Agondonter
Active Member
Is anyone here familiar with classical theism? What, if any, are your arguments against it?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Classical Theism
- Thread starter Agondonter
- Start date
- Status
If you mean what is more properly termed classical monotheism, then I'd wager just about every Westerner is familiar with it considering it's the dominant theism in those cultures. There are also plenty of holes that can be poked in it.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
The fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for any supernatural or revelation event except for hearsay--which on its own is worse than worthless.
Agondonter
Active Member
Why don't you just admit you don't know what classic theism is since you obviously do not?
GoodbyeDave
Well-Known Member
Classical [mono]theism is largely an assumption. One can argue that the universe was probably designed and created — the arguments from design and from causation — but the jump to "by a single omnipotent being" has no real arguments in its favour.
The sort of arguments advanced are
> If different parts of the universe had different creators, then they might have different physical laws, and they don't.
But they might not, if the gods worked collaboratively, like joint authors of a novel. And even if different galaxies, for example, had different laws, how would we know? The principle of spatial uniformity is assumed by physics, not discovered by it.
> One god is a simpler explanation than multiple gods.
But the requirement to accept the simplest solution is a heuristic principle, not a law of logic. Moreover, Occam's Razor is only intended to judge between a pair of theories with equal explanatory value, and the polytheist theory explains religious experiences, while the monotheist one doesn't.
> If there are multiple gods, then their multiplicity requires an explanation.
But explanation has to stop somewhere. The cosmological argument shows that the physical universe depends on the non-physical — the divine — but the existence of anything at all remains a brute fact. The question "why is there something rather than nothing?" is unanswerable and the equally unanswerable question "why is there a god?" is no less compelling than "why are there several gods?" The idea that multiplicity need to be explained is hardly obvious.
The attributes applied to the creator in classical theism are also far from obvious.
> Omnipotence
This is too strong: they only need to be powerful enough to create the universe, and the power required will be lessened by a collaborative creation. Omnipotence also raises the problem of evil: why didn't the creator do a better job?
> Omniscience
This is also too strong : they only need to know what they are doing, and the more creators there are, the less each needs to know. Full omniscience leads to a problem with human free will.
The sort of arguments advanced are
> If different parts of the universe had different creators, then they might have different physical laws, and they don't.
But they might not, if the gods worked collaboratively, like joint authors of a novel. And even if different galaxies, for example, had different laws, how would we know? The principle of spatial uniformity is assumed by physics, not discovered by it.
> One god is a simpler explanation than multiple gods.
But the requirement to accept the simplest solution is a heuristic principle, not a law of logic. Moreover, Occam's Razor is only intended to judge between a pair of theories with equal explanatory value, and the polytheist theory explains religious experiences, while the monotheist one doesn't.
> If there are multiple gods, then their multiplicity requires an explanation.
But explanation has to stop somewhere. The cosmological argument shows that the physical universe depends on the non-physical — the divine — but the existence of anything at all remains a brute fact. The question "why is there something rather than nothing?" is unanswerable and the equally unanswerable question "why is there a god?" is no less compelling than "why are there several gods?" The idea that multiplicity need to be explained is hardly obvious.
The attributes applied to the creator in classical theism are also far from obvious.
> Omnipotence
This is too strong: they only need to be powerful enough to create the universe, and the power required will be lessened by a collaborative creation. Omnipotence also raises the problem of evil: why didn't the creator do a better job?
> Omniscience
This is also too strong : they only need to know what they are doing, and the more creators there are, the less each needs to know. Full omniscience leads to a problem with human free will.
Agondonter
Active Member
I repeat my question: Why don't you just admit you don't know what classic theism is since you obviously do not?
That's four now that have responded without knowing what classical theism is.
That's four now that have responded without knowing what classical theism is.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
How is what I said ignorant of what "classic theism" is supposed to be, or in any way erroneous in saying there's no evidence for it or any supernatural being? Classic deists love to use the nebulous word, transcendent, which the best I can tell, means something beyond our possible perception--which fits with what I wrote, no matter how much you might not like it. In fact, there's little to no difference between the so-called classic theism and deism since there's no evidence for (or against) either.
Agondonter
Active Member
Those arguments are incoherent when applied to classical theism.
Agondonter
Active Member
You said, "The fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for any supernatural or revelation event except for hearsay--which on its own is worse than worthless." Evidence (apart from the evidence of reason) is irrelevant.
The one theology book all atheists really should read
In Defense of Classical Theism
These links might give you at least some sense of what classical theism is and, maybe, show just how nonsensical atheists sound when they pose arguments designed to be opposed to superman -- which is about 99% of the time.
Last edited:
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
All that is transcendent from reason leaves only emotive feelings. So far you've said nothing but we're ignorant and wrong.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
I did have to look up agondonter, which means: "evolutionary will creatures who can believe without seeing, persevere when isolated, and triumph over insuperable difficulties even when alone". I think Nebulites would fit better.
What about this one: there are no gods. Not one, not many. None whatsoever.
That seems pretty coherent.
Ciao
- viole
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
Why don't YOU admit YOU don't know what classic theism means?
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
That would be as much an unfounded declaration as his classic theism.
Agondonter
Active Member
Cool. There are theists that say the same thing.
"… according to the classical metaphysical traditions of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is – from the beginning to the end of time. Understood in this way, one can’t even say that God "exists" in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality. God is the condition of the possibility of anything existing at all." -- excerpt from the book review (the first one)
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
The definition is nebulous (thus the Nebulites), which gives them ability to define is as the situation requires--regardless of the facts.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
See.
- Status