jubalsqaud
Puritan Board Freshman
(i moved this here after i realized i posted it first in the wrong section)
So I heard a atheist debate a one of us.
The Christian representative presented Christianity to him with the doctrine of divine simplicity attached
The atheist wasn't philosophically sophisticated and learned a vast amount from the Christian's intricate explanation.
Only here is the thing.
Upon understanding what was meant the atheist declared victory on the bases that atheism is the position that "No Gods exist, Gods being personal beings in a univocal sense"
Upon reflection im having a hard time blaming the man for saying thinking this.
It seems your average person would say the greeks are polytheists, but if they believed in Zeus alone they would be monotheists.
It seems then that atheism wouldn't be concerned with a God who was only a person in a analogical/equivocal sense.
Even if we added more criteria like "Gods are disembodied minds" it seems what atheism is addressing are essentially really powerful ghosts.
Ghosts being things that only qualify as ghosts in virtue of possessing the qualities of not having fleshly bodies and being persons in a univocal sense.
Never the less clearly our agenda is hostile to the social policy of atheists, so they still oppose us.
However it seems on a purely theoretical grounds it seems atheism doesn't comment on God in divine simplicity.
Just like how abatism "bats do not exist"(flying rats) isn't concerned with "bats" (sports equipment)
Its not clear what the christian's next move should have been.
What should he have done next?
So I heard a atheist debate a one of us.
The Christian representative presented Christianity to him with the doctrine of divine simplicity attached
The atheist wasn't philosophically sophisticated and learned a vast amount from the Christian's intricate explanation.
Only here is the thing.
Upon understanding what was meant the atheist declared victory on the bases that atheism is the position that "No Gods exist, Gods being personal beings in a univocal sense"
Upon reflection im having a hard time blaming the man for saying thinking this.
It seems your average person would say the greeks are polytheists, but if they believed in Zeus alone they would be monotheists.
It seems then that atheism wouldn't be concerned with a God who was only a person in a analogical/equivocal sense.
Even if we added more criteria like "Gods are disembodied minds" it seems what atheism is addressing are essentially really powerful ghosts.
Ghosts being things that only qualify as ghosts in virtue of possessing the qualities of not having fleshly bodies and being persons in a univocal sense.
Never the less clearly our agenda is hostile to the social policy of atheists, so they still oppose us.
However it seems on a purely theoretical grounds it seems atheism doesn't comment on God in divine simplicity.
Just like how abatism "bats do not exist"(flying rats) isn't concerned with "bats" (sports equipment)
Its not clear what the christian's next move should have been.
What should he have done next?