4 ms·
There is absolutely no reason to assume God as an axiom. God is not a priori. God only exists after being declared to exist. To contrast, the ground under my
by thomastjeffery 3y ago
There is absolutely no reason to assume God as an axiom.
God is not a priori. God only exists after being declared to exist.
To contrast, the ground under my feet existed before I started writing about it just now. It existed before I looked at it. It existed to other people. It existed to the objects that were dropped on it. It continues to exist under experimentation.
There is nothing wrong with the argument - alone - that science cannot prove the origins of life. We already know that it hasn't proven any yet.
But bringing a God character into that argument is just as absurd as claiming that science has found the answer.
> The argument does not actually support the existence of a conscious, material God any more than just saying that you believe in him.
Bullshit. To say that you believe something exists, but it doesn't really exist to other people, is to blatantly and directly contradict yourself.
- kamray23 3y agoI find it a little difficult to discuss with you? That's not what I was saying. The argument says that there will always be some pre-existence, which you could call 'God' if you liked. Or you could call it 'the universe just existing', as I do. The argument doesn't say that a specific God exists. It says that there will always be some pre-existence, and in saying that the argument is valid. That is the point.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago> The argument says that there will always be some pre-existence, which you could call 'God' if you liked. The story did. I explained why I would not (God is superfluous). Beyond that, any notion of "pre-existence" is as circular as a notion of "beginning". To present God as a part of this story only serves to present the unkown as "settled", which I find absurd.