We should back track if that is your understanding of the argument presented.
First question posed above. Not correct. I am not claiming that supernaturalism is impossible (although separately I would argue it is), I make no assumption that supernaturalism is / isn't possible. As mentioned a number of times I am addressing Theism on it's own terms so let me concede the possibility of supernaturalism only in the context of this argument and to move us forward.
Second question posed above. You fundamentally misunderstand the distinction of primacy if you think it is temporal. It is merely suggesting a metaphysical proposition of which concept is more fundamental than another. The primacy of consciousness implies a kind of mind over matter proposition. A cartoon universe where we can think things into existence, wish things to be so, magic being from incantations of the mind. The primacy of existence implies no such things are possible that if the tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it really still fell no matter what we wish happened. Take time out of the equation and still the same is possible. As a disembodied conciseness (remember Theisms own claim and not atheisms), a god can choose to wish things into being, can instantiate reality outside of the restrictions of time. But then this is rendered impossible because reality stops being absolute and all our reasoning is flawed, including reasoning to a god and including the self refuting position of the primacy of consciousness anyway. We are only justified in believing that existence is prime, that reality itself is absolute and it cannot be bent into shape by any conciousness, including that of a god. Given that Theism claims that a god necessarily bends reality into whatever shape it likes / or is forced to because of it's own nature, then it is necessarily false.
First question posed above. Not correct. I am not claiming that supernaturalism is impossible (although separately I would argue it is), I make no assumption that supernaturalism is / isn't possible. As mentioned a number of times I am addressing Theism on it's own terms so let me concede the possibility of supernaturalism only in the context of this argument and to move us forward.
Second question posed above. You fundamentally misunderstand the distinction of primacy if you think it is temporal. It is merely suggesting a metaphysical proposition of which concept is more fundamental than another. The primacy of consciousness implies a kind of mind over matter proposition. A cartoon universe where we can think things into existence, wish things to be so, magic being from incantations of the mind. The primacy of existence implies no such things are possible that if the tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it really still fell no matter what we wish happened. Take time out of the equation and still the same is possible. As a disembodied conciseness (remember Theisms own claim and not atheisms), a god can choose to wish things into being, can instantiate reality outside of the restrictions of time. But then this is rendered impossible because reality stops being absolute and all our reasoning is flawed, including reasoning to a god and including the self refuting position of the primacy of consciousness anyway. We are only justified in believing that existence is prime, that reality itself is absolute and it cannot be bent into shape by any conciousness, including that of a god. Given that Theism claims that a god necessarily bends reality into whatever shape it likes / or is forced to because of it's own nature, then it is necessarily false.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
