An Essay about Atheism in Latin

[FlatAssembler]

Doesn't it sound as if you're begging the question when you begin with the assumption that what you don't know isn't worth learning?

No, for about the same reason saying astrology isn't worth studying isn't begging the question.

But your arguments against them aren't based on evidence either, are they?

Well, the omnipotence paradox isn't, it's an a-priori argument based on logic alone. So, it's not based on evidence about the same way Pythagorean Theorem isn't based on evidence. It's not a strictly empirical statement.
Inconsistent revelations and natural evil are based on so much evidence they even appear to be self-evident.

Can't we just say that revelation is unreliable?

Why would an omnipotent and benevolent God let that happen?

Or that a lot of what people take to be revelation isn't really?

Again, why would an omnipotent and benevolent God let that happen?

Or that there is no revelation at all, but there is a God who doesn't use revelation?

And why would that God then let people believe those things? Besides, saying that is basically admitting that whole Christianity (and for that sake, Islam, and quite a few other religions) is completely wrong.

The whole field of Natural Theology is designed to argue for the existence of God without reference to revelation.

And it's perhaps only slightly less flawed than other parts of theology.

The fact that some definitions of omnipotence seem paradoxical also does nothing to prove that there's no God.

And what would be the point of prayer if God is not omnipotent? Admitting that God is either not omnipotent or not benevolent (or both) is basically admitting that prayer is pointless, don't you agree?

Anyway, why should theology NOT require big thick books to understand?

It's not just about understanding it. It's about proving that it works. Proving at least the basic premises of it. You don't need big thick books to prove that computer science works: the proofs that it works are all around you (the fact that you can type on this forum). You don't need big thick books to prove that the Earth is round: the theory that the Earth is approximately spherical with a circumference of around 40'000 kilometers correctly predicts how far you can see from a certain height at the sea, it correctly predicts at which angle you can see the horizon from a certain heigh on an airplane, it's the basis of how navigational systems work, and it takes a ridiculous conspiracy theory to assert that it's false.

Understanding quantum physics takes big fat books with advanced math, and you wouldn't dismiss it for that reason.

How can you compare quantum physics with subjects from theology? Quantum physics is the basis of how transistors and diodes work, without it, modern electronics, including the Internet, wouldn't exist. Even when we didn't have modern electronics, it was quite obvious classical physics was at least incomplete: it provided no satisfactory explanation of the photoelectric effect, it provided no satisfactory explanation of colors...
Theology doesn't give us any such useful explanations, it doesn't even give explanations theologians themselves would agree on.
Even with very incomplete understanding of the subjects, one can easily tell the difference between theology and quantum physics.
Sure, the explanations sciences give sometimes aren't that useful. Historical linguistics perhaps will never give us useful answers. But it talks about phenomena that are demonstrably there: no reasonable person would deny that Latin 's' in the beginning of a word corresponds to Greek 'h' at a rate that it's just absurd to suppose it's due to chance. You can perhaps say it's less wrong to deny historical linguistics than it is to deny quantum physics, but it's far less wrong to deny theology than either of those things.

But no, I haven't watched the video.

Why? Do you also have trouble with the ISPs? Damn, Optima ISP has postponed giving me a connection to the Internet for three weeks due to technical difficulties, and now they have postponed it for the next two weeks, again due to supposed technical difficulties on their part. Makes me wonder if they are building some system to secretly spy on their users, and are hiding that by repairing the supposed technical difficulties.
I mostly use the cellular Internet (as I am doing right now) and sometimes Wi-Fi hotspots (as I was doing when I was uploading that video to YouTube). I haven't really watched YouTube videos for months now.
I don't know if I should switch my ISP. A1 is, as far as I hear, more expensive than Optima, and promises higher Internet speed (20 mbps), but actually the Internet they give is worse due to very high packet loss: the websites randomly time out and you need to refresh them again and again. The T-COM ISP is even more expensive, and, although it's service is superior, it requires you to sign unfair contracts, that you basically can't legally switch your ISP for the next few years if you sign that contract. The CARNET ISP doesn't promise much, it promises 3 mbps Internet speed (Optima ISP promises 8 mbps), and it gives even less (I hear it rarely gets above 1 mbps), and there is little doubt it spies on its users.

His "rebuttal" of Aquinas' 5 Ways, for example, is so wildly wrong that it's laughable

My perception is that Aquinas didn't really present those arguments for God in a good way. This especially applies to the Ontological Argument. I think that his version is one of the worst. I mean, he made a premise that, when we talk about about some property, each property we talk about has some maximum in the real world, that "hotter" means something that's closer to the hottest ("ad eum quod maximum est"), and the hottest thing is supposedly fire. That's so obviously wrong, and it's not even clear what he means. How the hell is fire the hottest thing there could possibly be? Some fires are obviously hotter than others: some fires melt glass and some don't.
The version of the Ontological Argument with the possible worlds at least makes *some* sense. Anselm probably had the same idea, but he just worded it a bit poorly. But not as bad as Aquinas did, if you ask me.