No, Hollie, you obtuse, dissembling knucklehead, as it has been explained to you over and over again, the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics immediately go to the ontological necessity of eternalism and sufficient causation, the foundational apprehension for both science and the divinity of classical theism, as opposed to those of polytheistic and pantheistic paganism, all of which entail an absurdity, namely, an infinite regress of causation. The latter are all created, material and, therefore, contingent beings. The atheist's account of origins, such as it is, is essentially that of the pagans. LOL!
They are not competitors. They're not even in the same ballpark.
The question as to which of the traditions of classical theism, if any, are true is an entirely different matter.
Actually, there are indeed, no first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics which support magic and supernaturalism. Indeed, nothing in any of the sciences addresses supernaturalism. My apprehension in addressing your appeals to magic and supernaturalism is that you have a rather stunted ability to separate reason and rationality from your worldview of fear, paranoia and superstition. Although your "faith" in magic and supernaturalism is certainly not a child's tale, since it is held by many adults, has been fabricated by adults, and is utilized by adults to justify adult behavior of the most serious consequence.
I also only label it as "magical" when you actually do appeal to magic as the answer to otherwise reasonable questions.
So... rather than considering your faith a magical child's tale, I consider it a very adult rank. The hyper-religious are profoundly superstitious people. But we (for some inexplicable reasons) call your preferred superstitions "religions" and assign them a certain deference that it is not clear they deserve.
False! Christianity asserts no such stupid thing. Accordingly, God is both apprehendable and knowable. He simply cannot be entirely comprehendible by finite minds. How could a finite mind possibly transcend a mind of omniscience?
Well now, that is interesting. You are claiming that the gods not being comprehendible by finite minds would imply that
infinite minds can comprehend the gods. As we are told that the only the gods possess the
infinite attribute, we are left to presume then that only the
infinite minds of the gods can comprehend the infinite minds of the gods
. As is the case with most religionists, you have taken that typical slippery slope and assigned a list of attributes to your gods and then stumble over your own attempts to make such a ridiculous argument.
What’s mysterious is the propensity of religionists to assign human attributes to an entity they claim is ultimately incomprehensible. Theists are the ones assigning human attributes to these god(s). It's a limit on his
nature. Think about it. He exists as a god of love and mercy because you shove him into a human timeline and a human paradigm. You’re making him angry and emotive. Who's basing their conception of god on his/her own philosophical presuppositions? The
non-theist? Are you sure?
Once again, you goof, humans do not assign these attributes to God. The ramifications of logic, namely, in this instance, the necessities of eternalism and sufficient causation, tell us that God necessarily has these attributes. We don't even need any special form of revelation beyond the inculcation of God's logic to know this is true.
Further, saying that God is infinite and that his attributes entail "a host of omni's" is redundant. God is not an actual infinite. Actual infinities cannot and do not exist. In theology, when we say that God is infinite, we are talking about his incomparable excellence. We mean that he is absolutely perfect in terms of quality, not quantity. God is perfectly good, indeed, God is goodness itself. He is also omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent; that is to say, he is perfect in all ways. He knows all things that are possible, he can do all things that are possible, and interdimensionally encompasses all things that exist.
It's curious that you claim humans do not assign attributes to your Gods. Who has? Where do the attributes come from? If the gods have assigned attributes to themselves, can you identify how that happened? As it is quite clear from any objective reading of the Bibles, , they are at many times conflicting, self-refuting, internally inconsistent and contradictory. Those are hardly attributes associated with omni-everything gods.. If one takes the time to understand their Bible'ology, one will quickly realize that the gods are a convenience, usually for politically motivated reasons. In ancient times to the present, it is quite simple to whip up a populace into agreeing with a specific idea if you can convince that populace that there is an unseen being that is resolutely on their side. This is an extension of our tribal instincts, wherein we place the mantle of superiority upon a person or persons, providing they can deliver the things we have convinced ourselves we want.
Yes, the all-knowing, all-seeing gods span time, space, and dimensions.... because you say so, Super.
So, let's look at this from another perspective. When you say you believe in gods that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that have attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who live in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and are uncreated themselves and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain they exist.
Super.
