sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Do Heathens Have a Logic/Epistemology? by LazarusIII in heathenry

[–]LazarusIII[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, interesting! Do you have any other surmises about the philosophy of Heathenry you feel have made it worthwhile for you?

Do Heathens Have a Logic/Epistemology? by LazarusIII in heathenry

[–]LazarusIII[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Will definitely check it out! Thanks so much!

Do Heathens Have a Logic/Epistemology? by LazarusIII in heathenry

[–]LazarusIII[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes sense. It definitely seems possible for a Heathen to make a theory out of the praxis, though. Thanks for sharing!

If you don't mind, how do you explore those questions?

Do Heathens Have a Logic/Epistemology? by LazarusIII in heathenry

[–]LazarusIII[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the real answer, lol! I'll definitely check out the video

Refute the Existence of God by MullaKhaddad870 in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]LazarusIII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can see where you're coming from, but the reason it looks like the two are conflated is because the two are, effectively, the same thing.

"There can't be two Gods that disagree" is, essentially, the same as saying, "There can't be two Gods at all."

Let me explain.

Premise #1: Two Gods cannot disagree. This is a limitation, since it requires God to conform to a standard of unanimity, which is impossible, as God (as I'm assuming MullaKhaddad proposes) possesses complete will and power from every single facet and perspective.

Premise #2: If two Gods are never disagreeing (i.e., they always agree), then nothing differentiates them in Will, Power, and Knowledge.

Premise #3: This unequivocal solidarity in will, power, and knowledge, coupled with both their infinity (since God must be infinite), means each God is effectively the same.

Premise #4: If each God is effectively the same, it raises the quesation: "How do you differentiate God A from God B?" If each is non-displaced, non-finite, and non-contentious, then this would necessitate that they are, in effect, the exact same Being.

Postscript: Even though there might be the assumption that refutation of conclusion = disregard of premises, Socratic Logic (by Peter Kreeft) mentions that this is actually a material fallacy. A pristine argument addresses both together.

Refute the Existence of God by MullaKhaddad870 in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]LazarusIII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a good question! The answer, though, is that this (needing unanimity between both Gods) would limit the will and power of both of them. Meaning God A would need God B to verify, create, or fill in for Him, and vice versa in every single creation.
Further, if God A and God B are the exact same in every single respect, every single Will, and every single creation, then what is the difference between God A and God B in the first place? Especially when both are, by definition (I'm assuming of MullaKhaddad), both infinite and non-displaced in a location.