RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
April 14, 2016 at 8:02 pm
(This post was last modified: April 14, 2016 at 8:04 pm by Simon Moon.)
(April 14, 2016 at 2:47 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(April 14, 2016 at 9:14 am)RozKek Wrote: Do you phrase like that on purpose to fry people's brains?
Sorry about that. It was a bit awkward. The most basic definition of God comes from Anselm: God is that which the greater than which cannot be conceived. That definition effectively disarms inane comparisons between the Christian God and mythological creatures like fairies, etc.
When the Christian god is compared to mythological creatures, it is not done to compare the alleged attributes given to them.
It is done because both the Christian god and other mythological creatures all fit into the set of, "unsupported and unevidenced existential supernatural claims".
What you are trying to pass off as a defeater for the comparison is no different than unicorn believers arguing against someone who is comparing them, to say, fairies.
"Unicorns are that which have magic blood greater than which cannot be conceived".
I sure disarmed the comparison to fairies, didn't I?
So no, your Anselm quote does not disarm comparisons between the Christian god and other mythological creatures.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
