4 ms·
> The OP is being cheeky with that comment Most people are being cheeky when they use that popular misrepresentation of the theistic position, because in many
by jedimind 6y ago
> The OP is being cheeky with that comment
Most people are being cheeky when they use that popular misrepresentation of the theistic position, because in many cases it goes unchallenged, thus it becomes a low effort high result quip that perpetuates false ideas.
- ninkendo 6y agoPersonally I don’t see a distinction between: “God has always been” and: “Don’t ask what created god” Either explanation dismisses outright the idea that we should even care what came before god, or what created him, etc.
- jedimind 6y agoYou don't see a distinction, because you don't want to see a distinction. It's very simple, not only does asking "what came before god, or what created him", bring you to where we started - the impossibility of infinite regress, thus nothing existing - but also the fallacious nature of your question implying that God is a created being, which is false, created Gods are idols. As explained above: "that's like looking at the painting of Mona Lisa and asking "but who painted Leonardo Davinci?", while Davinci is the painter, he is a human, not a painting, creator and created don't have to be of the same nature." It's one thing to deepen the discussion by contributing new ideas and a whole other thing to just stubbornly insist on making fallacious arguments and repeat them like you did. So unless you prove this time that you're not deaf to the arguments being made, I won't even bother next time...