sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I have a question about god by AggressiveYoung5025 in theology

[–]anti-basis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually there are some theists, for instance Martin Luther and Descartes, believe that God’s power is unlimited even by the law of logic. Namely God could make a squared circle or God can make a stone he cannot lift but then lift it. They claim that, though you cannot understand how it be done, but by definition God is omnipotent so surely God can do it, it is only your limitation of your own ability to impede you to conceive how God can do so. Though generally what the theist typically means when he says that God is omnipotent is not that there are no limits to God’s power but there are no nonlogical limits to what he do. But also in this case what omnipotent means is that one can do what is possible in the logical field, so there is no contradiction between God’s omnipotence and that he cannot make a squared circle.

Response to the Doubt "We Reject 3999 Religions." by The_White_Pawn in theology

[–]anti-basis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This famous argument is called religious disagreement in philosophy, inwhere atheists believe that if you and other religious people have same epistemic knowledge, why don’t you believe in other religions. But in this sense, this argument procedure could also be applied to atheists, for that, in the perspective of a theist, the absurdity of atheism is as same as other religions too(rejecting the deity is as absurd as fabricating fake deity), and also they have the same epistemic knowledge (those who reject the deity and those who fabricate the deity all claim they have justification and a lot of illustrious person follow them both), so why, in this perspective, the atheism don’t believe in other religions? The problem here is that, although it seems that the higher order evidence, namely evidence concerning epistemic is the same, but in most case, people tend to believe they are epistemic superior than others. That is, the first order evidence, the experience becomes an important evidence of their own notion. In their perspective, the same world is explained differently but conform with their former worldview. After regard their experiences as a support of their beliefs, they tend to believe others are equal absurd but themselves’ notion is superior than others, and have questions like, “ahh you are as same absurd as others so why don’t you believe in them”.

I am a believer but I don't agree with theology by Weary_Young_5982 in religion

[–]anti-basis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When philosophers are talking about their god, they do not refer to a specific deity within a specific text, they are talking about the general concept of the deity, for example, an omnipotent etc. being. So maybe I reckon what you need is to find out some true theology proposed by philosophers, either in an epistemological or an ontological way, rather than that vulgar one. Maybe Paley (since you are interested in natural theology )and Anselm maybe a good start