3 ms·
Very good point. But I'm afraid I don't have the time to go now into all the subtleties of the theological and philosophical definitions of created/uncreated, o
by cristianpascu 15y ago
Very good point. But I'm afraid I don't have the time to go now into all the subtleties of the theological and philosophical definitions of created/uncreated, ontological dependence, being, person and so on. There's a rich literature on this.
As point, you have to make supplementary assumption as to what the existence of a being entails. And that follows from the definition for that thing. But when it comes to the created/uncreated distinction, I can not 'a priori' make any other assumption than the fact that God has the power to create things different from Himself. That's it.
Some find it, for instance, contradictory that a loving God allows suffering in the world. It's not my intention to go into that argument now because there's a lot to say, and has been said by many, about love, suffering, evil, freedom etc. At each point, and with each added concept, chances are that people will find contradiction just because they don't agree on the same definition.
Hence it's difficult sometimes to rule out the existence of an object on the basis of an apparent contradiction.
- slurgfest 15y agoThere's a rich literature in physical cosmology too... and I suspect that a difference between the operational definition used there and the traditional Christian definition is causing a lot of crosstalk. I'm puzzled about why you think you can make certain assumptions about God but not anything else. It seems to me that you are in just as much of a fix to make assertions about God as you are to make assertions about time, or Dunkin Donuts Inc. I appreciate that you conceded the possibility of showing that one thing or another doesn't exist - my concern was really for that general principle and not any specific application (e.g., to the unceasing arguments about God)