| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Al Klein" |
| Date: |
16 Nov 2003 04:20:53 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 18:27:34 +0000 (UTC), "Sven" <svh@nospam.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
I read it, knucklehead. See where both arguments, "Either God is eternal or
the universe is eternal" and Mr. Flunks's argument, "God *IS* the universe"
both take "God" for granted, begging the question?
An alternative doesn't beg the question, it merely presents a lexical
possibility. And a god, even the Christian god, is lexically possible
(else we wouldn't be discussing it).
--
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
| User: "Sven" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
16 Nov 2003 10:01:12 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:pltfrv8rktsil7d2rhd1s44fu34ro83mht@Pern.rk...
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 18:27:34 +0000 (UTC), "Sven" <svh@nospam.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
I read it, knucklehead. See where both arguments, "Either God is eternal
or
the universe is eternal" and Mr. Flunks's argument, "God *IS* the
universe"
both take "God" for granted, begging the question?
An alternative doesn't beg the question, it merely presents a lexical
possibility.
An alternative to what, the question-begging statement, "Either God is
eternal or the universe is eternal"? Why should anybody have to present an
"alternative" to that kind of question-begging nonsense?
By 'lexical possibility' you mean that it is possible to use the letter
string "God" in a sentence? I can use it in one too: "Both of the statements
in question take the existence of the hypothetical God for granted, which is
the fallacy of begging the question."
And a god, even the Christian god, is lexically possible
(else we wouldn't be discussing it).
But we aren't discussing "God,", since there is nothing meaningful presented
by the true-believers for us to discuss, we are discussing Mr. Flunk's
statement, "God *IS* the universe," and the other statement, "Either God is
eternal or the universe is eternal." Both of those statements take it for
granted that the thing proposed, "God" exists to be something, begging the
question. There is no God demonstrated, and it is simply logical fallacy to
take the existence of it for granted like both statements do (begging the
question).
Any questions on this point?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
