|
The argument in the OP is the teleological argument in support of the existence of God and the argument a little further down the page is the ontological argument in support of the existence of God and basically you all need to read a drat book.
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 23:22 |
|
|
Gah, no, don't. Please don't.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
And that's the cosmological argument. Learning is fun.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
redstormpopcorn posted:My (incredibly limited) understanding of the theories surrounding the Big Bang, and "time" being relative to distance and motion have indicated to me: the concepts of "before" and "first" may not really exist as typically considered when discussing an incalculably dense singularity containing (OR WAS IT?) the entire mass of the Universe. The typical response to this critique of the cosmological argument is Brane theory, which no one actually understands so you're correct that God doesn't exist.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There must be a God who is testing me with these homosexual urges, because if there's not then that would mean I'm gay and I can't be gay. Argument from morality.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:God fucks up dangerous mortals all the time. Tower of Babel, yo. You're obviously just not as smart and threatening as some dudes building a pile of mud bricks. Look elsewhere: Christianity gives you at best David vs Goliath but polytheistic religions preach man's ability to kill, gently caress, and become gods.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Blasphemous atheistic impiety? This guy's obviously treating atheism like a religion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Yeah, I can see an argument being made for it but Hegel is probably best thought of as a Christian rather than a pantheist: quote:God is not an abstraction but a concrete God...God, considered in terms of his eternal Idea, has to generate the Son, has to distinguish himself from himself; he is the process of differentiating, namely, love and Spirit He corresponded with and was influenced by Spinoza and it's possible he conflated Spirit with God enough to be considered one but ultimately I'd wager he'd prefer to be called a Christian.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
Unless I'm missing something he's conflating necessary existence (i.e., anything that necessarily exists) with God, which still begs the question (even if you're only predicating God in this one way).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 23:22 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:We can philosophy all we want, but it won't change reality. This is so wrong it hurts.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 08:17
|
|