Griggsy

Originally posted by Griggsy

Per the Star Trek argument, should God be perfect, then He cannot be Himself as perfection would engender perfection [ Alvin Platinga errs about omni versus limited God.] Aquinas 's ontological argument from perfections errs in that he reifies a continuum. Things can have many degrees of being but his argument means no more than Anselm's and Descates's Again, definitin, postualtin and faith cannot instantiate Him!
At another thread here, I adumbrate about His transcendence.
Lamberth's argument from autonomy notes our level of consciusness giving us our right instead of either God or the government.
The Sartre-Rand argument from autonomy runs askew. It states that we would worship a worthy being, but since we are autonomous, then He cannot exist, a non-seqitur.
The stone argument also runs askew,because it makes for a contradiction. Logic dictates that He could not make a stone so heavy He could not lift it.
Some atheists were wrong to maintain that we ought to find His physical body, but then His disembodied mind is no beter as noted at another thread.
Supernaturalists themselves make the genetic argument when they proffer the arguments from angst and from happiness-purpose. Thus they declare thereby their use of religion as that crutch or placebo! . That doesn't invalidate their arguments but does show their putative need for Him which has no empirical basis.
Paul Tillich cannot instantiate Him by calling Him the Ground of Being or Being Itself. Karen Armstrong with her apophatic theology affirms ignosticism, because if He isn't this or that, He is noithng! [ simular to what Carneades notes about what the Stoics and Epicureans maintain] And cataphatic theology makes Him likwise with its idea of His attributes.