|
|
|
|
|
|
by cowb0yl0gic
2164 days ago
|
|
|
(Sorry, I replied to the other response before I read this one.) "natural logical conclusion" and "common sense": the words "natural", "logical" and "conclusion" (and certainly the phrase "common sense") have no meaning in a theological context. People who believe in the same religion can't even agree on what they believe in. I think you are confusing "I believe this and it makes sense to me" with "I believe this so this is the way things must be". You don't seem to understand that you are inside this bottle, which is why you don't understand what I'm trying to tell you. Even if there were something from which our Universe came (directly or indirectly, actively or passively), that existed before it and will exist after it (forever and ever, outside of time and space), even if it were infinite in every way imaginable and unimaginable, it still wouldn't be anything like what you or anyone else call "God/god/gods". "principal of causality and the impossibility of infinite regress": Are you seriously arguing that God (which by your definition lies outside of all of our Universal constraints and preconceptions) must exist because of things that only apply in the context of our known Universe? Finally, I don't mind being talked down to, but you are not really presenting any arguments that merit your arrogant tone. But, it's all in good fun. |
|
|
Nitpicking semantics is not a substitute for an argument and making such ignorant assertions doesn't help your case.
> People who believe in the same religion can't even agree on what they believe in.
People generally agree on the fundamentals and argue on edge issues, but even if that were true for argument's sake, it still doesn't invalidate the argument in the very least, because it's independent of religion and is used by theists from a wide spectrum and philosophers alike.
> I think you are confusing "I believe this and it makes sense to me" with "I believe this so this is the way things must be".
That's a petty distortion and a non argument. It describes your own behavior better than anyone else's, a classic case of projection.
> Even if there were something from which our Universe came (directly or indirectly, actively or passively), that existed before it and will exist after it (forever and ever, outside of time and space), even if it were infinite in every way imaginable and unimaginable, it still wouldn't be anything like what you or anyone else call "God/god/gods"
You just made an assertion without any argument or evidence. Not that I made that argument to begin with, but it still reveals a lot about your mindset.
>"principal of causality and the impossibility of infinite regress": Are you seriously arguing that God (which by your definition lies outside of all of our Universal constraints and preconceptions) must exist because of things that only apply in the context of our known Universe?
No, where did I ever make such a claim or put it that way? That's just your usual misrepresentation of the argument, I explained it many times, not going to paraphrase it for the nth time, just scroll up and read it with intellectual honesty.
> Finally, I don't mind being talked down to, but you are not really presenting any arguments that merit your arrogant tone. But, it's all in good fun.
Criticizing obviously deceptive rhetoric is not being arrogant, it's a verifiable claim and is necessary in order to prevent the discussion from being derailed and manipulated.