(April 21, 2014 at 8:23 am)whateverist Wrote:(April 20, 2014 at 7:51 pm)Metalogos Wrote: Yes, it does seem that many atheist are satisfied in letting the theists do all the heavy lifting and smugly deriding their efforts to explain and understand the universe by pointing out all the holes in their arguments and theologies.
I wouldn't be so proud of the 'work' you do. Cherry picking respected authors, misapplying what they say and twisting logic may be hard work but they're hardly honorable.
(April 20, 2014 at 7:51 pm)Metalogos Wrote: It is a lazy occupation methinks. Why don't you sweat with me a bit and try to argue a position that claims no Prime Mover is necessary for explaining the existence of the universe? In other words, tell me why I should abandon Aristotle's seminal argument which attempts to deal with the fundamental question of the existence of the universe.
First I would not start by assuming a true accounting of the origins of the universe is a straightforward task that should yield to a little sweat. You seem way too much satisfied to use God as a solution where the rest of us see only a crutch. Magical creator beings don't explain anything. But invoking them is evidence the problem was too much for you.
Dear W,
Thank you for your ernest reply and I will disregard the later comments you added surmising that you perhaps thought I had fled the field and therefore felt compelled to toss a few pebbles at a retreating coward. I might have done the same. I apologize for keeping you waiting for my reply. We are on different time zones, probably 14 to 17 hours different.
First then to address your concern and objection to a "god patch" explanation for the ultimate origin of the universe, I equally would object to such a device and so I do not offer it. Second, I do not claim to have irrefutable evidence for a deistic origin for the universe. Third, I agree with you that a "true accounting" for the origin of the universe is not something that can be accomplished with sweat, be it a little or a lot.
I'm certain that I will fail completely to give any type of 'true' accounting for the origin but that doesn't paralyze my imagination nor dim my curiosity when contemplating the question of existence and the origin of existence. I mentioned the name of Aristotle and his admired predecessor, Thales, only because these two ancient philosophers endeavored mightily to offer an explanation for existence that did not rely on mythology, i.e., the 'god patch' easy answer that all their contemporaries and predecessors had done. They worked very hard (thus the analogy of sweat) to understand the world around them through detailed observation and critical thinking. Thales is considered the father of mathematics and Aristotle, the father of science. I admire, therefore, these men for their independent, courageous, and unconventional thinking and the efforts that they made to convey to the world the fruits of their endeavors. I did not mean to simply drop their names and expect you or anyone else to bow down before them in submission to any kind of authority they may be perceived as having. I mentioned them because you and I owe in large part our present mindsets to their pioneering geniuses.
That said, you challenged me to say what reading Aristotle has led me to think and so I will but please allow me to do that on another day. This one needs to come to an end shortly. Goodnight!
