Classical Theism

[viole]

Cool. There are theists that say the same thing.

And? Is that a rebuttal of my claim?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

We are addressing coherence not foundedness.

Ciao

- viole

Incoherence = "unfoundedness".

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

And? Is that a rebuttal of my claim?

Ciao

- viole

Nebulites are philosophical shapeshifters.

 

[Agondonter]

FYI (though I doubt your interested), classical theism borrows heavily from the pagan philosophy of Plotinus.

 

[Agondonter]

And? Is that a rebuttal of my claim?

Ciao

- viole

No. It simply means your claim is vacuous.

 

[Demonslayer]

one can’t even say that God "exists" in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or electrons exist.

LOL. I love it. God doesn't exist like a car exists, it exists more like a leprechaun exists.

 

[Agondonter]

LOL. I love it. God doesn't exist like a car exists, it exists more like a leprechaun exists.

Nope. That comment is simply incoherent because real or imagined, leprechauns are like a "car or Mount Everest or electrons." That is, things alongside other things

Do you realize how silly you all look commenting on something you know nothing about?

 

[Agondonter]

FYI (though I doubt your interested), classical theism borrows heavily from the pagan philosophy of Plotinus.

I'm expecting someone to say, "Don't you mean Plato?" LOL!

 

[viole]

No. It simply means your claim is vacuous.

That would entail that what theists claim is vacuous, too. Isn't it? Otherwise, I really do not understand the logical inference here, if any.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Demonslayer]

Do you realize how silly you all look commenting on something you know nothing about?

No sillier than that retarded quote you posted. Has to be one of the most inane things I've ever read. And I've talked to a lot of religious people so I know inane comments.

 

[Agondonter]

That would entail that what theists claim is vacuous, too. Isn't it? Otherwise, I really do not understand the logical inference here, if any.

Ciao

- viole

That depends on the claims. Or, rather, how the claims are understood.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Why don't you just admit you don't know what classic theism is since you obviously do not?

If people don't know what you mean by 'classical theism' then maybe you should elaborate in order to move the discussion along rather than fling accusations of ignorance.

 

[Riverwolf]

Do you realize how silly you all look

That's an odd thing to ask. I can't help but wonder as to its intention.

In any case, the word "classical", as you should know, is polysemic. That is to say, it has multiple different meanings.

Therefore, in order for us to know what you mean by "classical theism", it would behoove you to say which form of "classical" you are using.

Do you mean classical as:
-in reference to Greco-Roman civilization? (Its "official" meaning).
-most common/well-known?
-conformity?

 

[Agondonter]

If people don't know what you mean by 'classical theism' then maybe you should elaborate in order to move the discussion along rather than fling accusations of ignorance.

I would like to think people have enough sense to look into a subject matter with which they are unfamiliar before posting a comment. Clearly, my faith in people was misplaced. "...Atheists display an almost aggressive lack of curiosity when it comes to the facts about belief." from The one theology book all atheists really should read

 

[Agondonter]

That's an odd thing to ask. I can't help but wonder as to its intention.

In any case, the word "classical", as you should know, is polysemic. That is to say, it has multiple different meanings.

Therefore, in order for us to know what you mean by "classical theism", it would behoove you to say which form of "classical" you are using.

Do you mean classical as:
-in reference to Greco-Roman civilization? (Its "official" meaning).
-most common/well-known?
-conformity?

:::sigh::: Equivocation: the last refuge of willful ignorance.

 

[idav]

I would like to think people have enough sense to look into a subject matter with which they are unfamiliar before posting a comment.

Clearly, my faith in people was misplaced.

I looked it up before posting thus my rejected response. Seems that your the one putting more into classical theism than the "classical" outlook. It is in contrast to polytheism and pantheism, your left with classical monotheism like one of the first posters mentioned. Your supernatural nonexistent description was rather nonsensical.

 

[Agondonter]

I looked it up before posting thus my rejected response. Seems that your the one putting more into classical theism than the "classical" outlook. It is in contrast to polytheism and pantheism, your left with classical monotheism like one of the first posters mentioned. Your supernatural nonexistent description was rather nonsensical.

Substituting "classical monotheism" for "classical theism" in post #2 was a display of willful ignorance.


Classical theism

 

[idav]

Substituting "classical monotheism" for "classical theism" in post #2 was a display of willful ignorance.


Classical theism

Ok so the blog suggests that in classical theism, as described in a book on the philosophy of religion, a core concept is that God is the cause of the world, which is somethings I suggested but you obviously reject as does the blog you linked to. Is that your argument against our ignorance, a blog?

 

[blue taylor]

I would like to think people have enough sense to look into a subject matter with which they are unfamiliar before posting a comment. Clearly, my faith in people was misplaced. "...Atheists display an almost aggressive lack of curiosity when it comes to the facts about belief." from The one theology book all atheists really should read

There are no facts about belief, except to the believer.

 

[Agondonter]

Ok so the blog suggests that in classical theism, as described in a book on the philosophy of religion, a core concept is that God is the cause of the world, which is somethings I suggested but you obviously reject as does the blog you linked to. Is that your argument against our ignorance, a blog?

A more careful reading of the blog might help. "Cause" isn't quite the right word because most people would interpret that to mean God woke up one morning and decided to create a universe in a way that implies change in the immutable God:

"...the core of classical theism is the notion of God as cause of the world. But it seems to me that this is not quite right. Anselm is, after all, a classical theist, and he conceives of God (in his best-known argument, anyway) primarily as That Than Which No Greater Can Be Conceived, rather than as cause of the world. So, it seems to me that what is more fundamental to classical theism is the notion of God as that which is absolutely metaphysically ultimate – a notion that encompasses both Anselm’s conception of God and the God-as-cause-of-the-world approach of Aquinas, Maimonides, and all the others, and which accounts for the centrality of divine simplicity to classical theism. ...As Aquinas says, to say that God makes the world is not like saying that a blacksmith made a horseshoe – where the horseshoe might persist even if the blacksmith died – but rather like saying that a musician makes music, where the music would stop if the musician stopped playing."

According to Wiki, "In theology, the common phrase creatio ex nihilo ("creation out of nothing"), contrasts with creatio ex materia (creation out of some pre-existent, eternal matter) and with creatio ex deo (creation out of the being of God)." I favor sort of a combination of the second and last.