RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
February 27, 2022 at 2:06 am
(This post was last modified: February 27, 2022 at 2:06 am by Belacqua.)
(February 27, 2022 at 1:47 am)Ferrocyanide Wrote: The problem with this argument is that god is a design and requires a designer and the theist can’t offer an explanation for how this design (god’s body) came into existence nor how the environment where he exists in came into existence without a designer, nor how the laws of physics of his environment came into existence.
It's a fundamental tenet of all monotheism that God is not a design and does not require a designer. How the undesigned God gives rise to the laws of physics is explained in a number of similar ways, mostly on Neoplatonic principles.
If you have an argument as to why this is false, you'd have to address the long series of arguments as to why monotheist theologians believe it.
And for those fans of the Burden of Proof out there, Ferro has asserted that "god is a design and requires a designer," so if the Burden of Proof law is in force, he has the burden here.