3 ms·
The author never makes the case for any particular conception of a deity. In fact, his indirect diatribe could just as easily be taken as an argument in favor o
by vezzy-fnord 11y ago
The author never makes the case for any particular conception of a deity. In fact, his indirect diatribe could just as easily be taken as an argument in favor of theological noncognitivism. He rejects "theistic personalism" (which is the overwhelmingly accepted understanding of God in Western societies and Abrahamic religions) in favor of "classical theism" - that God is pure form, immutable (does not change), impassible (cannot be acted on), existing outside of time, yet also omnipotent and omniscient. Whether or not this God intervenes in human affairs is not stated, so for all I know the author could be arguing a deist position. Yet he seems to accept the Catholic tradition, which would require one to prove a whole additional set of properties beyond an abstract deity, but nonetheless it implies that he does believe in an interventionist God. Actually, classical theism seems to imply this cyclic and self-referential belief of God being omniscient by the mere fact of his existence and that "miracles" and intervention are in fact the result of God being the sustainable cause of ordinary events by default.
Muddled, unfalsifiable, self-abetting sophistry, in my mind. But it's creative, I suppose.
- pravka 11y agoIndeed, creativity is the inevitable conclusion I come to when I read diatribes like this. I could expend countless hours wondering, plotting, and diagramming any number of potential (non-scientific) explanations for life as we know it, as well as our eventual, mutual destination. These explanations would also be creative; the primary reason I don't do this is because I have far more interesting and important things with which I choose to concern myself.
- vezzy-fnord 11y agoTo be fair, I do respect him for his adeptness at being able to think abstractly, but his presenting these ideas to scorn on atheists as if they're somehow in the absolute wrong because of not considering the more esoteric Aquinas ideas of God, is disingenuous. In all honesty, he would be rightfully dismissed by most atheists as begging the question. As I said, theological noncognitivism - it's not worth debating God because there is no definition of him/her/it. Classical theist, pantheist, pandeist, panentheist, henotheist, deist, pandeist, maltheist, personal God... at any given point in a debate people will start backtracking on different interpretations with radically different consequences if they are valid, yet still somehow conclude Christianity must be true after all of them.
- zbyte64 11y agoHe believes in the trinity so doesn't that imply intervention and not a deist position? I don't see how the two are reconcilable (trinity and deism).