Indeed. All these Kalam style stupid arguments follow the same pattern:
1) My simplistic attempts to understand our reality produce a rule R.
2) There appears to be a paradox P in relation to rule R being a full and consistent explanation.
3) Since rule R must be correct, there can't actually be a paradox. So there must be some exception E to rule R which solves the apparent paradox P.
4) ???
5) E is a sentient being, also a god, also the God of my religion, also my specific interpretation of the God of my religion, and I have a personal relationship with it.
1) My simplistic attempts to understand our reality produce a rule R.
2) There appears to be a paradox P in relation to rule R being a full and consistent explanation.
3) Since rule R must be correct, there can't actually be a paradox. So there must be some exception E to rule R which solves the apparent paradox P.
4) ???
5) E is a sentient being, also a god, also the God of my religion, also my specific interpretation of the God of my religion, and I have a personal relationship with it.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum