RE: Best Theistic Arguments
April 18, 2018 at 9:04 am
(This post was last modified: April 18, 2018 at 4:06 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
The best theistic arguments are literally any valid argument that labels stuff that we already know to exist as 'God', regardless of how utterly pointless that indeed is.
P1. By 'God' I mean 'the universe'.
P2. The universe exists.
C. Therefore God exists.
^*
If labeling the universe as 'God' and then believing in the universe would make me a pantheist, then I am a pantheist in every way besides the label, which basically means pantheism in that sense has absolutely no content, and yet I hold the same actual belief as the pantheist, and are therefore a pantheist, and therefore a theist, but I don't label myself that, because this specific form of 'theism' is identical to atheism in all actual content and therefore meaningless. It would mean that the only reason that that wasn't a logical contradiction is because both labels would then become equally meaningless. X and not X would become BLAH AND BLAH. And not blah would not be not blah if it is actual identical in content, and since blah exists, I am a blaher, but so what? It's all blah. Contradictory labels that refer to the same thing are so meaningless as for it to be completely meaningless that those labels are contradictory... because they are ontologically non-distinct.
Still, even an argument that is arguing for something completely devoid of any actual content is better than all the fallacious arguments, non-sequiturs and contradictions that other theistic positions have
. That's how much theism sucks. Achieving nothing without making a logical error is still logically superior to achieving nothing whilst also making a logical error.
* So, that is an example of a completely trivially true and meaningless but nevertheless entirely logically valid argument for 'God'. There are no sound arguments for God.
P1. By 'God' I mean 'the universe'.
P2. The universe exists.
C. Therefore God exists.
^*
If labeling the universe as 'God' and then believing in the universe would make me a pantheist, then I am a pantheist in every way besides the label, which basically means pantheism in that sense has absolutely no content, and yet I hold the same actual belief as the pantheist, and are therefore a pantheist, and therefore a theist, but I don't label myself that, because this specific form of 'theism' is identical to atheism in all actual content and therefore meaningless. It would mean that the only reason that that wasn't a logical contradiction is because both labels would then become equally meaningless. X and not X would become BLAH AND BLAH. And not blah would not be not blah if it is actual identical in content, and since blah exists, I am a blaher, but so what? It's all blah. Contradictory labels that refer to the same thing are so meaningless as for it to be completely meaningless that those labels are contradictory... because they are ontologically non-distinct.
Still, even an argument that is arguing for something completely devoid of any actual content is better than all the fallacious arguments, non-sequiturs and contradictions that other theistic positions have
. That's how much theism sucks. Achieving nothing without making a logical error is still logically superior to achieving nothing whilst also making a logical error.* So, that is an example of a completely trivially true and meaningless but nevertheless entirely logically valid argument for 'God'. There are no sound arguments for God.
