3 ms·

You ought to put some more effort into understanding the millennia of thought that has gone into the topic before making sophomoric errors. You've unintentiona

by User23 7y ago

You ought to put some more effort into understanding the millennia of thought that has gone into the topic before making sophomoric errors. You've unintentionally acknowledged my original point with your obsession on the nonexistence of the biblical God. Why aren't you going on about your lack of belief in Susano-o? What you fail to understand is that there are those who have come to a belief in a transcendental creator God in a philosophical journey, because it's a logical necessity. Granted, the particulars of the incarnation are a matter of testimony. Setting that aside though, the logical argument for the necessity of a creator God is no different than the logical argument that we live in a "simulation."

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
> who have come to a belief in a transcendental creator God in a philosophical journey, because it's a logical necessity Care to unpack that for me? Are you arguing for a "God", or a Prime Mover? I think they are very distinct - people attribute certain anthropomorphized qualities to a "God". I don't find an argument that there must being a prime mover particularly compelling, and if there were such a thing, I would very much doubt that it would represent any sort of deity as we define it - if anything I'd expect it to be energy and chaos. I'd just like to know which side of this argument you're going with.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  See "He Is There And He Is Not Silent" by Francis Schaeffer. However, be aware that this book is more a sketch or outline of an argument, not detailed at every step. You're going to have to do a lot of thinking about various points to decide whether you agree with his argument. You're also going to have to pay careful attention to his definitions of words, specifically his distinction between rationality and rationalism.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    Taking a weak sketch of an argument and then filling in what you want to see seems to me to be a realization of one's own desires, and not a convincing argument in and of itself. I've no interest in reading a Christian Apologists attempt to find a way to rationalize out a creator - if I'm going to be convinced of such a thing, I expect there to be convincing, obvious, evidence, and not to end up at the end of a metaphysical cul-de-sac and to have to "God" my way out of it.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      I never said it was weak. It's not. I said that you're going to have to think through whether the "but what about"s that you come up with really counter his point, because he's not going to address every "what about" that exists.
BackBackBack 7y ago
> What you fail to understand is that there are those who have come to a belief in a transcendental creator God in a philosophical journey, because it's a logical necessity. And what you fail to understand is that there are those who have come to a disbelief in a transcendental creator in a philosophical journey, because it's a logical impossibility. > You ought to put some more effort into understanding the millennia of thought that has gone into the topic before making sophomoric errors. The arrogance is simply astounding.
- User23 7y ago
  > because it's a logical impossibility. Really? Why don't you share your theorem? We know that the existence of God can be found logically, because Gödel wrote a formal proof. > The arrogance is simply astounding. Indeed, I'm impressed by your self-awareness.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    > We know that the existence of God can be found logically, because Gödel wrote a formal proof. This, of course, is why if you look online there are no refutations of said proof. I would suggest you're being incredibly pedantic - formal logic being a place far removed from the logic to which they were referring. It seems roughly analogous to me that just because mathematically infinity exists doesn't mean it must exist as physical property.
    - User23 7y ago
      I didn’t see any logic, informal or otherwise. God doesn’t exist because I don’t want Him to isn’t any kind of argument at all.
      - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        You're right - that's not a terribly well thought out argument. They should have said: "I don't believe in any deities existence as such a claim would require extraordinary evidence. Not only have we been provided no extraordinary evidence, we have been provided no evidence at all, save possibly the very existence of creation itself, but we can safely reject the argument that a creator deity exists because creation exists due to the innate problem with first causes arguments - if you assume that everything must have a first cause, that first cause can't have had one, thus there isn't an innate requirement for a first cause, making first causes an argument against themselves. There being no evidence provided, therefore I can safely rejected the supposition that such a being would exist." That would have made more sense.

by User23 7y ago

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago

> who have come to a belief in a transcendental creator God in a philosophical journey, because it's a logical necessity Care to unpack that for me? Are you arguing for a "God", or a Prime Mover? I think they are very distinct - people attribute certain anthropomorphized qualities to a "God". I don't find an argument that there must being a prime mover particularly compelling, and if there were such a thing, I would very much doubt that it would represent any sort of deity as we define it - if anything I'd expect it to be energy and chaos. I'd just like to know which side of this argument you're going with.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
See "He Is There And He Is Not Silent" by Francis Schaeffer. However, be aware that this book is more a sketch or outline of an argument, not detailed at every step. You're going to have to do a lot of thinking about various points to decide whether you agree with his argument. You're also going to have to pay careful attention to his definitions of words, specifically his distinction between rationality and rationalism.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  Taking a weak sketch of an argument and then filling in what you want to see seems to me to be a realization of one's own desires, and not a convincing argument in and of itself. I've no interest in reading a Christian Apologists attempt to find a way to rationalize out a creator - if I'm going to be convinced of such a thing, I expect there to be convincing, obvious, evidence, and not to end up at the end of a metaphysical cul-de-sac and to have to "God" my way out of it.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    I never said it was weak. It's not. I said that you're going to have to think through whether the "but what about"s that you come up with really counter his point, because he's not going to address every "what about" that exists.

BackBackBack 7y ago

> What you fail to understand is that there are those who have come to a belief in a transcendental creator God in a philosophical journey, because it's a logical necessity. And what you fail to understand is that there are those who have come to a disbelief in a transcendental creator in a philosophical journey, because it's a logical impossibility. > You ought to put some more effort into understanding the millennia of thought that has gone into the topic before making sophomoric errors. The arrogance is simply astounding.

User23 7y ago
> because it's a logical impossibility. Really? Why don't you share your theorem? We know that the existence of God can be found logically, because Gödel wrote a formal proof. > The arrogance is simply astounding. Indeed, I'm impressed by your self-awareness.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  > We know that the existence of God can be found logically, because Gödel wrote a formal proof. This, of course, is why if you look online there are no refutations of said proof. I would suggest you're being incredibly pedantic - formal logic being a place far removed from the logic to which they were referring. It seems roughly analogous to me that just because mathematically infinity exists doesn't mean it must exist as physical property.
  - User23 7y ago
    I didn’t see any logic, informal or otherwise. God doesn’t exist because I don’t want Him to isn’t any kind of argument at all.
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      You're right - that's not a terribly well thought out argument. They should have said: "I don't believe in any deities existence as such a claim would require extraordinary evidence. Not only have we been provided no extraordinary evidence, we have been provided no evidence at all, save possibly the very existence of creation itself, but we can safely reject the argument that a creator deity exists because creation exists due to the innate problem with first causes arguments - if you assume that everything must have a first cause, that first cause can't have had one, thus there isn't an innate requirement for a first cause, making first causes an argument against themselves. There being no evidence provided, therefore I can safely rejected the supposition that such a being would exist." That would have made more sense.