RE: Gaps in theistic arguments. Secular theism vs religious theism
February 25, 2015 at 4:15 pm
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2015 at 4:17 pm by Pizza.)
Nevermind my arguments before this point. Since Chadwooter is being too lazy to prove the more important claim that the first cause is a mind, I'm going to give two arguments against this based on self-evidence and intuition. I don't think these argument are knock down arguments but I think they give good reasons to doubt.
Argument one:
P1. If God is a necessary being, then there can't be a self-evident and intuitive reason for a possible world with only mindless automatons in it to exist.
Note: God is not a mindless automaton.
P2. There is a self-evident and intuitive reason for a possible world with only mindless automatons in it to exist.
P2.1 I can clearly and distinctly imagine mindless automatons.
C. God is not a necessary being.
Argument two:
P1. If God is a necessary being, then it would be self-evident to I at this point (temporal or atemporal) that a mind can't fail to exist.
P2. It's self-evident to I at this point (temporal or atemporal) that minds can fail to exist.
P2.2 It's self-evident that minds can fail to exist.
P2.3 If minds like my mind are necessary then they are not contingent on a God existing.
C1. God a kind of thinking mind is not a necessary being.
P3. If C1, then all arguments for "God is a necessary being" are unsound.
P4. C1.
C2. All arguments for "God is a necessary being" are unsound.
Argument one:
P1. If God is a necessary being, then there can't be a self-evident and intuitive reason for a possible world with only mindless automatons in it to exist.
Note: God is not a mindless automaton.
P2. There is a self-evident and intuitive reason for a possible world with only mindless automatons in it to exist.
P2.1 I can clearly and distinctly imagine mindless automatons.
C. God is not a necessary being.
Argument two:
P1. If God is a necessary being, then it would be self-evident to I at this point (temporal or atemporal) that a mind can't fail to exist.
P2. It's self-evident to I at this point (temporal or atemporal) that minds can fail to exist.
P2.2 It's self-evident that minds can fail to exist.
P2.3 If minds like my mind are necessary then they are not contingent on a God existing.
C1. God a kind of thinking mind is not a necessary being.
P3. If C1, then all arguments for "God is a necessary being" are unsound.
P4. C1.
C2. All arguments for "God is a necessary being" are unsound.
(February 25, 2015 at 4:11 pm)robvalue Wrote: Hehe. Argument from incredulity.Yeah, because it's debatable if time exists apart from observers.
Didn't someone say that science is taking seriously now an eternal past... I gotta find out some stuff about this.
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
