By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
WolfpackN64 said:

donathos said:

The argument for a "necessary being" is funny to me. Besides "begging the question," it seems to make no claim as to the nature of this supposed "being," apart from any other singular event or phenomenon (not even to the point of being sensibly described as a "being" in the first place). When pressed on the subject, WolfpackN64 says, "I never said it had to be sentient, interpret being in a wide sense here." Well, if we're not discussing a sentient being -- if we allow ourselves "wide sense" enough to encompass the Big Bang -- then we're no longer discussing the concept of God in any meaningful manner, let alone some specific God like Yahweh. The defense of the argument reduces to "the argument contends nothing in particular," so..

I gave the possability for a wider interpretation not because I believe in such an interpretation. But because I actually want to give people who think otherwise space to argue along the lines of the same argument. I don't mind atheïsts, only when they bring no decent arguments to the table I start to get annoyed.

But my point is that, if you think that such an interpretation of your argument is permissible, then your argument doesn't make much of a claim -- does it? If your "necessary being" could be the Big Bang (whether that's your particular "interpretation" or not), then you haven't advanced an argument for anything that we would sensibly describe as a "god."

Really though, you've mentioned a couple of times, I think, that the Catholic Church was a force for good in the Middle Ages -- that things would have been worse otherwise -- and I'm interested in your thoughts about that.