(April 20, 2014 at 3:11 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: I've seen the classical arguments, but every argument for a necessary being seems like an appeal to ignorance.
An unfalsifiable premise doesn't seem rational. Perhaps this is the reason I have problems with ontological arguments: they all seem to be appeals to ignorance, with a deus ex thrown in as the explanation.
So my challenge is: can anyone provide a cogent and compelling argument for a necessary being?
Why we can't we contemplate a necessary being without concluding it exists, without resulting to the same appeals to ignorance that resulted in Thor, God of Thunder and Lightning?
How would a being or entity be necessary in the absence of a plausible natural explanation?
You have gotten well beyond yourself here -
The problem is that - even if there was a rational argument for a necessary being - one cannot come up with a rational explanation why that being MUST be a god of religion.
Even if a "creator" might have existed - that is no support for an All Everything god - a being with the single power to start the process of evolution is the MOST that the existence of the universe might support.
The rest of the claim are simply nonsense
