I like that. I often point out the KCA being used by Christian apologists is nonsensical given the argument seems designed with a "insert specific creator deity and dogma here" slot, but there is also an intellectual leap required between <First Cause> and <Eternal> <Corporeal> <Deity>
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: February 20, 2025, 5:58 am
Thread Rating:
Can anyone provide an argument for a necessary being?
|
(April 20, 2014 at 3:11 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: I've seen the classical arguments, but every argument for a necessary being seems like an appeal to ignorance. It is foolish word play. There is no coherent argument.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
It may be wise to step back and relook at what traits a necessary being would have. A good working definition would be that which must be logically prior to the existence of all things and on which all things depend for their continued existence. Does that work?
(April 21, 2014 at 11:10 pm)Metalogos Wrote: Finally, it is not acceptable advise to a philosopher to suggest that because a particular idea is difficult to understand that it is best to not think about it. This is medieval thinking, my friend. I prefer the open and unconstrained pursuit of knowledge of ancient Grecian times or our own age that is finally once again free from oppressive dogmatism and stifling conservatism. We can say here and now whatever pleases our minds and have no fear of being tortured or censured for our thoughts. Let us follow them wherever they may lead, turning here and there as necessary to follow always after that elusive and beautiful creature, Truth. ![]() ![]() |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)