truelgbt wrote:A land mass like Sweden and a supernatural entity like God are not of the same category, hence, no parallel can be made in arguing a point.
Who decided that God is a supernatural entity? Maybe it's just a stupid story invented by ignorant, pre-scientific people a long time ago. It's the Lake Wobegon of philosophy: "The little town that time forgot, and the decades cannot improve."
Tracer Tong wrote:I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying at all. My point is simply that, at least on orthodox Catholic theology, the claim isn't that God is three persons yet one person, as all the sources you've quoted indicate. Rather, in order to avoid this obviously contradictory claim, metaphysical categories are invented: God is said to be (say) one 'substance' or 'being' while constituting three 'persons'. As I've said, I don't find such a metaphysical move convincing; neither, it seems, do you.
Yeah, well. In light of my above remark, this is just showing off a bit of theological education. Now, it's fine with me if somebody wants to claim that a "theological education" is some category of education. Whether or not you find anything in it convincing, it's just a brand of philosophical chewing gum for the compulsively verbal such that people use it to try to say what category God falls into. When I say "compulsively verbal" don't think I don't know what I'm talking about, which is not necessarily about you.
quas wrote:Except that you can prove that there is no god.
God, of the Judeo-Christian variety, contradicts all the historical and scientific understanding that we have. It even violates common sense and basic logic.
What about all the other kinds of gods, if you think there are other kinds? What kind of pretentious twattery is the enumeration of all the different kinds of gods, including the ones that have not yet been enumerated?
Thomas Eshuis wrote:A more fatal flaw in the analogy is equivocating non-belief in X with belief in not-X.
But really, it's the non-belief that one apparently has to keep reciting because of some mistake that somebody else made, and that's fine as far as it goes. It's driven, however, by nothing more than the shit somebody else
said. I'm not suggesting that what I just wrote isn't driven by the shit somebody else (with an apparent theological education)
said. Somebody tries that equivocation on me and you see what he gets. I'd relish a chance to show you the way some equivocator shuts the fuck up when that happens, because we simply stop arguing endlessly about supernatural
categories and whether or not we should expect any evidence for them. It's the endless argument that informs you how equivocation is not the fatal flaw that actually ends an argument. At that point, non-belief becomes something almost
palpable.