Atheist and religiousfags alike, what do you think of this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zMf_8hkCdc
god doesn't exist
>>540519
Pretty good, the straw-man arguments from both religious and atheists are annoying. But just how 'new atheists' don't have a good grasp of the actual arguments in favour of God, neither do many christians.
t.atheist
>>540549
>>540553
I find discussion with someone who has a partial understanding of a topic better than someone who is ignorant of some fundamental points.
>>540555
Well then if god is an extranatural phenomena then god is by definition a concept so abstract as to be meaninglessness.
The idea that god is this impossibly abstract thing is what theists resort to when all their claims are torn to shreds and they are find themselves backed into a corner. The fact is that the idea that 'god has natural elements' or acts on nature is specifically what theists claim. God, they say, sent such and such plague and parted such and such sea, sent his son Jesus to be crucified but not before he cast demons out of people, had the angel Gabriel speak to an Arabic caravan trader and give him a magic book that existed since the creation of the universe but had previously resided in heaven and later shepherded him to heaven on the back of a winged donkey, and so on. All these claims are rubbish.
Even if you could somehow establish the first idea of god, which is to say that god is an extranatural phenomena, then you've only leapt to deism. There is still no way to go from that to any specific creed, which is to say to any idea that says that "and this god has been revealed to us through moses/jesus/mohammed", or theism in other words.
>>540576
But many religious people, in their own words don't have a literal interpretation. But of course many others do, I actually went to a creationist school. So while arguments based on physical aspects would be applicable to 'muh global flood' people, it isn't necessarily seen as a relevant argument related to other religious interpretations.
>>540589
Because they are being logically inconsistent.
I'm an atheist, but I like Barron.
But I still think he is doing himself a disservice by trying to theologically deconstruct everything about religion, because it seriously just makes it even more ridiculous to believe it is true.
>>540519
Pretty much typical orthodox Catholic dogmatism - a comprehensive system of thought, capable of intellectual beauty, but still merely one of many other worldviews that he, given his commitment to his church office, probably won't present as equally compelling options, which I think many are.
Most if not all of his points about the Ultimate Being - the claim that it is neither nature nor within nature, but is the non-spatiotemporal condition of the possibility of nature; that the utter contingency of every natural being, the endless causal chains of dependency attaching to every natural being, imply that there must be something which is not contingent, but is rather the ground that accounts for contingency; that scientific inquiry and discovery cannot disprove, or even threaten, the existence of this Catholic God (but for that same reason, we can't have scientific grounds for proving that this Catholic God exists, though Barron doesn't so strongly emphasize this side of the principle) - could equally be made by Kant, but from the standpoint of a different philosophical system, and thus without leading to the orthodox conclusions that this video presents as so inevitable and standalone. We can agree with basically all Barron's claims about the distinction between the natural and the non-natural, without granting that the existence of a personal, intelligent, benevolent creator God is implied thereby.
Kant would say that such reasons allow us to merely think of a god (and not yet a Catholic God, at that) without ever allowing us to *know* whether that god exists or doesn't. Schopenhauer would say that these reasons eventually lead us to a Supreme Being, but one that is impersonal, unintelligent, and is, if not malicious, at least better off not being.
>>540576
You keep pretending that this "abstract" God is a late development after atheists pushed the poor believers in a corner. Yeah, that's bullshit. Christian theology developed out of Plato and (especially) Aristotle's conceptions of God which were very "abstract" and far from humanity.
Thomistic theology is incredibly interesting, but I think what Barron is getting at easily leads to pantheism.
If God is not a being, then he's presented himself as a being throughout the Bible. A Being with, I think, very questionable decisions. The Ipsum esse subsistens works very well with Aristotelian metaphysics (which I admire a lot), but with Christianity it's quite a bit more strenuous.
He pretty much also disproved supposed christian evidence for existence of God a lot of them bring up.
Heard it before, didn't think it was very convincing
>>540576
Incorrect, experiencing the holy spirit is a deeply humbling and powerful experience that may be abstract, but is far from meaningless. It is an event that only comes about through faith and makes discussion about god's existence inconsequential.
>>544265
Hear as the majestic Holy Spirit itself tell us this.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SLNc21iGtUE
>>540549
>Pretty good, the straw-man arguments
Are almost as annoying as the use of high school debate club terms like "straw man" and "ad hominem" by idiotic anons that lack the ability to think for themselves.
>>544265
>It is an event that only comes about through...
Ignorance of physics, nature, and human brain chemistry.
