Search results for query: *

To take a quasi-Nietzchean view of the matter, a hypothetical supreme being would act out of necessity as it saw fit in pursuit of its end objective. These actions may occasionally overlap with human notions of 'good' and 'evil', but ultimately such a being would act as it deemed necessary in...

This always struck me as a very simplistic reason to reject the existence of a God. It's really only relevant to religions where the deity is believed to actively intervene in human affairs.

I'm actually glad that I took an interest in these sort of arguments and invested my time studying them a few years back. In an oblique, unintentional way they played a part in my arriving at a monist, panentheist cosmology.

I've encountered these quasi Aristotelian type arguments before. They failed to convince me of a first "uncaused cause" deistic type God, never mind a deity with particular attributes. But lets focus on the deistic aspect of the argument first. If it's possible for an uncaused cause to exist...

Are they intended to prove the existence of God in a deistic sense, or a specifically Christian Deity? And do they tackle the problem of infinite regression?