The atheist-existentialist argument for the non-existence of God, if God is supposed to be a perfect sentient being: As presented by Jean-Paul Sartre in Being and Nothingness, it states that since existence precedes essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that a sentient being cannot be complete or perfect. Sartre's phrasing is that God would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a consciousness] who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a thing]: which is a contradiction in terms.
_()_|||You tell me|||The claim or the proof?
If the claim - no.
If the proof - I don't know what it is, but more than likely, no, it's also not valid.|||No Sir.|||I guess I'm not thinking what piece you're referring to? Maybe the defense of existentialism?
Because, really, I always failed to see how non-knowledge of a god as a prerequisite for absolute freedom was any different from there being no god.
Of course, I've never been a part of that whole monotheist atheist thing where proof or not of a specific deity meant anything. We could all be the dreams of a cockroach and it would not change our reality.|||Had to look him up. Now, this may seem like a trite philosophical discourse, with little practical value. It should be noted, however, that the philosophy of Sartre has provided the basis for much of the postmodern nonsense that we see today, which is not limited to, but certainly includes, the Emerging Church. Looks like either you believe him or you don't.
http://unavoxveritatis.blogspot.com/2007鈥?/a>|||not sure. Don't know who he is. Don't know what he did. And I say God is still here.|||By his "claim" alone, no. That there is logical discussion which talks about the non-existence of an omnipotent being has gone on for many more years than I can imagine... one such being was the Buddha.
_()_|||Poor guy is on an island of delusion.
His evidence is dogmatic, but he claimed it anyway.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment