(December 22, 2015 at 6:06 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Inside a thread about general revelation, many atheists like Cato, blur the distinction so they can start riding their little hobby horses about ‘bible contradictions’ to distract people from the reasonableness of the general proofs.
You are having to mash together disparate considerations here in order to make a failed point. Contradictions are an appropriate way of demonstrating the absurdity of revelations. If what is revealed contradicts what is known to be true about the world, then either your god is ignorant, lying or doesn't exist.
A discussion of revelation and associated contradictions have absolutely nothing to do with what you call 'general proofs'. I have been quite clear regarding the validity of the proposed arguments, but have also pointed out the unverified premises making the argument unsound; therefore, I disagree with your conclusion that the general proofs are reasonable.
In addition, I have also stated that even if the arguments were to be sound there is no way one could get from there to the particular god described in any text. How then can you conclude that I blur the distinction? It seems you are the one doing the blurring. Forcing a distinction between god and God does not save your arguments.
Besides, the distinction you are attempting to make is disingenuous considering these arguments are proposed by Christian philosophers; these arguments aren't constructed with Zeus in mind. I have also only experienced followers of the God of Abraham employing them.
