Strong and Weak Arguments

[downbeatplumb]

Neo scholastic

What is your weakest argument for non-thor belief.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Who created god"  is an academic nail in the coffin to a particular argument, but it's not compelling to you, whereas others find it to be so.....

It's not compelling because it's stupid.  It's like asking "what is the cause of the cause that has no cause?" or, more precisely, "what made the thing without any prior potential actualize the potential it never had?"

It's either as stupid or as compelling as the proposition to which your god is offered as an explanation.  Logic 101, but, as we've been discussing, what is or is not logical and what is or is not compelling are not interchangeable.  

It doesn't take a genius to understand that mythological creatures would be found inside of and be part of physical reality whereas, if God is the creator of physical reality then He couldn't be inside of or part of it. Duh!

No, it doesn't take a genius to understand that....lol, it takes a believer in a particularly myopic god concept, who's willing to excuse his god concept for all of the things that he uses to damn other god concepts, other mythological creatures.  Pretty much repetition of the thought process behind the comments you made up above. Plenty of mythologies have us and all the world as, literally, a part of divine being. Your objection to this is not an objection to the rationality of the concept, simply an expression of your preference for one over the others.

[LostLocke]

It doesn't take a genius to understand that mythological creatures would be found inside of and be part of physical reality ...

If that's what you believe then you need to brush up on various mythologies.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's the thing with all of this god shit, it's never about god, it's about their god, but even more accurately, it's about them. Their confidence in their own beliefs, their own intellect, their own thought process. Unicorns as comparison is offensive, because it's offensive to think that you might be worshiping the propositional equivalent of a unicorn. Believers already think that other believers are dumb and/or irrational for believing in other unicorns, and quixotically, they think the same about atheists for not believing in -their- unicorns.....despite agreeing with them in regards to all the other unicorns.....because it's just so damned obvious, isn't it?

Well yes, yes it is.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That's the thing with all of this god shit, it's never about god, it's about their god, but even more accurately, it's about them. Their confidence in their own beliefs, their own intellect, their own thought process. Unicorns as comparison is offensive, because it's offensive to think that you might be worshiping the propositional equivalent of a unicorn. Believers already think that other believers are dumb and/or irrational for believing in other unicorns, and quixotically, they think the same about atheists for not believing in -their- unicorns.....despite agreeing with them in regards to all the other unicorns.....because it's just so damned obvious, isn't it?

Well yes, yes it is.

'When you understand why you dismiss all other gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.' - Stephen F. Roberts

Boru

[Neo-Scholastic]

It's not compelling because it's stupid.  It's like asking "what is the cause of the cause that has no cause?" or, more precisely, "what made the thing without any prior potential actualize the potential it never had?"

It's either as stupid or as compelling as the proposition to which your god is offered as an explanation.

Bluster is all you have, Rhythm. You seem to think people don't notice that the "Who created God?" is a complete and total non-sequitur. In order to defeat a logical demonstration it must be shows either that one or more of the premises are not true or that the form of the syllogism is faulty. That particular retort does neither.

...it takes a believer in a particularly myopic god concept, who's willing to excuse his god concept for all of the things that he uses to damn other god concepts, other mythological creatures.

More unsupported assertions on your part. Please show how any of the demonstrations of the 5 Way support a conclusion that anything other than the God of Classical Theism exists. You can't because they don't. And as far as I can remember, you have never tried to refute the 5 Ways.

But fine...you seem to believe that the lamest of lame objections are conclusive.

[Angrboda]

[Mister Agenda]

"God's and unicorns" doesn't express any obvious category error...it only expresses your subjective valuation of unicorns respective to gods. 

It doesn't take a genius to understand that mythological creatures would be found inside of and be part of physical reality whereas, if God is the creator of physical reality then He couldn't be inside of or part of it. Duh!

So we should compare God to other creator deities like Brahma or Gitche Manitou.

[The Grand Nudger]

Bluster is all you have, Rhythm. You seem to think people don't notice that the "Who created God?" is a complete and total non-sequitur. In order to defeat a logical demonstration it must be shows either that one or more of the premises are not true or that the form of the syllogism is faulty. That particular retort does neither.

A complete and total non-sequitur in reference to what?  I would agree that the entire argument, from both sides, is a complete and total non-sequitur as a proof of or an objection to the vast majority of god concepts men have come up with.......?  

More unsupported assertions on your part.Please show how any of the demonstrations of the 5 Way support a conclusion that anything other than the God of Classical Theism exists.   You can't because they don't. And as far as I can remember, you have never tried to refute the 5 Ways.

You consistently assume that others have some responsibility to jump at the things you point at, but I've already commented on this.  You have a preference for a particular god, your favorite arguments are those which you find compelling with regards to that god.  There you go, supporting my unsupported assertions for me, which...like the rest of the universe...have nothing to do with the five ways.  The "god of classical theism" is about as specific as the term "lunch"..why would I care to object to this sort of god being the intended conclusion of those arguments? I'm sure you don't need me to lecture you on the history and motivation of aquinas, but for the gallery, he was trying to syncretize the christian tradition in which he was educated with recently rediscovered systems of arranging thought. The arguments he offered had been offered by other believers, in other gods, and still are. So who is the god of classical theism, anyway? Zues? Jupiter perhaps? Allah? At what point will pointing to that conclusion or these arguments be anything other than an exercize in preference.....and at what point will you be comfortable with all of those dissenting god conclusions?

But fine...you seem to believe that the lamest of lame objections are conclusive.  

As I said before, as stupid or as compelling as the proposition to which it was offered as an explanation of.  To the god of the cosmological argument, the objection is inescapable.  A believer in such a god could plead a special case, but that's not escape, it's rhetorical suicide.  To a person who does not believe in such a god..who does not offer up such an argument, it means nothing.

[Asmodee]

"Who created god"  is an academic nail in the coffin to a particular argument, but it's not compelling to you, whereas others find it to be so.....

It's not compelling because it's stupid.  It's like asking "what is the cause of the cause that has no cause?" or, more precisely, "what made the thing without any prior potential actualize the potential it never had?"

I find that people who don't find the "who created God" argument compelling simply don't understand it.

It is an attempt to point out that the claimant has simply arbitrarily chosen their particular deity to be that "first cause" without any evidence to suggest a particular fist cause.  And, in fact, big bang theory handily accounts for a first cause.  Even if the first cause argument were not deeply flawed, which it is, nothing about it suggests that the first cause of this universe could not, itself, have had a cause.  The reason this is so difficult to see is that people generally think in terms of what they know.  Cause and effect is part of the nature of this universe.  It is not necessarily the nature of "not" this universe, or outside of this universe.  None of the logical assertions hold true if you don't know the laws which govern "wherever" that first cause is.  And, in fact, that can be said of most, if not all logical arguments, including the 5 ways.  The assertions made may be true in this universe (though personally I don't see them so much as being "truth" as I do "an overly wordy, convoluted attempt to confuse in order to make it more difficult to argue against"), but none of those assertions can be said to be true anywhere outside of this universe, where any deity would have to exist.  This is why all logical arguments which necessitate a deity fail.  Well, this and that deity can also be replaced by the singularity of big bang theory, the major difference being that the singularity is actually supported by at least mathematical evidence.