Let's pretend...

[Tcg]

.

...that any of the arguments for god are valid. We have to pretend of course because they are horrible. But, if one established that a god created us, them, the universe and whatever else, what reason would there be to conclude that creator is still around?

As I like to present for example, maybe god was given a chemistry set for Christmas one year and he accidentally blew himself up. Then his bits and pieces and those of the chemistry set become the universe. There'd be no more god any more.


Tcg

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #200

You asked about 'strict materialism'. I of course asked what you meant by that and suggested it was metaphysical materialism, which is a philosophical position not logical or helpful to actual reasoning and so atheists don't use it. You could have said 'ok' but you got all evasive and would not say what you meant, even when it made you look bad.

I stated that strict materialism was what I was critiquing and assumed that you would know what it meant. When you apparently didn't, I spelled it out for you:

strict: (of a person) following rules or beliefs exactly.

materialism (philosophy): the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

There can be little doubt that you were (as I said) trying to force an untenable position on atheism (or science) re. materalism, and you got caught.

You may have little doubt, but I pointed out that I've encountered atheists who take that position.

You can still save face by saying what you mean by 'strict materialism'

I already have and you're ignoring that fact.

your sig sorta implies that you used to be one of us (Atheists) until you converted to theism.

You're way off. I was going for a handle which conveyed a theistic position without a claim of "revealed" knowledge. A clumsy attempt, perhaps, since I've never really studied Greek, but I got as close as I knew how (I wanted to go with "Agnotheist", but someone somewhere was already using it).

Now, you tell me, chum, were you a tabula rasa atheist (not actually having thought about it) before you converted?
Had you once known the atheist arguments and 'Forgot' them?
Or are these apologetics positions all new to you? Tell me? I'd be fascinated to know.

I'm not sure why you would be trying to change the subject to what I supposedly used to be.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #201]

Sunshine, you are doing your reputation and that of your faith no good at all with these blatant evasions (I'm being polite here, matey)

"I stated that strict materialism was what I was critiquing and assumed that you would know what it meant. When you apparently didn't, I spelled it out for you:"

That is not what went down. I asked you what 'strict materialism' was in your definition and suggested what you might mean. It put you on the spot and so you went evasive and said it was clearly what it was or some such. It became clear that you'd been caught out playing a dirty trick otherwise we'd have closed this off several posts before. You are still trying to wriggle your way out it and just making it worse for yourself. I'm not even inclined to look at the rest of your post when you are trying it on like this......


Well I did have a look and wish I hadn't. You are being even more muckily mendacious. You claim definitions of strict and materialism Now, but you didn't then, you posted:
I've disagreed with you and cited sources to illustrate why I've disgreed with you, if that's what you mean by "links to this or that". And I don't think that "strict materialism" is that hard to understand.

I suggested a definition (which tripped your trap) and you evaded, even though invited to explain, and now you are trying to pretend that you explained. In fact you say above that you explained but you didn't, you claim it should be 'not hard to understand' when you could have said 'yes that's it' or no, and said what.

You now post this

strict: (of a person) following rules or beliefs exactly.

materialism (philosophy): the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

Well that is the philosophical or metaphysical definition which is logically untenable as we don't use it. Why couldn't you just say 'yes? Beause your dirty trick had already been exposed by me. I already said this wasn't a big thing, you could have brushed it off with a light laugh, but you are just digging yourself in deeper the more you try to scrabble your way out.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #202

I asked you what 'strict materialism' was in your definition and suggested what you might mean. It put you on the spot and so you went evasive and said it was clearly what it was or some such.

I said it was clearly what it was.

I suggested a definition (which tripped your trap) and you evaded, even though invited to explain, and now you are trying to pretend that you explained. In fact you say above that you explained but you didn't, you claim it should be 'not hard to understand' when you could have said 'yes that's it' or no, and said what.

Again, I used the words "strict materialism" assuming that you would know what "strict" and "materialism" mean.

You now post this

[/i]strict: (of a person) following rules or beliefs exactly.

materialism (philosophy): the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.[/i]

What do you mean, I "now" post this? Back in post #192 I replied:

strict: (of a person) following rules or beliefs exactly.

materialism (philosophy): the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

I assumed that your impressive command of the English language would encompass those terms.

You're making it sound like I just now pulled that out of the hat. Between that and your heavy reliance on haughty invective, I'd say you aren't doing yourself any favors.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

...that any of the arguments for god are valid. We have to pretend of course because they are horrible. But, if one established that a god created us, them, the universe and whatever else, what reason would there be to conclude that creator is still around?

If we only mean creator in the sense that I also create things, then we have no reason to think he would still exist. He or they could have been advanced aliens. But that is not what most theists mean by God. They do not mean a maker of the world.

Rather they mean the uncaused cause, which would have to be without beginning or ending. God is his own subsistence. This idea of God could not cease to exist, and so if he created the world, then we can be sure he is still here.

Many arguments for God argue for the eternal God anyhow.

Also, one more thing. I haven't heard prominent atheist philosophers make statements like all arguments for God are stupid.

[JoeyKnothead]

Also, one more thing. I haven't heard prominent atheist philosophers make statements like all arguments for God are stupid.

It's kinda like how we call folks mentally challenged, instead.

Meanwhile, the Bible continues its libels and slanders unabated.