Is it possible to talk with an atheist?

[siti]

God from reason on observation to intelligent conclusion is a very impersonal God

Now you're a deist?

 

[columbus]

Now you're a deist?

Deism is the logical conclusion from Kalam. Which is what he is arguing.
Sort of.
Tom

 

[siti]

Deism is the logical conclusion from Kalam. Which is what he is arguing.
Sort of.
Tom

I know - I was going to make reference to "his (Sanmario's) cosmological argument" but decided that he probably would not know that's what it was.

Earlier he also claimed that Nature is the same as God - and then got upset when I suggested he was a pantheist.

Then he argues that observation and reason lead to the intelligent conclusion of an impersonal God. This, very definitely, is the deist position in a nutshell.

Yet, having made very clear statements of two alternative non-theistic positions, he expressly avows theism.

As you say, deism is the strongest possible conclusion of the cosmological argument - although even that depends on a prodigious philosophical leap of faith. Once could just as easily conclude that the universe had an unintelligent and naturally beginning-less cause (which, if you want to deify this, it would probably be closest to naturalistic pantheism - a kind of Spinozism - Deus sive Natura) of its existence rather than a supremely intelligent and supernaturally eternal cause. There is logically no difference between the two as far as the cosmological argument is concerned.

There is no way to get from a cosmological argument to theism by logic.

But it's even worse than that because, unfortunately for Sanmario, all cosmological arguments fail logically because their conclusion is that the beginning (for example, but if we want to use Aquinas' version the motion...etc.) of all things is itself beginning-less (unmoveable...etc.) and therefore refutes the premise that all things have a beginning (are in motion...etc). Moreover, in this case (Kalam), the argument hinges on the assumption that the universe itself had a beginning (began to exist) - and there is manifestly no possibility of proving this - one way or the other. When both the evidence and the conclusion refute the premises, it isn't clear that you even have an argument, much less a convincing one.

And, yes, I know he (Sanmario) ain't gonna be swayed or appreciate any of this. But there it is anyway.

 

[viole]

I have not thought about God's consciousness, but I am always asking myself whether when we are totally unconscious we do not exist, like as in deep dreamless sleep, in total general anesthesia, so that when we return to consciousness we realize that we don't have any memory whatsoever of anything during the hours which lapsed when were were completely unconscious.

That state should be no different from death, if there is no longer any kind of consciousness with us in death.

As I said, I have not thought about the consciousness of God; you see, my focus is on the concept of God in term of what He has achieved by which He is worthy of our attention, at all.

That is why I am always repeating:

In concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Recently twice Curious George told me that creator is superfluous in my concept of God.

I understand that he would prefer my concept to be less verbose.

So I told him and I tell everyone, my most brief concept of God is the following:

God is the creator of everything with a beginning.

Let's see.

Did your idea, or will, to come here and post your OP have a beginning?

Ciao

- viole