RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
February 27, 2022 at 1:40 pm
(February 27, 2022 at 2:06 am)Belacqua Wrote:(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.
It's very simple.
It is the design argument:
It takes the form of "This human body or that lifeform is complex, therefore it is designed."
Well, god would need to have a brain in order to think, which itself is a complex design.
An argument about what? This is basic logic.
Is monotheism claiming that the god-alien is a mindless entity and it is simpler than us?
Because that is what naturalists are claiming: That life started with basic chemistry and that a soup of molecule are simpler than us (and mindless).
