But we are made to believe that these are childish questions and some arguments like ontological argument etc are shoved in our faces.But why we abandon them so easily are they unanswerable or are we lazy?
Darwin clearly mentions that the beginning was simple and taking that to its logical conclusion, God must've been, necessarily, simple; in fact God has to be the simplest of all and ergo, requires no further explanation. — TheMadFool
That's also how I view my meta-physical, non-anthro-morphic G*D : as a unique singular Whole, not a vast collection of parts. Dawkins seems to be a reductionist trying to understand a holistic concept.
How does one understand the whole without understanding the parts? The very definition of a whole is that it's made up of parts. — TheMadFool
That is indeed the nature of Wholes in the real world. But my notion of the hypothetical super-natural creator of Reality (Nature) is just the reverse. My metaphysical G*D is not a thing, or a collection of things, but the eternal-infinite Potential that I call BEING (the power to exist). In that case, the inexhaustible power is never diminished by creating novel things (holons).
Of course, this imaginary Ideal entity is merely a theoretical device, intended to explain how and why our Real world is what it is. I have no scriptures or scientific evidence to support that philosophical hypothesis. Yet, I use it as an axiom for my Enformationism worldview.
Holon : simultaneously a whole and a part
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holon_(philosophy)
NOTE : Pace Koestler, In my custom-built scenario, the holons do not "add-up" to the "Holarch". Instead, they are saturated with BEING, and they are separate from the "Holarch" only in the eyes of limited space-time perceivers.
Above my paygrade, friend. Good luck
— TheMadFoolMIne too! But when has that ever stopped us from philosophizing?
