Jac3510 wrote:And as usual, dom continues to show that he doesn't understand what he's talking about and is unfamiliar with current literature and state of the debate.
Uh, no. Apparently, it you who is unfamiliar or just simply inexperienced here. If you really feel this way, then it seems that you're either years behind on this issue, I'm years ahead of you, or you're just playing devil's advocate here. Atheists and some other Agnostics have made objections that are similar or exactly to what you've shown in recent years. They are wrong. Every single time.
I don't debate him anymore for that very reason. If anyone wishes to read the paper I linked to, which is a professional philosophical analysis, and they are free to do so. And if they wish to take dom's word for it then that's fine too. I have made my case and I'm fine with it.
You don't think I read the paper you linked to? This "professional philosophical analysis" is actually just amateur hour if what you are presenting is an objection to the LCA.
(GH1)There exists a contingent, physical, complex,superhuman, supernatural intelligence that created the universe and has no external
explanation.
An explanation DOES NOT REQUIRE AN EXPLANATION! Thats a fallacy! Nevermind that the description is incorrect anyway. The word "complex" is arbitrary.
(GH2)There exists a necessary, nonphysical, complex, superhuman, supernatural intelligence that created the universe and has no external explanation.
An explanation DOES NOT REQUIRE AN EXPLANATION! Again, a fallacy! Nevermind that this description is also wrong. The word "complex" is arbitrary.
(GH3)There exists a necessary, nonphysical, simple, superhuman, supernatural intelligence that created the universe and has no external explanation.
An explanation DOES NOT REQUIRE AN EXPLANATION! Again, a fallacy! Description is, again, wrong. The word "Simple" is arbitrary.
(GH3a) There exists a necessary, nonphysical, simple, largely incomprehensible something-or-other that created the universe and
has no external explanation
An explanation DOES NOT REQUIRE AN EXPLANATION! Again, a fallacy! The word "Simple" is arbitrary.
Also, now this thing is a "largely incomprehensible something or other"?
You know what this reminds me of?
Einstein wrote:The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible
Look Jac, its one thing to come into a discussion and say something is a bad argument because of X
But when you're argument is "Its a bad argument because its a BLANK of the gaps (A epistemological strawman) and heres how I deal with it (Divine simplicity), then what you're really doing is just being a Shill for a Divine simplicity doctrine.
I'm not saying don't offer solutions, but when you're saying that atheists have a good argument against the existence of God (That argument doesn't exist, I assure you), so instead deal with the gap argument with a doctrine I endorse, then you're just a Shill. I don't even do that with any piece of philosophy I subscribe to, and I"m pretty hard and abrasive on people.
You should rethink you're contribution here.