RE: Gaps in theistic arguments. Secular theism vs religious theism
February 26, 2015 at 2:05 am
(This post was last modified: February 26, 2015 at 2:06 am by Pizza.)
(February 25, 2015 at 11:53 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:You need to argue which type of final "cause" applies to the which particular case because you can't just throw thunderbolts down from an abstract position.(February 25, 2015 at 10:09 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: Ants and ant hills, intellect doesn't need to be aware.I kinda think I know what you are suggesting with your reference to ants, but maybe you could spell out more explicitly your point.
Give an argument for divine anthropomorphism/anthropotheism for once.
Psychological causes can't be taken as a given since final cause doesn't only mean psychological. Also a final cause can be an effect of other causes. The only interruption of Neo-Aristotelian final cause that I can understand is as follows: all it means to say, "ants build anthills for the sake of their survival" is to say, "ants frequently build anthills if not stopped from doing so, and the frequent effect/result of this is a higher survival rate." The ants don't have to "think" for this to be so.
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
