It is simply logically inconsistent to assert that there exists only one instantiation of the kind of being we call a deity, AND there exist lots of o...
But I am not arguing that there is no God. The argument I am addressing is simply Dawkins' challenge to the theist assertion that complexity entails a...
If there is equal justification for the existence of the monotheistic deity, and Zeus, and Lord Krishna, ... etc., and the existence of the monotheist...
If your explanation for the existence of the universe allows for the possibility and intelligibility of an "uncaused cause," then the universe itself ...
Been expecting the "God is simple" retort. Dawkins is challenging the claim that complexity entails a designer. IF the complexity of the universe enta...
But the argument Dawkins is challenging is the theist argument that complexity entails a designer. Thus, a complex design such as that of the universe...
I completely agree that there's a difference between an experience and one's interpretation of that experience. It is well-documented that a person's ...
I agree, Arkady. If the alleged Creator wasn't sufficiently complex enough, as Dawkins infers, to intend, understand, and possess the ability to creat...
Yes, I agree that what can be considered to be "evidence" at all, as well as whether or not such evidence is sufficient to warrant subscription to the...
Because the prevailing notion of God is monotheistic--the one and only actually existing deity. So, the mutual existence of the one and only God AND o...
Argument is simply providing reason that rational others should accept or reject some proposition. Persuasive reason normally consists in coherent log...
Pretty much. What we convey via language such as you've listed are human-brain constructs. The notion of a thing-in-itself is itself such a construct,...
How about: they are all human-brain-generated conceptualizations, that is, human-brain ways of seeing things, of understanding our interactions with t...
Comments