u/Secret-Dish-7925

Stolen from Philosophy SE (sorry) but it is the exact question I was trying to ask.

In full it goes.

"What is the Theistic response for claiming something other than God is necessary?

In the Argument of Contingency and Leibnizian Cosmological Argument, it is said that there is two types of beings which are necessary and contingent. Some argue that some necessary state can be an alternative to god, so what are theistic responses to this? Why does God have to be necessary existance?"

Couldnt have said it better.

Biology and geology have never been my favorite subjects, so I haven't ever really formulated a stance yet.

But ever since that debate, to me at least a era of "the ark just GOT DEBUNKED" wave of click bait just kept coming.

I was wondering if anyone here had any opinions on the topic of "ark debunking".

I believe this is the right term, if not and I'm mistaken, then what I'm actually asking is "what is the criticism of infinite "prove it" (you need to prove x, but then prove y standards, then prove z standards (on and on) then I'll be convinced)

Epistemology is important.

Bottom text.

Joke aside, this has been such a fantastic experience that I think is as of now my strongest knowledge. However that knowledge was never learn via sources directly but more so picked up along the way.

Now I am asking for some sources because it would mean a lot if at anytime I could go to a source to not only learn epistemology, but how to actually use it in conversations

Post deleted so I'm trying again.

I was watching debate (if links are allowed, I shall link), and the young caller in his theism tried to make a contingency argument, saying God is a necessity

Here then, is the paraphrasing of the host response

"So if your saying why something rather than nothing, then can you see why that's bad because we can transport the question onto the god, asking why is there a god rather than no God"

The caller then objects via infinite regress, whilst this portion isn't what I really wish to focus on, I'll still paraphrase here just in case.

"I don't have a problem with infinite regress, I think you've been told there is a problem but there isn't a problem. Why isn't there a problem (asked the caller). Why is there? Because then you can never learn anything or gain (caller). Why? You take one point in finite point in time with another, no problem. We have no issue of heaven stretching infinity, it's less of a problem than you think, you can have time stretching infinity into the past, the math supports it".

He then wraps up, which is where my question now comes in.

"But even if we don't like that, I could just say I don't know why there's something rather than nothing, and neither does (caller), and to say a God answers that question still doesn't explain why there is a God rather than not a God, and to claim that God doesnt require a explanation then I can say the universe requires no explanation, if you make a exception for God, then your special pleading until it's equally considered."

Now I haven't really engaged in the idea of "universe doesn't need an explanation/always did exist " so this is where I faltered a bit, so now I'm wondering how responses are formulated against these claims.

(theology-discussion about naturalism)

Hey everyone, first time posting here. I got this reply a while back and haven't responded yet, however this person says things that I haven't really seen before so perhaps people here can analyze it.

Here is said reply, any portion that was my quotes I'll add (me) at the end.

What does God have to do with UFOs (me)

They are both indistiguishable from having been invented by humans. Its a point applicable to all supernatural claims. UFOs are , in effect, similar to a supernatural claim. One could substitute ghosts etc.

The point is that the belief in them is a product of human flaws not actual existence or reliable evidence.

Which only works if your the one defining what is pragmatic, (me)

Says the person using a computer and the Internet to communicate not prayer or telepathy.

evidential, and coherent. (Me)

These are intersubjective concepts. We have both a succesful evidential methodology and rational system encompassing them.

Also this isn't a post about discussing physical matters like germs. (Me)

Aren't germs .... part of naturalism then. lol

But once again you miss the point.

It is about germs vrs 'spells'.

You want to excuse a belief in spells, in magic. But supernatural explanations never turn out to be true when we actually gather reliable evidence.

If you dont like naturalism the burden is on you to prove the equivalent of 'spells'.

Not everyone accepts evidentialism. (Me)

Then please send me the money you owe me. But dont walk over that cliff you dont accept evidence for before paying me....

What you really mean is that they dont accept it when they want to believe something they havnt any reliable evidence for.

Of course you dont acceot evidentialisn (when its inconvienient) you just have no other way to credibly distinguish your imaginary phenomena from real ones. Just 'feels'.

Woah this is quite loaded. (Me)

If the shoe fits.

Now your speaking for everyone (me)

Did you miss the word else.

Also I asked for a critque of naturalism, not whatever this is (me)

Yes. Did you just want confirmation of your viewing? Perhaps comfort for emotional bias or irrational beliefs? Im pointing out that the concept is more a theist obsession than an atheist one. Like alternative medicine that worked would just be medicine , supernatural phenomena that had reliable evidence that they actually existed would be part of science etc.

The concept is simply a red herring. In effect supernatural just means ,'something I cant provide any reliable evidence actually exists or is ndistinguishable from imaginary but really, really want to exist'. Natural is, in practice, simply that which we actually do have some reliable evidence for.

As I said, experience tells me that those raising this concept of naturalism simply indulge in wishful thinking rather than providing credible evidence or providing any alternative reliable mechanism for distinguishing fact about independent reality from fiction. Because they cant evidentially demonstrate the existence of what is indistiguishable from fantasy, they attempt to undermine actually asking for evidence in the first place.

Is that what you are hoping to do?

When a child claims they have an invisible friend but obviously they cant expected show you ...because they are invisible. (For 'show' read provide any reliable evidence). Its not a very convincing claim