RE: Belief
November 26, 2010 at 6:14 am
(This post was last modified: November 26, 2010 at 6:16 am by Captain Scarlet.)
(November 25, 2010 at 6:16 pm)theVOID Wrote:I am not convinced that your refutation would work around the vacuum. In and of itself it is largely physical given the quantum fluctuations and the birth and death of particle pairs. I don't understand what it means to be non-physical and therefore, to me, everything in reality is subject to Hilberts thought experiment.(November 25, 2010 at 5:31 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: I must admit I would in some ways hate there to be a definitive proof of gods non-existence as it would rather limit the fun of such debates. What about:
1. If god exists then he is infinite (from necessity)
2. There are no actual infinites (from Hilberts hotel)
3. Therefore god does not exist
This would be a good argument against Craig's KCA because he uses the Hilbert's Hotel for the notion that there are no actual infinitesI'm sure Craig's God is omni too...
I don't really agree with 2 perhaps it is true that there are no "physical" infinites, but the Vacuum is likely infinite, however the argument is a good refutation. but as a refutation it works.
I agree that this works better as a refutation. The most obvious moves for the theist rejoinder would be to resort to special pleading for gods abilities or to beg the question by refuting 2 using god as an example, putting god to the heart of what it is you're trying to disprove. But I think it is a real problem for the omni god of the Kalam, there are of course many, many others.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.