How To Think About God: Adler, William F Buckley Jr

[ksmoker27]

Boy, there's a lot of unproven assumptions there in the last two minutes that themselves need to be argued for and proven before this argument can be shown to be sound. In the absence of those arguments, this argument is still inconclusive.

[MrLamontSanford]

correction: they want to REMAIN in their vices. Not 'remail.'

[MrLamontSanford]

Why don't you READ what was said here? Adler made it clear that once EXISTENCE came into being, THEN all these 'proccesses' of 'chemistry' explain CHANGE, but NOT the question of "why is there SOMETHING as opposed to NOTHING?" Atheists cannot pay attention!! You are blinded by hatred of morality-based religions, because they judge bad behaviors that you wish to cling to. Few atheists are sincere; they discard religion because they want to remail in their vices, NOT on intellectual grounds!

[MrLamontSanford]

Hey 'fctchk' =this is for intelligent, rational educated people, not emotional mental eunuchs. Go bag groceries or whatever it is you are good at.

[fctchk]

The processes which are now so richly explained by Evolution, Geology, Quantum Physics, and Astronomy we also used to attribute to God.

Witness here the bloviating Buckley and the addling Adler in a desperate last stand in an orgy of obfuscation conjuring up a god as an explanation for a universe that needs a god to have created it as much as a fish needs a bicycle.

[dingorex]

Gloria Steinem?

[Reggie1971]

LOL. I remember her using that analogy in the context of men.

However, it's used rather absurdly in the context of the question of exnihilism. It's like saying a watch needs a watchmaker like a fish needs a bicycle.

[tmcrwfrd]

Thanks for that. I'm just now re-re-reading the bk(HTTAG). aNSELM'S ARGUMENT I can handle, but still a prob with Mortimer's argument.