Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.
The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not
wrong, i agreed that it is rational to beleive that the loch ness monster does not exist if no evidence is presented to
me but it is still a beleif, still a matter of faith like most things in life, it is just a rational kind of faith. Some athiests do not know whether there is a god or not, they are the rational ones because its true, there is no real proof of god. Athesits however who think they
know there is no god are not rational, i class this as beleif and as such its a matter of faith
In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.
No God does indeed have the freedom to do whatever the hell he wants, but for atleast our existance he chooses not to, having the ability and not using it is very different to having the ability and using it, the term "freedom" here is very odd because God is free to do what he wants, but he chooses not to make circles squares so is this a lack of freedom? i dont think so, if he wanted to remove that constraint he could and as such if he really wanted to make circles squares he could.
That is why rational discourse about god is possible
You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.
The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.
Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!
cool iam internally consistent however i hold views others would find strange
