Originally posted by DeepThoughtNo, it is not resolved because the argument also has as a premise that God is good, and that being good requires certain actions ie it must.
I think the point is resolved by the notion that just because I can do something doesn't mean I must do it - I don't think this changes when the subject is omnipotent.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe point I was resolving was the one about God being in control. God can be omnipotent, but choose to take a laissez faire approach to the universe. I wasn't commenting on the God is Good premise.
No, it is not resolved because the argument also has as a premise that God is good, and that being good requires certain actions ie it must.
Besides, you have yet to demonstrate that the greater good comes from intervention.
-Removed-It is only flawed if you incorrectly assume that its conclusion applies to your conception of God. Your claim that it is flawed is equivalent to saying: LemonJellos argument from evil fails to prove the non-existence of elephants. What a piss poor argument for the non-existence of elephants it is. The argument is flawed because it doesn't take into account the possibility that elephants have tusks.
-Removed-But it IS relevant what god people actually believe in. It's central to the whole issue!
No productive debate about an argument involving 'god' can occur unless both sides use the same meaning for 'god'.
Do you really think that one argument can be made to work against many different god-concepts? If so, of course you'll be disappointed.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemIt is irrational to believe in any proposition for which there is insufficient evidence.
But it IS relevant what god people actually believe in. It's central to the whole issue!
No productive debate about an argument involving 'god' can occur unless both sides use the same meaning for 'god'.
Do you really think that one argument can be made to work against many different god-concepts? If so, of course you'll be disappointed.
There is insufficient evidence to justify belief in any reasonable god concept**.
It is thus irrational to believe in god/s.
There, I just made an argument against believing in any god. 😉 😛
**By 'reasonable god concept' I am not accepting 'the Sun' as a big ball of burning
plasma [as opposed to an anthropomorphised being] as a 'god'. Similarly I am not
accepting 'The Universe' as it is described by physics as being a 'god'. Also all attempts to
label my toothbrush to be a deity will also be rejected. In short I am accepting only god
concepts which propose something other [and sentient] from the ordinary everyday universe
around us. It should be noted that I have not yet met an actual believer whose god would
fail this test.
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou've already identified the problem with your own position. No matter what universal no-god argument you may make, they can get out of it if they change the definition of 'god'.
It is irrational to believe in any proposition for which there is insufficient evidence.
There is insufficient evidence to justify belief in any reasonable god concept**.
It is thus irrational to believe in god/s.
There, I just made an argument against believing in any god. 😉 😛
**By 'reasonable god concept' I am not accepting 'the ...[text shortened]... should be noted that I have not yet met an actual believer whose god would
fail this test.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemYes, you are correct that it is fundamentally impossible to prove the non-existence of an undefined entity.
You've already identified the problem with your own position. No matter what universal no-god argument you may make, they can get out of it if they change the definition of 'god'.
But I think he has met your challenge in finding a single argument that works against many different god-concept - just not every possible god concept.