RE: No reason justifies disbelief.
March 21, 2019 at 6:07 pm
(This post was last modified: March 21, 2019 at 6:16 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(March 21, 2019 at 4:58 pm)Belaqua Wrote:(March 21, 2019 at 8:47 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: all it gets you to is a prime mover. What does that tell us about a god? Nothing. It’s generic deism at best.
That's right. The Aristotelian argument is for a Prime Mover. If a Christian wants to say any more about it, they have to have different arguments. That's standard.
It isn't deism, though. In deism, God makes the world and goes away. In the Aristotelian Thomist system God sustains the world in being at every moment.
Even if I give you that argument, right down to the contingency of the universe on the prime mover, that still would only be an argument for a prime mover, do you understand? What is your definition of god, Belaqua?
Quote:Wrong. I am offering you the opportunity to present a different metaphysical commitment; an alternative method to the scientific method for information and fact-gathering about a claim (“god exists.”), and defend its reliability and accuracy.
So far, you have done everything except that, lol.
Quote:No, I'm right in saying that this is your metaphysical commitment. A belief that only science-type evidence gives evidence for the world is a metaphysical belief.
As for your kind offer, I have said that logical arguments are sometimes persuasive in showing what must be true. I know you reject this; others don't.
Wow! You’re excellent at avoiding questions! Bravo. 😏 I’m not committed to anything. I’m open to the idea of a different methodological information gathering tool (in place of the scientific method) for acquiring knowledge about god claims, so long as it can be demonstrated to be reliable. If you present me with one, I’ll start using it. It’s just, I’ve asked you like, four times now, and you’re failure to present me with anything even close shows that your tacit answer is: “I don’t know/there isn’t one”.
Logical arguments for god are not metaphysical information-gathering tools. They’re forumas that use assumptions based on the observable universe, or IOW, the very same empirical data that you have already asserted could not be useful in the pursuit of knowledge about a god, so which is it? Let me know when you’ve made up your mind. Also, I noticed that while you were busy avoiding my first question, you managed to also avoid my second one, so I’ll try again:
Why are you, personally, not persuaded by the logical arguments for god?
This is embarrassing for you. You’re either very confused, or lying, or both.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.