RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
September 20, 2015 at 1:55 pm
(This post was last modified: September 20, 2015 at 2:41 pm by Neo-Scholastic.
Edit Reason: grammar
)
(September 20, 2015 at 12:13 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Skepticism, since the ancient Greeks, has been about showing the holes in seemingly solid edifices. That's what skepticism is.Modern skeptics are a different breed. They are just closed-minded nay-sayers. That is NOT a generalization of atheists.
(September 20, 2015 at 12:13 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: If your complaint is that there aren't more system builders among atheists, say so.My complaint is specific to the 'What Caused God' objection. It is a knee-jerk response that carries with it a whole set of misunderstandings about ontological claims.
(September 20, 2015 at 12:13 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: You are disturbed that there aren't more atheists who, like you, care about philosophical systems.Not particularly. Most people really do not care to study philosophy or spend much time thinking about it. I only ask that when people do engage in philosophy, they should at least make the effort to be internally consistent and not simply present arguments of convenience.
(September 20, 2015 at 12:13 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: ...the world of philosophy has moved on from the system building era, because it only produced cracked edifices.So your solution is to give up because the task is hard?
(September 20, 2015 at 12:13 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Expecting others to share your concern over system building when it's not motivated by a concern for system building at all, but is a religiously motivated concern, is ridiculous.My motivation is to know and live by the truth. You may not believe that but that is how I think. At one time reason prompted me to adopt an atheist position. Further inquiry has lead me to believe in God. Maybe that too will change, but for now that reflects my best understanding.