Common (And Not So Common) Arguments Against Atheism (Please Collate)
(08-05-2015, 05:14 PM)richgr Wrote: (...) Indeed, but I'm confused why you said above "Nonetheless it is right to say that God is not the subject of metaphysics. The subject of metaphysics is being as being." Has anyone here claimed that God is the proper subject of metaphysics? My response to Crusading Philologist was simply to his claim that metaphysics cannot study or comprehend God (but who even claims to comprehend God anyway?).
Crusading Philologist used the expression ,,onto-theology" ( and I understand the term ,,onto-theology" in the way that God is one of the subjects of metaphysics. Thomas White OP writes ,,It ( onto-theology ) does so by constructing a transcendental science of metaphysics, which would include both God and created realities under a common subect of study." Wisdom in the face of modernity, p.25 ) to describe the classical philosophical theism and wrote also that according to Dionysius God cannot be studied or comprehended as most traditionalists would like to do. I wanted to emphasize that it is correct that God is not the subject of metaphysics. The subject is being but through the study of being we also learn a lot about the necessary cause of being. I did not quote Crusading Philologist directly because my statement was a general one.
The trouble with these sorts of arguments is that simple concepts get lost in a bog of obscure terminology.

Vatican 1 dogmatically decreed what just about everyone but a bunch of intellectualistic confusers already intuitively knew...
"If anyone shall say that the existence of God cannot be known with certainty by the light of natural reason alone, anathema sit". (Colloquially, "anathema sit" means "you're dead wrong and not one of us").

The reasoning is simple (usually quite enough for pompous clever-dicks to dismiss or ignore it) a couple of intuitively known self-evident truths is enough to clinch the argument. (A self-evident truth is one where the only alternative to a statement is its contrary which is self-contradictory and thus absurd. For example: "I exist").

"A thing that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist" is such a statement which is entirely pertinent to this argument. It implies that anything changing or changeable cannot be eternal because it is never what it was or will be and it requires an agent (other than itself) to cause the change.

The whole Universe is constantly changing ("movement" as ole Tom liked to call it) so it cannot be eternal and must have a cause greater than itself.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)