A Deists reply to DasAmericanAtheist
Uploader Comments (WeedGreenPowerRanger)
Top Comments
-
Very nice video! I sometimes think that God if he exists is the "Divine Wallflower". By that I mean something like a shy artist who creates just for his own enjoyment and if part of his creation appreciates the artist's work, that's fine, but "he" doesn't care either way.
-
1) You haven't made a single video.
2) Regardless of what you may think, that actually is how I talk, and I'm honestly not picking up on whatever Radio DJ quality DasAmericanAtheist's voice might have, which makes me wonder what the fuck pubescent boy voice you're working with where mine and James' sound like DJ quality.
3) if you're going to insult me, next time have the balls to leave your comment up. I'll reply either way, and now you just look like a pussy.
Video Responses
All Comments (69)
-
"Know thyself" - Oracle of Delphi
"I know that I do not know" - Socrates
-
I made a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch today. Do I exist inside the sandwich or am I the creator of the sandwich? After I eat the sandwich do I exist in the sandwich or does the sandwich exist within me?
-
The creator is outside its creation. A metaphysical phenomena not subject to the conditions of its own creation. God is the uncaused first cause. Classical mechanics demands a first cause as an initial impetus. The first cause cannot be subject to previous causes otherwise it wouldnt be the first. God is the uncasued first cause that has a metaphysical origin.
-
Correct. I asked you why it would be and you just brought out a Spinoza quote. I'm not a Theist. I don't see the logical necessity of a god.
-
@WeedGreenPowerRanger So again, your existence isnt proof enough of God's existence?
Can you share an event you have witnessed that was completely spontaneous and uncaused? Some event that was not conditoned to occur?
IronicKismet 7 months ago
@IronicKismet
No. You're using the first cause argument. Why would you assume that such a creator wouldn't be subject to the same rules? I find the argument useless because it has to break its own rules to support its foregone conclusion. Its not logically consistent.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 7 months ago
Nothing in the universe is contingent, but all things are conditioned to exist and operate in a particular manner by the necessity of the divine nature.
Baruch Spinoza
IronicKismet 7 months ago
@IronicKismet
Good for Spinoza. He's still just making a declaration. "all things are conditioned to exist" is as meaningless a statement as "A thing is because it is."
Associating that with divine nature is going even farther on the same flimsy ground.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 7 months ago