(March 10, 2017 at 2:10 pm)pocaracas Wrote:(March 10, 2017 at 1:48 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Theist: If not for God, why is there something rather than nothing?
Atheist: There just is.
Theist:If not for God, why do causes produce regular effects?
Atheist: They just do.
Theist: If not for God, why does the universe have a rational order?
Atheist: It just does.
Theist: If not for God, how can abstract mathematics consistently describe does the concrete physical universe?
Atheist: Because it does.
Etc...etc...etc...
How about you prove that a god is required for any of those things.
No argument from ignorance allowed. (because that's a fallacious argument, you know...)
A rational explanation that ties a lot of things together in a cohesive manner does not demand to be a requirement. Science, that many here often reference, is based on assumptions, parameters, accepting some level of unknowns.
Neo-Schlolastic is proposing a position for theism, its plausibility, how theism answers some important philosophical questions, as compared to an atheistic response.
