Why I don't recommend Dawkins?????

[_Some Schmo]

God. In most systems, God is necessary and not contingent on something else.

I'd love to hear a good argument for why god is necessary.

[_Buffalo]

Can a Naturalistic worldview account for everything? Not yet, plus you have to come with good reasons to take a Naturalistic worldview as opposed to a Theistic one, that doesn't rule out Theism a priori.

Can a supernaturalistic worldview account for anything? So far, it would appear that the answer is "not yet."

[_MrStakhanovite]

I'd love to hear a good argument for why god is necessary.

That is what arguments like the Ontological and Teleological argument set out to do, not so much as prove God exists, as that God is necessary.

God being necessary is wrapped up in the definition of Theism, because if God is contingent, then something is responsible for his creation, which really calls into question if that is God at all.

Necessity is usually used by Naturalists and Theists alike to remove an infinite regression of causes. Saying God is necessary is just the beginning really, God being necessary doesn’t solve any problems that an Atheist would have with Theism.

[_Hoops]

While you're wiping away your tears, and maybe mommy can get you into your jammies and a new binkie, you can cite an example. Now get on your booster seat and furiously do your internet search.

Sure, I could do a search and find an outrageous number of examples, but I don't see the payoff. Only a complete idiot would deny what I said (and only an idiot would keep talking the way you do to me, but I digress).

So I'm going to go with the Stak response to marg and dismiss you as the idiot you clearly are. There's economy in that (not to mention how appropriate it is in your case).

Ah, but you see, you can't find an example of what was specifically declared above. Nonetheless, let's remember you SOUGHT me out, not the other way around. You made a claim and I asked you for a citation. You refuse. So retract the claim.l

[_Hoops]

They're talking about correcting carbon dating for the effects of the flood. :D

Half-assed bluster is your specialty, Hoops. Own it.

Oh, I see, so they're using science? Doesn't seem like a denial then does it.

Come on Buffalo, surely you're thinking is a bit nore nuanced than this.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Can a supernaturalistic worldview account for anything

It wouldn't be a worldview it couldn't account for anything. The debate would be about those accounts being correct or not, and why not.

[_Buffalo]

That is what arguments like the Ontological and Teleological argument set out to do, not so much as prove God exists, as that God is necessary.

God being necessary is wrapped up in the definition of Theism, because if God is contingent, then something is responsible for his creation, which really calls into question if that is God at all.

Necessity is usually used by Naturalists and Theists alike to remove an infinite regression of causes. Saying God is necessary is just the beginning really, God being necessary doesn’t solve any problems that an Atheist would have with Theism.

I'm afraid I'm not much for philosophical arguments, which is why I've tried to stay out of the thread. I'm more interested in arguments grounded in science or history. I know next to nothing about philosophy.

[_Buffalo]

They're talking about correcting carbon dating for the effects of the flood. :D

Half-assed bluster is your specialty, Hoops. Own it.

Oh, I see, so they're using science? Doesn't seem like a denial then does it.

Come on Buffalo, surely you're thinking is a bit nore nuanced than this.

No, they're replacing science with pseudo-science.

[_Buffalo]

Can a supernaturalistic worldview account for anything

It wouldn't be a worldview it couldn't account for anything. The debate would be about those accounts being correct or not, and why not.

What, specifically, can it account for, per the supernaturalists?

[_marg]

Hi Phillip,

I just woke up and apparently our internet is weak and going off and on..besides that though it looks like to respond to you more fully I'm going to have to review my course on the Early and High Middle Ages..so give me a day or two.

ETA..tomorrow I'm going to Whistler for the day..so if not today then not until Wednesday.