RE: Does a God exist?
July 7, 2016 at 4:13 pm
(This post was last modified: July 7, 2016 at 4:13 pm by Ignorant.)
(July 7, 2016 at 6:38 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote:(July 6, 2016 at 2:45 pm)Ignorant Wrote: ALL this demonstration shows is that while some things, RIGHT NOW, depend on the existence of other, simultaneously existing, more fundamental things, something must exist without that or any such condition. It simply exists, and would exist if nothing else existed at all. Call it whatever you want.
And that thing you talk about is the universe, ni god included nor needed. [1]
Oh and the reason I used creatard is because when I boiled out all the nonsense word salad from your previous post, all I got was a badly worded version of Paley's argument from design, [2] which was refuted in On the Origin of Species.
1) That is fine, but realize that by making this asserting the universe rather than god as 'subsistent being', you have accepted the conclusion of the argument as true. I have already said you may call it whatever you want, you've chosen 'universe'. So you don't disagree with the argument, you merely disagree with the identification of the conclusion with god. I'll take that.
2) If it was a poorly worded version of Paley, that is because it isn't Paley AT ALL. If it had been a well worded Paley argument, I would have horribly failed to adequately describe my actual argument. It's nice to know I wasn't a complete failure. This is not a teleological argument. If anything, it is a poor version of the contingency argument (which is NOT the Kalam, which brings to much temporal baggage) which has never been about the causal history of things nor their telos.
