(February 22, 2015 at 7:07 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(February 22, 2015 at 3:24 pm)Ignorant Wrote: What I was trying to point out is that, quite frequently, the two arguments/conclusions are conflated in a conversation (by theists and atheists alike, as you demonstrate). There must be a distinction between the two arguments/conclusions present. 1) The philosophical argument for necessary existence (which is not a stand-alone argument for the existence of god) and 2) The faith-based belief in a creation ex nihilo as opposed to a belief in the "making" or "forming" of the universe out of some primordial "matter" by a god (e.g. in the Gilgamesh Epic). The former is an argument in a series which (as the arguments go) lead to the conclusion of something "like" a god existing. The latter already presupposes the existence of such a god and claims knowledge of its action. See the difference?
Don't get me wrong, I do understand what you're saying, I was just commenting that it makes the god proposition a complete non-starter. There are plenty of contentions to be made about the first argument too, but I see no reason to even come into that conversation if the interlocutor is just going to fall back on faith after poking holes in an opposing view: argument from ignorance+ really wanting something to be true =/= argument.
Fair enough. Do I strike you as a person who begins a rational discussion only to fall back on faith when my arguments are rationally critiqued?
