Who am I? Why am I here?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PLP
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
PLP:
All right: Briefly then, the logical arguments for the existence of a god all have premises that are deniable without absurdity or contradiction. The evidential arguments fail because the evidence (at least the evidence I’ve seen) can be explained more simply than by hypothesizing the existence of any kind of a god.
Click to expand...
I keep seeing this stated, but I have not seen anyone actually make an argument to show us what this “evidence” is. Care to elaborate? I hope you are not talking about the supposed “contradiction” in the following formula: I. God exists II. God is all powerful III. God is all good IV. Evil exists
 
40.png
PLP:
Love is an ordinary human emotion; there’s nothing controversial to a naturalist about love.
Click to expand...
Eros is an emotion. Agape is an action. Even most modern psychologists will admit that love is not merely an emotion. Sorry to sidetrack here.
 
40.png
PLP:
That’s not precisely the case. I do hold to a set standard of truth, but according to that standard, no statement can ever have the property of being certainly true. I’ll go into more depth in a thread about the metaphysics of Scientific Materialism. Please be patient.
Click to expand...
PLP, I would appreciate it if you could address how a standard of truth (" I do hold to a set standard of truth")can still be relative (“no statement can ever have the property of being certainly true.”) on this thread. This seems to be an oxymoron. If you could explain how you did not just completely contradict yourself with this statement, I would greatly appreciate it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top