DiscoBiscuit
Meat Tornado
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2009
- Messages
- 14,794
- Enneagram
- 8w9
Not going to involve myself in this one other than to say isn't looking for irrefutable proof of God about as difficult as asking for irrefutable proof of a lack thereof?
Semantics is a lot. A god is a certain kind of thing (there are also many gods to choose from), whereas a first cause is nothing but a first cause. You assume the first cause is god because your reasoning does not arrive at god, it starts with god.Arguing against the first cause being referred to as "god" is more semantics than anything else.
Semantics is a lot. A god is a certain kind of thing (there are also many gods to choose from), whereas a first cause is nothing but a first cause. You assume the first cause is god because your reasoning does not arrive at god, it starts with god.
Okay. I rest my case.A first cause for all intents and purposes is god, since god is a necessary being and the underpinning of all reality. The properties of god(Yaweh, Zeus, Mr X) is another, secondary, discussion. Aquinas would contend that to refer to the first cause as anything but god would be to digress from the commonly accepted(at least in his day) term for the first cause, but would admit no fundamental dispute existed on the matter - not at this point in the discussion at least.
Just as language depends on agreed phonemic premises of meaning to ensure mutual understanding, so too does philosophic conversation depend on mutually agreed premises to prevent parties from discussing entirely different topics while couched in seemingly comprehensible words.
It is disrespectful because at that point, one is ascribing beliefs or conclusions to a person that the person does not have. One assumes to know more about the other's beliefs than the other person does, which is both extremely arrogant and disrespectful of that person's ability to come to reasonable conclusions.
Is this always the case?
What if I like discussing entirely different topics while couched in seemingly comprehensible words?
You are assuming I think arrogance and disrespect should be avoided. What if I prefer them?
I find it interesting that you think incorrect judgements should be avoided because they are disrespectful.
That's true, and is the reason for the argument. Nature is assumed to be ruled by cause and effect, whereas supernature isn't. Ie. this is the uncaused cause argument. It would be a leap in reason to conclude the uncaused cause is a personal deity, though.
To be frank, Nature isn't even run by "cause and effect". Those are labels we use in an attempt to understand how the world works. Nature is beyond human language.
Hehe."For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse," (Romans 1:20).
You're dealing with a paradox there. In one hand, you're saying what nature isn't, yet with the other, you say it's beyond language.
I'm more than open to the idea of nature being beyond language, as well as the noumenal.
So he is imaginary? I can live with that!God is not part of reality,
No, it isn't. That's why I discard the god.or he would need a cause, including him in reality and giving him but one exemption is not an elegant portrait of the scenario.
Again, why would everything in existence be natural except for one thing?I don't understand why you think matter would be an adequate first cause, matter isn't supernatural therefore it is not immune to the question, what 'caused the matter'?
To me, calling something a "god" means you suppose he is alive, conscious, more powerful than a human... that's not a "simple" being. You're calling him special, infinite, not to be judged by our poor human standards.God is invoked because he is a very special sort of entity, necessarily a being of infinite real qualities that we're able to postulate. I do not accept that God is infinitely complex, I believe he could be quite 'logically simple'...
Yes, I can imagine a god like that. What does that prove? That I've got a good imagination?Absolute virtue; love(virtues and the intent to nourish) incarnate. I think you catch the point...
True, and I'm going for the cheapest route. You can't prove either. At least, as an atheist, I don't have to spend time at a church/mosque/..., refrain from sex, or do all sorts of things humans think the god wants us to do.Not going to involve myself in this one other than to say isn't looking for irrefutable proof of God about as difficult as asking for irrefutable proof of a lack thereof?