I just came to the suspicion that guys like Krauss and now Hawking are into flippancy: the one with his insistence that something can come from nothing, and the other waxes more eloquent with his declaration that since there is a law of gravity the universe can create itself without God.
First you accuse atheists of being "into verbosity in aid of vain pomposity and/or obfuscation by vain verbosity", and now you accuse of flippancy?
Now, I have to resist replying to your ideas because it would be to engage also in flippancy.
Or you simply have no rebuttal to make? And instead just wish to turn your wheel, and reset your questioning when it suits you?
When Copleston and Russell were into their historic debate on God and morality and evil, both of them were serious as to start with the mutual information on the concept of God, but then toward the end of part 1 on the existence of God, Bertrand lapsed into flippancy by declaring that he does not accept the concept of necessary beings; and Copleston ever the gentleman and religious person to boot, generously conceded to him the permission to discontinue further on the existence of God, since Bertrand does not accept necessary beings -- not accepting the concept of necessary beings, that is an instance of flippancy in intellectual matters.
Are you serious??
First, have you actually listened to that debate, or even read a transcript? You claim that Russell declares "he does not accept the concept of necessary beings" and does so toward the end of their discussion in the existence of God?
In reality (and that is where we like to base ourselves, Pachomius) They agreed on the working definition of God (for purposes of debate) and then agreed Copleston would start with his metaphysical argument.
It was after his
opening comments and explanation that Russell did not declare that he does not accept the concept of necessary beings, but that he felt of the word "necessary":
"The word 'necessary' I should maintain, can only be applied significantly to propositions. And, in fact, only to such are as analytic - that is to say - such as it is self-contradictory to deny."
This was part of his initial reply on the matter, certainly not "toward the end".
So please stop misrepresenting the truth of the matter merely to forward your agenda of poisoning the well against the atheist position.
Furthermore, Russell did not simply dismiss the concept as you claim, but argued quite rationally (as did Copleston) as to why he could not accept the use of term "necessary" as Copleston wished to apply it.
There was no flippancy, nothing but well argued, justified, debate from the two.
And ultimately, on this section of their debate, they both realised that it was pointless to continue as they agreed that Russell's reasoned position was that
"it's illegitimate even to ask the question of the cause of the world". But his position was not one of flippancy but of valid reasoning. Copleston had different reasoning, but it was a mutually achieved and recognised impasse.
But perhaps you could point out the flippancy in his remarks? Explain to us all where his flippancy lay?
Otherwise perhaps you could stop misrepresenting things, take off your blinkered glasses, and actually try to have a discussion? You've been posting for some 210 posts on this site, so you should by now be capable of such, even if your previous posts indicate otherwise.
So, oh atheists, will you be above flippancy, and tell me what is our concept of God?
As has been answered already, not just by spidergoat recently but by others (myself included, if I recall), while we have no concept of our own, we are happy to work with the one you put forth.
This is, after all, your attempt to prove the existence of God, so you must put forth
your concept that
you are trying to prove exists. It is for us to peer review your argument. We need necessarily have no concept of God ourselves in order to see if you can prove the existence of what you claim.
This is what Russell did: peer-reviewed Copleston's argument. Perhaps you think that accepting a concept of god for purposes of debate is to accept the truth of the existence of that God?
Russell accepted Copleston's concept, but in trying to prove the existence of that concept he had to claim necessity, and that is where Russell, still in keeping with the original concept of God agreed upon, could not agree.
So get on with it.
No more evasion, avoidance, misrepresentations or drivel.
- source of quotes:
www.biblicalcatholic/apologetics/p20.htm[/I]