. simple like that.
So god fail , it is not perfect neither omniscient.


I have Asked :
"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 have answered : "I’ve directly answered this twice already. Please re-read my past comments for the answer."

The answer must bem "YES" or "NO".  I am waiting to this simple word. But I dont no why instead say YES or NO
you do not answer dirtectly. Have you fear of the truth? Why do you do not answer 'Yes' or 'No' ?

 
------------------------------

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

You said " I don’t see how this proves that actions must match the prediction"

If the action do *not* match the prediction then the prediction was wrong.

It is simple to understand?

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

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

  "1-perfect beings always create perfect things”.
 
If you claim that perfect beings can create *imperfect* things  , I thing it goes against perfection idea.

If not, if perfect-definition implies imperfection I agree an delete this topic.

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

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

You said : "For instance a rock can be used as a hammer, a step, a tray, a chisel, and many other things besides. This doesn’t mean that a rock is four separate assumptions."

You are wrong.
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.
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.

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

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

You said "You keep saying that the only reason a being would have to create other beings is to fulfill loneliness."

No , I did not said this word *only*.

I said if something perfect do something is because this something he wanted to satisfy some desire.
And if there was desire there was a lack of something to fill it. So were not perfect something was lacking


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

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

You said "My point wasn’t about how long the sentence was, but about the number of entities that had to be proposed."

you would be right *if* each entity of atheist were the same complexity of your god.

But not.

The word "god" has embeded, as I said before, infinite hipothesis, each one for each power it can do.
So it is infinite more complex than a finite number of entities.

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

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

You said "As above, the God that has been proposed by theists is not made up of parts. "

It dos not have importance if gos is made with parts or not.

I said : "For example a "god-A" that can everything your God can, but by definition of God-A , he
   1-can not create the moon, and
   2-he can not create virus,
   it would be a possible God."

Do you agree that this "God-A" , different than God,  could be exist?
If not, why?

Is important say that in order to create something there need to be at leat 2 thinks :
  a) Know how to create this think ( have knowledge )
  b) Have power to create it
 
----------------------------------------

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

You said ". The point for now is that, if you don’t believe in magic, you shouldn’t believe that a scientific principle is applicable to non-scientific questions."

To know position and velocity of a particle in our universe with arbitrary precision is a scientific question. And the principle says it is noto possible.

The uncertainty principle says clearly it is impossible. If yor god can know this position and velocity it is against the heisemberg principle.

The indeterminacy do not happens only when classical objects come into contact with quantum objects this is a property of
quantum system because this , as I said before, the particle in a box can not have zero cynetic energy even no observer interact with it.

You said "Again, re-read the text. It does not close by saying “is not a statement about all knowledge”. It refers only to our current observational technology."

No, the text say the opposite:
"It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part,
but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects ** regardless of any observer ** ."

The observer and his technology is not necessary to principle be true.


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


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

You said "And I’ve told you: I’m not certain. I assume that an omniscient being would have quite a few answers and reasons that
I don’t know about. I suggested a few possibilities.
But, mostly, I’ve been underlining that I don’t need to prove to you that there is a good reason."


I find it funny, I show that a good God, omniscient and powerful is incompatible with the facts and you come tell me that * I * I have to find arguments in favor of its existence as it shows that such a being is incompatible with reality, it it is funny. If you are defending your existence that you should find arguments to resolve this incompatibility.

I think the following:
 Existed  millions of inoccent people was killed with very suffering.
 If god do not help then he is guilty by omission and not Good, or he does not exist.
 
 If *you*, theist , do not have an answer for thos conttadiction -bad-facts-and-god the prove of his not existence is done.
 
 You said "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,"
 
 No, you are wrong , this prove that christian god  *( Good , powerfull, omniscient )* do not exist.
 
 
 
 ---------------------------------
 
 
15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

Even bible was not copyed from old myths like says:
"Similarities to Other Stories
The similarities between the stories and characters in the Bible and those from previous mythologies are both undeniable and well-documented. It is only due to extreme the extreme religious bias that pervades our world today that people rarely get exposed to this information."
https://danielmiessler.com/essays/bible_fiction/

The occans razor have to be used and discard this book that was not wrotte by historians and wrote more than 100 years after Jesus.

A dead person resurrecting and ascending to heaven (without rockets) or
Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

Someone who has performed miracles that go against the laws of Physics or
Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

someone born from a virgin or
Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?


By Occans we have 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 ask "If you are claiming that the JN is not necessarily physical, then what are you claiming that it is?"

JN is not necessary physical because some physical things obeys physical laws and JN do not.
So we can not say JN is necessarly Physical.

The importante of JN is its properties. It define it.

You said "In formal terms, the necessity of his own being. God, as a non-contingent object, cannot fail to exist."

You are wrong.
I have said before ( item #1 ) the Jocaxian Litle Blue daemon coud create the universe. God is not necessary.


You said "JN, but you’d then have to explain why you think it is non-contingent (as theists have about God). "

You are wrong again.
The thongs created by JN coud not existed. JN coud not create anything:
"P OR NOT P"  could, of course, happen "Not P".
So the rule "something to exist must be not contingent"   it is a false rule.

You said "But, if you’re going to take the position that the JN is not physical, then please explain what it is, and how it might have created the universe."

it is the simplest thing that might exist.  So it do not need explain to exist.
Any other thing would be more complex than it , by definition.
And it has the power to create the cosmos because the logic implies this is possible.
"P or Not P" coud be "P".

You said " I’ll simply claim that we are both proposing God, just by different names."

No, God have intelligence, JN not.
    God habe goodness , JN not.
    God have omniscience, JN not.
    God can not do bad things because it is good, JN not.
    
So Jn is more powerfull than God and simpler than God.

You said "You are insisting that omniscience and power exist as separate things in God.
But that isn’t the God that theists have proposed. "    

Omniscience and knoledge is hipothesis that JN do not have. So JN is very simpler than God.

You said "Second, you need to explain how something without intelligence can both exist and produce contingent realities. "

read the text:
"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?”

I said "yes god could come from JN. But is improbable.”

You ask "First, how do you know this?"

Because god has infinite hypothesis he must have to be created:
1-he must know how to create a particle
2-he must know to create a sun
3-he must know to cure the aids
4-he must know to create galaxys
5-he must know to create hyper-computers
there are infinite things that god must satisfy to be god  because this it is improbable JN create god.

You said "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"
But here is not infinite time. The time have the start and will spend infinite to have infinite time.

You said "Since God would be created outside time, he would exist as much at one time as any other."

No, "time is the number of events that existed in the universe"
So the fisrt thing happen is the start of the time.



=================================================================================================


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.



==================================================