Fic claims - "God" is a persona that theists project onto the eternal, infinite.....

ferengi

Active member
Fic claims
"God" is a persona that theists project onto the eternal, infinite and necessary aspects of reality. Those aspects aren't finite and don't have a beginning, but the persona is something humans generated.
What aspects of reality are eternal? Where did reality come from? Who/what created reality?
Whats her evidence for these claims?
 

Ficciones

Active member
Where did reality come from?

It's absurd to ask where reality came from. I shall explain.

If one supposes that reality came from somewhere, its origin must be either real or unreal.

It's absurd to suppose that reality came from unreality. Consequently, reality must have come from something real.

But hold on - if that origin was real - then it was also constitutive of reality - and therefore reality (in your scenario of reality "coming from somewhere") would have existed before it existed - which is equally absurd.

Consequently, reality must not have come from anywhere. QED.
 

Torin

Member
It's absurd to ask where reality came from. I shall explain.

If one supposes that reality came from somewhere, its origin must be either real or unreal.

It's absurd to suppose that reality came from unreality. Consequently, reality must have come from something real.

But hold on - if that origin was real - then it was also constitutive of reality - and therefore reality (in your scenario of reality "coming from somewhere") would have existed before it existed - which is equally absurd.

Consequently, reality must not have come from anywhere. QED.
I've used this argument before. It is good.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
It's absurd to ask where reality came from. I shall explain.

If one supposes that reality came from somewhere, its origin must be either real or unreal.

It's absurd to suppose that reality came from unreality. Consequently, reality must have come from something real.

But hold on - if that origin was real - then it was also constitutive of reality - and therefore reality (in your scenario of reality "coming from somewhere") would have existed before it existed - which is equally absurd.

Consequently, reality must not have come from anywhere. QED.
Talking in circles again

Pet word absurd It stems from drama queenery based arguments. How do you quantify "equally absurd?"


3 consequently's that are wild presumptions
 

ferengi

Active member
It's absurd to ask where reality came from. I shall explain.
Your evidence is?
If one supposes that reality came from somewhere, its origin must be either real or unreal.
Avoiding the question.s
"What aspects of reality are eternal? Where did reality come from? Who/what created reality?
Whats her evidence for these claims?"
It's absurd to suppose that reality came from unreality. Consequently, reality must have come from something real.
Your evidence is? What caused reality to begin?
But hold on - if that origin was real - then it was also constitutive of reality
Your evidence is?

Consequently, reality must not have come from anywhere. QED.
Non-sequitur - prove reality is eternal.
 

Ficciones

Active member
Your evidence is?

Avoiding the question.s
"What aspects of reality are eternal? Where did reality come from? Who/what created reality?
Whats her evidence for these claims?"

Your evidence is? What caused reality to begin?

Your evidence is?


Non-sequitur - prove reality is eternal.

:ROFLMAO:

I leave it to the reader to judge the relative merits of my argument and your rebuttal.
 

ferengi

Active member
:ROFLMAO:

I leave it to the reader to judge the relative merits of my argument and your rebuttal.
You never made an argument - an argument is an assertion(s) SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE - you never presented any evidence.
All you did was post unsupported assertions.
And you avoided the questions-
"What aspects of reality are eternal? Where did reality come from? Who/what created reality?
Whats her evidence for these claims?"
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
You never made an argument - an argument is an assertion(s) SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE - you never presented any evidence.
All you did was post unsupported assertions.
And you avoided the questions-
"What aspects of reality are eternal? Where did reality come from? Who/what created reality?
Whats her evidence for these claims?"
You made a mistake if you were expecting facts and evidence. Lower your expectations
 

ferengi

Active member
You can get a copy of Spinoza's Ethics and read it for yourself. I like the Samuel Shirley translation.
IOW the answer to my question is "no" - you will not support your claims evidentially.
But you are an atheist so no one expects you to.
 

Torin

Member
I see you have Spinoza in your sig file. It's sort of a gloss on his argument about substance from the Ethics.
I associate it more with Parmenides.

Spinoza may have made a similar argument. I do not claim to be an expert on Spinoza, although I like some isolated quotes and concepts from his philosophy.
 

ferengi

Active member
You can get a copy of Spinoza's Ethics and read it for yourself. I like the Samuel Shirley translation.
Here they are again - to prove to everyone who and what atheists are -
What aspects of reality are eternal? Where did reality come from? Who/what created reality?
 

Ficciones

Active member
I associate it more with Parmenides.

Spinoza may have made a similar argument. I do not claim to be an expert on Spinoza, although I like some isolated quotes and concepts from his philosophy.

I'll have to check that out - I have only a glancing knowledge of the pre-Socratics. Spinoza's argument in the Ethics is sort of a hijacking of the ontological argument.
 

ferengi

Active member
I'll have to check that out - I have only a glancing knowledge of the pre-Socratics. Spinoza's argument in the Ethics is sort of a hijacking of the ontological argument.
Here they are again - to prove to everyone who and what atheists are -
What aspects of reality are eternal? Where did reality come from? Who/what created reality?
 
Top