Podcast to ProfMTH Re:Ontology of God

I'm sorry for the lack of pretty visuals but I didnt have time. I might do more quick videos like this.

I know this might be an unpopular video since it questions Prof's atheist stance but remember we are not in this to disprove Theism, we are in this to have the most robust arguments for whichever stance we believe to be true. I'm still an atheist but I feel we should irradiate any holes in our reasoning if they, indeed, exist.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Atheism
• atheist
• theist
• theism
• agnostic
• agnosticism
• hedoism
• kidskillconscience
• christian
• christianity
• god
• christ
• knowledge
• truth
• evil
• suffering
• nontheist
• humanist
• believer
• philosophy
• reason
• logic
• evangilism
• jesus
• idiocy
• religion
• christinanity
• islam
• muslim
• belief
• faith
• messiah
• theology
• purpose
• rational
• ProfMTH

[Infesturmind]

You should start making videos again

[kidskillconscience]

@Infesturmind Yes, you're probably right. Lack of inspiration and perspiration i guess.

[ProfMTH]

Certainly what believers call "god" could be indivisible and all, but it remains for the proponents of the god concept to positively and coherently identify what, as you put it, the fundamental is, as opposed to what theists do, i.e., identifying what "god" is not.

Thanks for the response.

[kidskillconscience]

@ProfMTH But surely a fundamental cannot be positively and coherently identified since it cannot be described in terms of anything else. What could it possibly be described as if it is the most basic of building blocks. You couldnt say god is 'made' of anything. it would simply be god is 'made' of god. Describing anything in the way you ask is, by its very nature, reductive and therefore it will eventually arrive at something which is irreducible. I.e God.

[ProfMTH]

"But surely a fundamental cannot be positively and coherently identified...."

Can you positively and coherently describe matter?