/lit/ - Literature

>>13803341
The unmoved mover type arguments don't rule out the possibility of all sorts of 'sources' of creation.

> it's necessarily singular or "mono"
An initial, supernatural, creative point or act doesn't imply that there is only one creator involved, it could be a synergistic act using multiple entities.

>because there's something rather than nothing it made the decision to put things into motion so it must have some sort of will or personality
It could be emanationism, like in the Neo-Platonic sense of an abundance of power overflowing from the one Monad, being stratified into lower and lower realms of differentiation, no personality or "will" involved, but following some internal necessity.

> Because it's the ultimate source of movement, in a sense it's actively sustaining motion so it is theistic in that it interacts with the universe.
Sustaining motion doesn't imply interest or personality or telos, it's just a function.

I agree that there is design, harmony and reasons to believe in God based on observing nature. But I don't believe in making "syllogisms" out of these reasons, going from premises to conclusion as if it all follows deductively...it doesn't. And anyone can pile a bunch of these arguments together to prove Allah, or the greek Monad or the gnostic Demiurge, or the mormon Gods, it's all very vague.

All these things we see are just "fingers pointing to the moon" as they would say in buddhism. These things are just clues and signals...

daily reminder prots and catholics need to stop making generic "natural theology" arguments for the existence of God and step their game up to transcendental/pressuppositionalism