Originally posted by orfeoYes, it is interesting, and I'm willing to go with either (a) or (b). I just thought it was silly to get hung up on these word games.
Really this debate is stuck on (a) whether you require something to have ACTUAL power in order to be defined as a 'god', or (b) whether it simply has to be something that is ASCRIBED power by those who worship it.
I went with (b). Rwingett clearly wants to use (a). The debate isn't going to get very far unless we resolve this preliminary issue.
It's interesting, though, that it's the atheists who seem most keen on using (a).
If a god is a wonder bra, then yes, a god exists.
If a god is a toothbrush, then yes, a god exists.
If a god is a block of wood, then yes, a god exists.
If a god is a star, then yes, a god exists.
If a god is an omnipotent, omniscient, loving Creator who has made man to be the pinnacle of his creation and desires nothing more than to sit around for eternity in what must be unfathomably dull conversation with us and receive unending worship from us, then I really really really doubt a god exists.
Originally posted by KellyJayIf various educated people can look at the evidence and come to varied correct interpretations of reality based on that evidence then it isn't evidence of anything.
You need to know what to look for, what kind of finger print does
God leave? If you do not know, it could be right in front of you
every day, and you'd miss it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYes. You were claiming that the evidence of God is there I just have to open my eyes or some crap. For one it's funny that you should be telling anyone to open their eyes let alone me. For another my comment was in fact related to yours.
You did read my post?
Kelly
I see what you call evidence and find that it isn't evidence for God at all.
Originally posted by XanthosNZYes, assuming we have a coherant definition of what this god is, evidence both for and against it can be entered into the ledgers. All this evidence can lean us one way or the other, but it can never fully resolve the question.
I think a far more interesting question is "Can evidence of God's existence or lack of existence exist?".
Originally posted by rwingettThen you get to a variation of a question I have asked many times of the Intelligent Design people. "What possible state of the world would be incompatible with your god's existence?"
Yes, assuming we have a coherant definition of what this god is, evidence both for and against it can be entered into the ledgers. All this evidence can lean us one way or the other, but it can never fully resolve the question.
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionOf course, a great deal of the world's state is incompatible. Assuming we're going with the traditional 3 'O' god. Even though the majority of christians on this site are not bright enough to realise it, their theodicies are wholly inadequate. But while being of great use against a 3 'O' god, the problem of evil loses much of its punch if god is reconceptualized as having only 2 'O's. Pcaspian seems to have been one of the rare theists who actually understands the PoE and put forth an intriguing argument that god is not omnibenevolent.
Then you get to a variation of a question I have asked many times of the Intelligent Design people. "What possible state of the world would be incompatible with your god's existence?"
The only way to find proof if God exists or not is to kill yourself, God wouldnt want you to kill yourself, therefore if God exists He does not want you to know it, but have faith that he does. therefore why do believers debate it when God does not intend them to find proof?!?
Originally posted by rwingettI'm not even going with the problem of evil. In fact, I'm not identifying any particular inconsistency at all. I'm simply asking the theist if their specific god(s) could be incompatible with any hypothetical state of nature. Often times, they have to concede that the answer is "No." In such a case, their is no evidence for or against their god. Any state of the world would contain zero information about whether or not their god exists.
Of course, a great deal of the world's state is incompatible. Assuming we're going with the traditional 3 'O' god. Even though the majority of christians on this site are not bright enough to realise it, their theodicies are wholly inadequate. But while being of great use against a 3 'O' god, the problem of evil loses much of its punch if god is reconceptua ...[text shortened]... understands the PoE and put forth an intriguing argument that god is not omnibenevolent.
Originally posted by KellyJayi think your right about your language is your language if you call 5 v or 10 x its still the same value
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, isn't that the saying?
Your language is your language, and you may call a pencil an apple
and if everyone does too, it is an apple. It does not changes what
it is, only what we call it.
Kelly
Originally posted by telerionExcellent point.
I'm not even going with the problem of evil. In fact, I'm not identifying any particular inconsistency at all. I'm simply asking the theist if their specific god(s) could be incompatible with any hypothetical state of nature. Often times, they have to concede that the answer is "No." In such a case, their is no evidence for or against their god. Any state of the world would contain zero information about whether or not their god exists.