(August 8, 2009 at 3:06 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:(August 8, 2009 at 2:51 pm)Ace Wrote: Oops! you've just tripped over something there. Can any of my fellow atheists spot it?
You suggested that my arguments suggest the existence of the Easter Bunny equally as much as they do the existence of what I call God. The problem is, I only call God exactly what my argument concludes.
This is the straw man of the "god of arbitrary predication". If I had commited this fallacy, then indeed my God would be epistemically equivalent to the easter bunny.
But the God of my theology is not a God of arbitrary predication. It's a God who is approached gradually, and not called God until the transcendent existence is properly defined and it's necessity explained.
The easter bunny, in this context, is a contingent and non-rational (sentient) being, who is itself a potentiality, which is actualised by the actualising agency of an order of pure actuality, which can contain nothing of potentiality (otherwise it would be impure actuality, not pure actuality), and therefore contains nothing of the spatiotemporal and material realm of existence (e.g. the easter bunny/FSM).
The opposite of arbitrary predication is divine simplicity. For divine simplicity only raises the attributes which are necessary emanants from the very fact of transcendence. If God is an easter bunny, then he does not transcend the spatiotemporal and material realm, and then we are not talking about God, but an actualised potentiality, which is itself contingent upon God.
Oops, mistake number 2!
Whatever you call your imaginary friend does not matter in anyway. A name is just a name.
I could reverse your argument - "I only call easter bunny exactly what my argument concludes."
"But the easter bunny of my theology is not an easter bunny of arbitrary predication. It's an easter bunny who is approached gradually, and not called easter bunny until the transcendent existence is properly defined and it's necessity explained."
No matter what the purpose of the claim of a being and its name, all made up characters are the same. There are no differances between santa to easter bunny, FSM, pink uniforns or gods. God is no more special or more likely than any of these made up characters. Neither of them can be disproved. The only differances are their names and purposes.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
