(August 6, 2009 at 2:19 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:(August 6, 2009 at 2:11 pm)amw79 Wrote: I'm saying that suggesting or asserting "goddidit" (i.e. the first cause) may satisfy you, but its an unsubstantiated assertion, which must be backed up by, you've guessed it - evidence. People have said "godddidit" to explain almost everything, for which science has ended up repeatedly correctly the religious view of the day by means of data and evidence.I think I realise what you mean. But it doesn't apply to my argument, if you go back and read it. It doesn't invoke an abitrary "God" for no reason, i.e. "godddidit". It comes to the conclusion of what we call God, not by arbitrary predication or affirmation, but by reasoning towards divine simplicity, by discerning fundamental a posteriori knowledge of our reality and world.
This is all well and good, but we all know that philosophical and metaphysical reasoning can be a wasteful, semantic excerise. We've all heard the one about the philosophy student who goes in the pub after a lecture, and says to a bloke "Actually metaphysically speaking, that table isn't there", and the other bloke puts his head through it.....
Even foregoing how you get to your "divine simplicity", the consequences of your conclusion are a creative, loving, intervening god, which is an extraordinary claim - which therefore requires extraordinary evidence
