BradCube
Active Member
No prob, I can empathize with your the dilemmaSure, that's fine. I don't really need any more than that to point out the logical flaws, but now that we've established our rules, my opening point on this will have to wait until a bit later tonight, for I'm short on time.
I'll wait till after we work through any prima facie logical flaws of the conception of God I defined but after that would you be keen to discuss some arguments from natural theology? I find that natural theology gives me good enough grounds to lean the probability in favour of God's existence. Not a proof (seeing as technically this doesn't exist outside of maths), but evidence nevertheless.I find that there is no good reason to believe God is behind something when a perfectly natural explanation exists, with self-contained logic that does not require an outside force.
It depends on which definition of atheism you are using. Often people on internet forums will deny that atheism is different from agnosticism usually on the grounds that they view it as a sort of a-theism - the lack of theistic belief. You seem to be happy to affirm something more akin to what Dawkins or Hitchens propose - that God does not exist.As for the atheism vs. agnosticism, I believe there is no difference. Agnosticism is usually stressed by theists as a middle ground in order to make atheism seem more irrational, however there is nothing irrational about atheism.
Yeah, I don't really buy this sort of reasoning. For the majority of cases you're simply proposing different conceptions of God (with the noted exception of unicorns). So yes, I deny that these conceptions correspond with reality but not without reason. Again, this will come back to arguments based largely in natural theology.Do you say Zeus does not exist? Or Thor? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Or Unicorns? There is as much evidence for all these entities as God; yet you deny their existence (presumably).
You've constructed a bit of a straw man for me there. I've never said that rationality for belief in the Christian conception of God is tied up in the number of people who believe in His existence.Why does it suddenly become irrational to deny the existence of the Christian God simply because more people believe he exists now? It does not.
Sure, it makes sense. I just hope you realize that you too are making a positive claim to knowledge. I actively deny the existence of Thor and so I assume you too also deny that God exists on the whole.So I shall clarify, I am atheistic about God in the same way you are atheistic about Thor.
Does that make sense?
Last edited: