I’m looking at post 130. Each and every item was a response to something either you or PRmerger said.
Since you insist…
And this comes back to what I said before. There is no hard and fast definition of God. There’s no definition to be changed. And besides I have just as much as right to try and define the undefiniable as anybody.
Like I said before if he exists, he could very well have created the universe, yet been himself created.
Ok sorry this was 128, but it had to go in since it’s so wrong. Post 130 actually is not even interesting since you are debating against a position that no classical theists thinker holds (i.e. that we cannot say anything about God). Some Catholics might hold that thought but it’s not correct.
“is no hard and fast definition of God.”?
I am sorry, read your Classic Theist thinkers and you will find there
IS a good and definite definition of God, what he ought to be and especially what he ought NOT to be.
Sure there might be different definition of God in different traditions (eg Islam), just like there are several theories about psychology or some physical phenomenon.
Just one point in 130:
Excellent. So you are against the government attempting to re-define what marriage is?
Yes, marriage should be between one man, his 500 wives, and his 500 concubines.
The core of marriage is not distorted in polygamy, since it remains man+woman–>child.
However no one defends polygamy here.
Yours is just a form of red herring, perhaps, not to get on with the issues.
Trying to prove that God allowed Abraham to have many wives: well even if God did (but did not) perhaps it was
The idea of God is nebulous and unprovable
Again that is not true.
I think many, if not most Classical theist thinkers defines well what God is or not is.
People have many vastly different opinions of God’s nature
Opinions mean little.
Hawking and Krauss unproven views on how the universe started contradict each other, one is relies on the no-boundary proposal and the other on the idea that the universe could arise from a fluctuation from the vacuum state.
I wonder how many atheists wonder about that… or the fact there is no empirical evidence to even remotely think they are good theories and not just fancy speculations.
God is already said to possess several seemingly contradictory attributes
SEEMINGLY contradictory, when they are not… of course you still have people who ask ‘can God make a stone he cannot lift?’ when this questions, as silly as it is, has been answered for a 1000 years and more now.
Again many books have been written on the subject.
You have to understand that I don’t see any difference between that and any other religious ceremony – whether it be a native american vision quest, a voodoo ceremony, or a bar mitzvah.
Buy some specs or talk to a comparative religion scholar.
that when William Lane Craig dismisses the question of “Where did God come from?” as laughable it belies blind spots in his methods. The only thing laughable is a philosopher whose nature isn’t to question certain precepts.
What’s laughable is that people do not understand why God must be uncreated and why the proofs for God lead to that conclusion (and others)
On the other hand no atheist questions the unproven speculations of Hawking and Krauss…
OR: think that Dawkins’ Meme’s theory is a valid theory, while has no empirical foundations nor any credibility in the scientific community whatsoever.
I find that quite hypocritical as well, don’t you think?
===
I’d tell you to read about some Christian thinkers, but I fear I will get the Courtier’s Reply or even the “Hallquist Reply” (yep a new one!).
What is the Hallquist Reply, you say? Hallquist himself says it all:
*"“I refuse to apologize for not having read more theology, in the sense of the writings of people like Haught and the people he admires. That’s because they frequently don’t even try to write clearly.
My typical experience when picking up their books is to first notice they are using words in ways I am not used to. Then I start skimming to try to find the section where they explain what they mean by their words (sometimes there are legitimate reasons for using words in unusual ways). Then I end up closing the book when I fail to find such a section.”" *
(From Chris Hallquist, on his blog on Patheos Atheist Channel, August 30, 2012).
So the Hallquist Reply is: “I find it pointless to read something too technical or difficult for me, rather than take the effort to educate myself” i.e. being ‘unliterate’ (
neologisms.rice.edu/index.php?a=term&d=1&t=658)
Perhaps you can read some of Feser material, you do not even have to buy a book, let alone complain about you did:
edwardfeser.blogspot.it/2012/07/cosmological-argument-roundup.html
edwardfeser.blogspot.it/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html
edwardfeser.blogspot.it/2009/03/straw-men-and-terracotta-armies.html
