Teen Forums - Teen Chat, Teen Help, Teen Advice & Support

Jam · 08-12-11, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nabokov

That rather unfortunate stodgy old atheist debater does have a valid point, no?

Why does the first cause of existence have to be God?

Notice that WLC's last point was pretty valid? "That rather unfortunate stodgy old atheist debater" (TRUSOAD, I'll refer to him in future

) got to the point where he was just describing God but calling it something.

Nabokov · 08-12-11, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jam

Notice that WLC's last point was pretty valid? "That rather unfortunate stodgy old atheist debater" (TRUSOAD, I'll refer to him in future

) got to the point where he was just describing God but calling it something.

I agree with you, and I wouldn't argue in the same way as him.

The first cause does not have to be a supremely intelligent being.

What you are doing, is taking a gap in human understanding or scientific understanding and simply writing 'God' in the gap.

Jam · 08-12-11, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nabokov

I agree with you, and I wouldn't argue in the same way as him.

The first cause does not have to be a supremely intelligent being.

What you are doing, is taking a gap in human understanding or scientific understanding and simply writing 'God' in the gap.

Be careful using the second person here; I never made that argument

I'm very wary of all forms of the teleological argument.

Nabokov · 08-12-11, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jam

Be careful using the second person here; I never made that argument

I'm very wary of all forms of the teleological argument.

Fine, what WLC doing is writing 'God' in the gaps of our understanding.

And in the words of Dawkins, it is simply a failure of imagination.