I can argue that all the positions are off base.
Atheism: It's not a specific enough position. Do you mean that only material stuff exists? If so, then you are a materialist and we have no need for the atheist title. If you are a non-materialist and still an atheist, then how do you know...
I don't think this is the most effective way to approach ontology. I think a more effective way is to first ask the implications of the possibilities that you can conceive of, and then try and deduce the limitations of that approach, etc. I agree that a material universe is a first option since...
Well, the problem here is that you are reasoning based on "what we know not". Every so often someone comes along with a 'scientific theory' that they say predicts all the equations of physics, and therefore is the 'right' theory (and they are usually not the humble types in their proclamation)...
Yes, I agree, only statements can have truth value. But, to clarify, I'm saying that certain modal statements actually 'exist' and those modal statements are evaluated for their truth or falsity. For example, axioms of mathematics might actually exist, and those modal statements are evaluated...
You have a 3+1 dimensional object, you are saying that its existence has nothing to do with whether it was caused or not? Is this structure not your primitive? If so, then it is uncaused. If it is not your primitive, then what is your primitive?
By the way, causation and time are not as...
Maybe forgotten, but not without having set the stage for those who were to follow. Galileo was not born in a vacuum, afterall
I think the key issue here is that medieval post-Aristotelian philosophy led to the emergence of natural philosophy as a separate branch of philosophy. Whether they...
If truth exists, then as I said, truth implies comprehension. That is, X=Y is true if and only if X obtains, and Y obtains, and they obtain in the same context, etc, etc. Now, if there is no Mind that comprehends X=Y, etc, then how can there be an ontological truth to this effect? There cannot...
Science, or natural philosophy, grew out of metaphysics (from Aristotle). To suggest that it was a coincidence that science was taught within the context of philosophy is not accurate at all. It was the philosophical thought which drove 13th century European philosophers to depart from...
You can take the maths (and internets too), but you are confusing epistemology with ontology. As far as the complete mess of the human brain, it's all we have to reason about the world, and the beginning of that reasoning process is philosophy, not science. It's no coincidence that philosophy...
I should say, a materialist view of the universe is by definition causeless since material things exist without there being an explanation for a material universe.
Okay, let's view our universe as 3+1 dimensional object. The 3+1 dimensional object exists without cause. Each event in that 3+1...
No, this is incorrect. Religionists for the most part do not think they are engaging in science with their advocating the necessity of God. Science is, strictly speaking, a methodological approach to providing knowledge about the world that is pragmatically successful in manipulating and...
How do I know? It's really pretty straightforward reasoning. If there is such a thing as 'truth' existing, then such a thing requires for intelligence to exist, and therefore God is not a mere invention. On the other hand, if there is no 'truth' that exists, then that in itself is a 'truth'...
Free will is the ability to decide freely, without captivity to environment, education, genetics, etc. In that sense, God has free will. There is no environment, education, genetics, etc, that determine God's mind.
On the other hand, intelligence and consciousness are attributes of God, and...