Mmm. I'm sure Hatcher would argue yes. I'm not, currently, outright thinking of any stipulations that require the existence of intelligence, though there could conceivably be an implicit one.
(Sorry, but I'm feeling contrary tonight.)
But how, then, is this proof of use to theists? What if there is a God but He doesn't give a damn about human or other intelligent life? What if He is only interested in some pond scum on some planet a million light-years from Earth? What if all He cares about is arranging the stars into pretty patterns? (Which
are
cool, by the way.)
I'll check with her tomorrow, she's pretty buggered by the snot monster tonight.
Tonight I made my homemade ginger pasta with lemony ginger "stir fry". I normally use scallops and shrimp, but the boy doesn't like seafood so I did chicken. Still tasty. Used white whole wheat flour rather than all-purpose, which really seemed to diminish the ginger taste. But there was enough in the veggies to compensate. Was really tasty. Mmmm. I haven't made that in ages. I forgot how good it was. Every now and then I really enjoy the pasta making process, as well as creative meals without recipes.
This was a good weekend. Went hiking and visited a forge historic site yesterday, went for a bike ride today, and hopefully Bodyworlds tomorrow.
Bodyworlds is proof of a loving god. I mean, come on.
I've never been to Bodyworlds. I don't even know what it is.
Pro'lly why I'm an atheist, huh?
Do you mean the exhibit we went to, ita?
But how, then, is this proof of use to theists? What if there is a God but He doesn't give a damn about human or other intelligent life? What if He is only interested in some pond scum on some planet a million light-years from Earth? What if all He cares about is arranging the stars into pretty patterns? (Which are cool, by the way.)
This isn't a theistic argument, at all. I mean it is, in the sense that "theistic" is the opposite of "atheistic" but it makes no specific argument for any specific theology. The God proven within is eternal, unique, and a Creator. That's it. Clockwork God perfectly acceptable. His ethics theories, which he doesn't go into much in this book, go further, but the proof itself is very much a God that could care only about pond scum. Or might not care about anything at all. Human qualities not required.
I meant, how is this argument a comfort to those theists who wish there to be a proof of God's existence? Are they thinking, "OK, now we're halfway there to what we want, which is proof of a God who is concerned about our fate and intervenes on our behalf."?
Also, does his proof rule out the possibility of polytheism? Or of a non-perfect God?
Polytheism, yes. Perfection is a human term, so it depends on how you define it. The God is defined as a "universal cause", the only "self-caused" entity in reality, and it must be unique for various well-formed logical reasons that seriously need more background than I can go into.
And nobody ever said it was a comfort for theists. It's a philosophical exercise, no more. I suppose it can be "comforting" in the sense that, if considered valid, it works as an argument against avowed atheists, but there's lots of nonbelievers out there that aren't atheists, but I don't think that's in any way the intention of the book - it reads as pure philosophy. And as someone who's read a lot, it works a good bit better than most arguments for God's existence that I've seen in other philosophical works.
