6 replies

  1. This was a great debate! We should do more of these. I hope to put in writing some time soon my main points for rejecting God as an explanation for existence; would I be able to post it on this site?


  2. Well down Paul! Although, I think the ontological argument is part of the jigsaw that makes the argument for God, it is still a reasonable starting block for something who believes in the incoherence of the concept

    I must admit I was not impressed with this atheist.

    Argument goes like this

    Premise one- Anything whose modality is not understood (I assume here fully because we are being radical) fully is incoherent

    Premise two- The modality of creation “ex nihilo” is not understood

    Conclusion- The concept of a creator who creates “ex nihilism” is incoherent

    I will give the atheist the benefit of the doubt in the conclusion. I assume he wasn’t talking about a God that “manages” an eternal universe.

    By “understood” he seems to mean something that is expressed in an “equation”. This is another way of saying that is “explained” in a public sense

    Well this is really silly . Self awareness and by implication the unity of consciousness can’t be expressed in any equation publically. Is he self aware ?

    Any hypothesis that is to be postulated before it is empirically tested is thus meaningless (remember it is not enough to put forward the postulate but explain how it works). Clearly we have an infinite abyss of “how’s” . Can science move forward then if the hypothesis is meaningless?

    Note he talks about a “moral” understanding based upon “harm”. Can he explain how I as a self conscious individual experience “pain”?

    What about language Itself ? Can he express how we use language ? Can he step “outside” language to explain this ?

    Poor guy is in a muddle.

    Clearly someone can be coherent and use language without knowing how one can do it! Self refuting mess

    This is not to say that we can claim incoherent things. I can postulate a definition and then contradict the definition I postulate (what he claims is “analytical”)


  3. “Something who believes in the incoherence”

    Obviously meant someone and not something! The irony. Your opponent wasn’t self conscious then 🙂


Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: