tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3195578484021247195..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: One fewer godRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73458655558920982172016-05-18T05:13:01.517-04:002016-05-18T05:13:01.517-04:00…and maybe also something like this:
I contend th...…and maybe also something like this:<br /><br />I contend that we [theists and atheists] both believe in miracles*. I just believe in a sufficiently powerful miracle-worker, whereas you believe they just somehow magically happen. When you understand why you dismiss so many other absurd and extraordinary claims, you will understand why I dismiss yours.<br /><br />*If a miracle is defined in the Humean sense of "breaking a ‘law of nature’", where a ‘law of nature’ is an observed regularity that we then come to believe in as a "law", then note that, in that sense, a universe from nothing, abiogenesis, macroevolution, consciousness from non-consciousness, and so on, could all be considered Humean-type miracles, and so the atheistic-naturalist does believe in miracles in the Humean sense.<br />Vox Maximushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03229185310054336817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50394268364702444162016-05-18T04:39:59.110-04:002016-05-18T04:39:59.110-04:00While your analysis is largely correct, I even won...While your analysis is largely correct, I even wonder if that little atheist saying could be co-opted to suit the rhetorical purposes of non-atheists. For example, could not something like this be said:<br /><br />I contend that we are both anti-evolutionists. I just believe in a few less extraordinary claims than you do (abiogenesis, macro-evolution, consciousness from non-consciousness, language from non-language, etc.). When you understand why you dismiss so many other extraordinary claims, you will understand why I dismiss yours.<br /><br />Anyway, just a thought.<br /><br />Maximus<br />www.voxmaximus.blogspot.com<br /><br />Vox Maximushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03229185310054336817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3072857051745565962016-05-18T03:05:27.842-04:002016-05-18T03:05:27.842-04:00It's true that some polytheists think the Gods...It's true that some polytheists think the Gods arose from some ultimate principle, making them part of nature, dependent and finite etc. But, other polytheists think the ultimate principle just is a plurality of Gods. This latter view was most systematically developed by Proclus, the last classical philosopher and greatest Neoplatonist.<br /><br />On this latter view, 'God' is a term that generically describes all that is God, or divine. Arguments for God can then be understood as arguments for that which is God, however many that may be.<br /><br />It's interesting that both polytheists and Trinitarians agree that a plurality is ultimate, only disagreeing on what it is a plurality of: Gods or persons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57742350377531882962016-05-17T20:36:35.357-04:002016-05-17T20:36:35.357-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.C.M. Grangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08425837594116278619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-29118200902600297832016-05-17T20:35:38.234-04:002016-05-17T20:35:38.234-04:00Atheists generally aren't very deep thinkers, ...Atheists generally aren't very deep thinkers, hence they don't even understand fundamental differences between classical theism and other theistic positions.C.M. Grangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08425837594116278619noreply@blogger.com