I think what chum-o is saying, is that given a belief in a creator deity based on several theistic arguments for same, what is to say he is not a real physical being, in a real physical place? Or a council of beings. Or an entire civilization of beings.
What makes the non-corporeal monotheistic being more likely?
And if that isn't what he is saying, it is what I'm saying now
Doktor S wrote:Yuppers that is exactly it.I think what chum-o is saying, is that given a belief in a creator deity based on several theistic arguments for same, what is to say he is not a real physical being, in a real physical place? Or a council of beings. Or an entire civilization of beings.
What makes the non-corporeal monotheistic being more likely?
And if that isn't what he is saying, it is what I'm saying now
I would argue all permutations of god are equally likely, so given that one is a Theist, it is relatively more rational to believe all permutations of god than not to.
Then things got more interesting as Queen Annie thought it suited her views (and why not, it is more rational) and others chimed with their views, so I officially codified it to make sure my budding religion could get tax exempt status, and I could assume the rightful place as Chief Priest and Bottle Washer (CPBW the Unpronounceable).
Here are the two Commandments:
"- The rational Theist must accept that all types of god have equal merit"
"- The rational Theist could not accept a religion in which one idealization of god superceded another idealization of god."(This does not impute what the rational Theist could accept but only what the rational Theist could not accept)
Doktor S wrote:I think what chum-o is saying, is that given a belief in a creator deity based on several theistic arguments for same, what is to say he is not a real physical being, in a real physical place? Or a council of beings. Or an entire civilization of beings.
What makes the non-corporeal monotheistic being more likely?
And if that isn't what he is saying, it is what I'm saying now
I caught that, but I want to know is why. Why does it even matter? Absolutely nothing makes one thing more likely than another I guess. Though personally speaking if I don't give credit to "a" God, I'm not going to give credit to "the gods".
hephzibah wrote:Doktor S wrote:I think what chum-o is saying, is that given a belief in a creator deity based on several theistic arguments for same, what is to say he is not a real physical being, in a real physical place? Or a council of beings. Or an entire civilization of beings.
What makes the non-corporeal monotheistic being more likely?
And if that isn't what he is saying, it is what I'm saying now
I caught that, but I want to know is why. Why does it even matter? Absolutely nothing makes one thing more likely than another I guess. Though personally speaking if I don't give credit to "a" God, I'm not going to give credit to "the gods".
Do you believe in a single, non corporeal god entity to the exclusion of other types of gods, or not?
If so, why?
While I'm starting to see this steve, I would like to ask one question please. Who decided everything needs to be "rational" anyway? And what makes their idea that everything needs to be "rational" more important that what other people consider "rational" that is not?
hephzibah wrote:my dear mizfiss.While I'm starting to see this steve, I would like to ask one question please. Who decided everything needs to be "rational" anyway? And what makes their idea that everything needs to be "rational" more important that what other people consider "rational" that is not?
I think "who decided everything needs to be rational?" is an excellent question. Things are rational, that is we can explain them, as history shows. But why should it be that way? Why is there order and explanation in and of the Universe? Therein lies the most profound
Bwaaaaahaaaa haaa haaa llol
The Universe is indeed just a bunch of laughs, and certainly not to be taken seriously. In my not very humble opinion.
