The Great God Paradox.

 The Great God Paradox is when creationists try to argue for the existence of a deity that's omnipotent, but when faced with skepticism, can only defend the position by making appeals to ignorance, looking for vague things to defend the notion, or otherwise using tenuous points to defend the existence of a strong deity. Essentially, a great God is displayed solely by weakness.

Examples:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN00T-KS88I General "science was wrong before, you don't know everything" type of stuff.

https://youtu.be/vOJTxk5sD80?si=89l-68hP-xt6xNnX&t=2214 Basically tries to say an omnipotent god can only be logical because the rules of science also so. Instead of going the standard route of omnipotence, tries to say that a god works through quantum mechanics. Bit of a cop out, definitely trying to shoehorn a deity into something existing without one.

https://evangelism.intervarsity.org/resource/there-no-hard-evidence-god-exists#:~:text=Just%20because%20you,God%20doesn%E2%80%99t%20exist%E2%80%99) An appeal to hypocrisy that's factually false, as there are numerous chemicals and brainwaves associated with love.

https://www.pursuegod.org/is-there-really-no-evidence-for-gods-existence/#:~:text=Saying%20there%20is%20no%20evidence%20is%20not%20the%20same%20as%20showing%20there%20is%20no%20evidence.%20%E2%80%9CAbsence%20of%20evidence%20is%20not%20necessarily%20evidence%20for%20absence.%E2%80%9D%20Even%20if%20it%E2%80%99s%20true%20that%20there%E2%80%99s%20no%20evidence%20for%20God%2C%20it%20doesn%E2%80%99t%20follow%20that%20God%20doesn%E2%80%99t%20exist. "Sure we can't give you a reason to assume there's a deity out there, but you can't psotiviely show that the lack isn't an existing thing hiding itself instead of simply not existing so we're right!"

Neil Shenvi trying to say that the Christian God exists within pockets that are immeasurable.

Jesus Mythicists being disregarded by Christian historians, believing in their personal lives of the great magician and moral teacher Jesus Christ, over Jesus being  no less real than mundane people of his time. Less an argument about him existing but an appeal to consequences about having to deny the existence of other people if we questioned the existence of a messiah figure.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Imaginative Conservative imagines its own versions of Christianity, freedom, and logic.

 https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/03/libertarians-and-religion.html Does God underwrite our freedom, or undermine it? Look at Leviticus where there's numerous victimless laws being classified as sins. Look at the New Testament where Jesus defends Mosaic law while being a cult leader. There are thousands of self-styled “libertarians” who would argue the latter. They actively oppose the religious commitments of most social conservatives, many of them convinced that materialism is the best metaphysical home for what we might call “libertarian values”—individual rights, freedom and personal responsibility, reason, and moral realism. Yeah, because physicalism entails looking at the world as it is and noticing that much of the laws that people espouse are based on some type of incongruety. Ignoring that people are individuals with no real debt to each other and no real hive mind linking them, trying to say that people are responsible for the actions of others, be it gun contro...
Read more

Creationist alleges religion and science mix, for five articles, here's number four.

 https://shenviapologetics.com/science-and-religion-part-iv/ In general, attempts to "combine religion and science" are basically just looking at alleged holes in science, and then asserting that, instead of using philosophy, we just regurgitate religion and shoehorn it. Shenvi might try to make a point here on in his other articles, but I doubt he succeeds. First, let’s consider the mathematical structure of the universe itself. Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner wrote a very famous paper entitled “The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences” [Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 13, No. I (1960)] in which he observes that the remarkable success of mathematics in describing the physical world is actually very surprising. Mathematics He repeatedly uses the words miracle and miraculous to describe this phenomenon. After all, it is not metaphysically necessary that the universe is the way it is. We could conceive of a universe that was wholly...
Read more

"Gravity isn't a force" (and a new view).

 I have long maintained that the Argument from First Cause is satisfied by something more analogous to a force like gravity and electromagnetism. In my ignorance, I thought these forces were solid entities rather than interactions, the warping and curvature of space-time (Gravity), or the result of electromagnetic fields (electromagnetism).  However, when you are given to false ideas (my view of the first cause being a force, and the theistic view of it being a force with divinity [which it would have to distinctly be unless they want to broaden the definition of God to "anything considered weird through an anthropocentric lens"], let alone a vaguely human one), it would be best to not choose one of the two but discard both. And I shall. My new explanation is an x-substance that can be called Formation. Credit to the theists, this is also speculative, however, it is not convoluted, and as such doesn't stretch the need for an answer into a free reign "anything goes...
Read more