(September 22, 2014 at 8:18 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: That's interesting, since I consider the problem of evil to be one of the weakest augments against the existence of a god.

Apologist, Sye Ten Brugencate laughs this argument off by just pointing out that the Biblical god is not all loving. He claims that those that die horrible deaths must deserve it.

I, too, consider this a weak argument and will only use it when arguing with people who have invoked the omni-everything god.

As for Mr. Brugencate, I'll be more charitable that I imagine he ever is and hope that his bullshit theology (and basic humanity) is never put to the test and that he never experiences the horrific death of a loved one.

Quote:One can see the evolution of God in the Bible where we go from a God who walks with Adam in the garden and has regular meetings with and talks to people, who performs miracles on request and gives a lot of signs and wonders; to a more distant and hidden God who no longer meets or talks with anyone and doesn't really performs any miracles.

God begins like a nasty young Mafia chief, whacking everyone in sight for shits and giggles. As he grows older, he has to hire hitmen to do his dirty work for him ( Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, etc.)

These days he apparently sits in his garden growing tomatoes and stroking his dick.

(September 22, 2014 at 8:50 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:One can see the evolution of God in the Bible where we go from a God who walks with Adam in the garden and has regular meetings with and talks to people, who performs miracles on request and gives a lot of signs and wonders; to a more distant and hidden God who no longer meets or talks with anyone and doesn't really performs any miracles.

God begins like a nasty young Mafia chief, whacking everyone in sight for shits and giggles. As he grows older, he has to hire hitmen to do his dirty work for him ( Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, etc.)

These days he apparently sits in his garden growing tomatoes and stroking his dick.

In that case, we can expect his imminent demise in said tomato patch, with an orange rind shoved into his mouth.

But watch out for his son. He turns out to be a cold-hearted bastard. hock:

(September 22, 2014 at 7:49 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ....because "unmoved mover" doesn't get you to "god." It doesn't even get you to "being," ...

Fascinating how easy it is to dismiss something you do not understand.

(September 22, 2014 at 10:24 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(September 22, 2014 at 7:49 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ....because "unmoved mover" doesn't get you to "god." It doesn't even get you to "being," ...

Fascinating how easy it is to dismiss something you do not understand.

Please don't leave us hanging.

Please explain so we will understand.

(September 22, 2014 at 8:22 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: As for Mr. Brugencate, I'll be more charitable that I imagine he ever is and hope that his bullshit theology (and basic humanity) is never put to the test and that he never experiences the horrific death of a loved one.

With that asshole, I'm fairly convinced that he's in this mental space where he's like a child who's been pushed into a corner with regards to things he's said in the past, and is now just saying any ridiculous thing that's consistent with his past statements to avoid having to back down and admit to being wrong or having lied, because being a brash fool is easier than acknowledging weakness.

Just look to his debate with Matt Dillahunty: at one point a person in the crowd asked whether democracy was the best political system, and Bruggencate disagreed, stating that theocracy was the best system, a christian theocracy to be specific. If you watch the expression on his face in that moment, it's precisely the same challenging look that a kid gets when they've said something patently false, like "yeah, I just said that. Now what?"

He's just being ridiculous in a desperate scrabble to keep from exposing even a single weakness in his argument.

(September 22, 2014 at 10:24 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(September 22, 2014 at 7:49 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ....because "unmoved mover" doesn't get you to "god." It doesn't even get you to "being," ...

Fascinating how easy it is to dismiss something you do not understand.

... He said, instead of explaining or supporting his argument.

I'm happy to go deeper into this, even change my tune if you can show how the formulation of that argument does lead to a being and a god- without modulating the premises or adding wishful thinking to the mix- but just saying "you just don't get it," really is a dismissal, as opposed to my contention as to the quality of the argument.

(September 22, 2014 at 10:24 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(September 22, 2014 at 7:49 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ....because "unmoved mover" doesn't get you to "god." It doesn't even get you to "being," ...

Fascinating how easy it is to dismiss something you do not understand.

And yet, it is not nearly as fascinating as imagining yourself married in wholehearted commitment to that same something you can only pretend to dimly understand.

(September 22, 2014 at 11:07 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(September 22, 2014 at 10:24 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Fascinating how easy it is to dismiss something you do not understand.

And yet, it is not nearly as fascinating as imagining yourself married in wholehearted commitment to that same something you can only pretend to dimly understand.

I guess turnabout is fair play. But it is a fact that many opponents of the "unmoved mover" think that it is only about efficient cause, as opposed to that One universal principle that does not change despite the changes within and among the plurality of things. This, as opposed to the case of Esquilax that its utility depends on finding some thing among other things, like the Great Pumpkin. Instead what it does do which is confirm the One. From that starting point, one can proceed.

(September 23, 2014 at 9:18 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I guess turnabout is fair play. But it is a fact that many opponents of the "unmoved mover" think that it is only about efficient cause, as opposed to that One universal principle that does not change despite the changes within and among the plurality of things. This, as opposed to the case of Esquilax that its utility depends on finding some thing among other things, like the Great Pumpkin. Instead what it does do which is confirm the One. From that starting point, one can proceed.

What I have placed in bold signifies little more than a vague abstraction which neither of us can really relate to anything that can be said to exist in actuality. To proceed from there is the common mistake of most Idealists. Construct a house on such an insecure foundation, no doubt an ill-designed plan, and the end result is sure to contain numerous subsequent flaws.