I wrote: You have to get into the actual nitty-gritty of classical theism if you want to make a coherent argument against it. And that's what's required if you aim to eliminate or negate all belief in God.
Again, I disagree. I have made a coherent argument against it, the argument is that they want me to believe something without offering any evidence. That's a category error, which makes for an incoherent, straw-man argument. I say no dice. People can believe what they like, I even read their books if they make claims that are testable, but the point of it has to be that any casual observer happening across a theological text can read it and conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there is some sort of supreme being. Classical theism doesn't claim that there is "some sort of supreme being." Another category error/straw man. Do you really not get the distinction between a being and Beingness Itself? Because that's critical to an understanding of classical theism (and it's what a good text on classical theism would explain to you, the book I mentioned by Hart being an example). Oh, and classical theism isn't an "explanatory idea" that competes with scientific explanatory ideas (just one of the many mistakes you make about classical theism because you haven't gotten into the nitty-gritty). Well, you seem to be the expert so why not at least explain how an idea could be superior to one with supporting evidence. I didn't say classical theism was a superior idea. What I'm arguing is that Roberts's argument against theism is inferior (understatement). By "superior" I mean like the above; one that a casual observer could read and reach the same conclusion as that intended by the writer. With classical theism, that's possible but by no means guaranteed. It appeals to some and not to others. But even those to whom it does not appeal should come out with a better understanding of what the arguments are for that conclusion, so they'll know what it is about the conclusion that doesn't appeal (and they should also be able to see the absurdity of Roberts's argument). All I get when I read the ripostes by modern philosophers is quotes by long dead guys who did their thinking in the absence of modern research methods. Well, I don't know what you've been reading, but "modern research methods" are irrelevant even to the most modern classical theistic philosophers. I seriously doubt any of them would reach the conclusions they did if they had access to a decent telescope or particle accelerator. Some of them are well versed in physics and cosmology, as it happens. Thomas Aquinas would slap his head and shout "Far out!" just like everyone else does when the read a decent cosmological text. He probably would, but it wouldn't--couldn't, by definition--do anything to change his mind about classical theism. It would take a solid argument against classical theism to do that. And if theologians are making claims about origins and purpose then they are competing with science whether they like it or not. Nope. Classical theists' claims about origins and purpose ontologically precede those of science. IOW, science begins where classical theism's claims leave off. Even if science's claims for origins are absolutely 100 percent true, it wouldn't bother classical theism a bit. (Purpose is a bit dicey given that science maintains there is no purpose to the universe--but of course there's no more scientific evidence for the absence of purpose than there is for classical theism.) Plus which, again, I'm not trying to convince you of the truth of classical theism, merely to point out what an ignorant argument Roberts makes. I still think it's a great argument, but not one to try at the local mosque perhaps. They only have the one god and won't want to hear any of your demiurges... Classical theism doesn't have any demiurges. Demiurges are what the New Atheists argue against, all the time ignorantly believing they're disposing of the God of classical theism. Remember: demiurge = a being; God of classical theism = Ground of all Being, Beingness Itself. As to enlightening you, I can't do that if you don't make an effort to understand what I'm saying instead of immediately dismissing it by fiat grounded in your own ignorance. I only have ignorance because no one ever tells me what it is we nontheists are missing out on! Sorry, not my job. All I'm doing is telling you what you're missing concerning what classical theism maintains that leads you to think Roberts's argument is a ripsnorter rather than recognizing it as a flaccid, ignorant flapping of the gums. << Behind with classical theism? Boy, that's a weird concept. I would say that all one needs to know about it is that it concerns a speculative set of theories about man and the universes origin. You don't have to get into the actual nitty gritty to know what they amount to - a way of looking at the world unencumbered by the need to provide evidence. To say they have been superceded by superior explanatory ideas is an understatement. You won't convince anyone who doesn't already want to believe it these days. Yet still they persist. Which is maybe just as well, it would be a boring sort of world if Richard Dawkins had his way but there are stronger human forces than logic. Unless someone would care to enlighten me about something I missed? >> ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote: You don't understand my definition, sorry. I keep being misled by how smart you are about other things, but you are so far behind and so resistant to learning anything about classical theism that I really don't know where to start explaining things to you. One assumes Roberts is a New Atheist because they use his argument all the time, mistakenly thinking it's a real killer. "Thou shalt have no other god but me" means, essentially, Thou shalt not believe in demiurges. Judy is not correct because most religious types would not agree that her definition of their beliefs is accurate. How would you know Roberts is a "new" athiest if you don't know who he is? "Thou shalt have no other god but me" Sound familiar? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
