dilemma
The concept of "God" is ill-defined, and many examples, such as the euthyphro dilimena, demonstrate the inconsistency of theism. "Can God make a rock so big that he could not lift it?" While Craig can answer all of these, it is because theism is so ill-defined, and hence, a concept that could not, in principle, ever be falsified. It's like allowing division by zero in mathematics, 2 = 1 becomes a true statement, which means that any number can equal any other number, and as one mathematician demonstrated, one could "prove" that Winston Churchill is a carrot.
(June 14, 2017 at 10:04 am)bennyboy Wrote:(June 14, 2017 at 9:18 am)Jehanne Wrote: It is really, really hard to discriminate between things that are invisible for which we have no empirical evidence and "things" that simply do not exist.
If something has an intrinsic property, it is not dependent on discrimination or evidence, pretty much by definition. To say the God idea is intrinsically untrue, you'd have to demonstrate that the God idea is fundamentally illogical, not just lacking evidence.
Now, that doesn't mean the God idea is correct; and certainly as an atheist I'm not surprised you're taking this position. It will be WLC's burden to impress you enough with his brilliant logic that you'll start to seriously reconsider the issue. But we know that's very unlikely to happen.
The concept of "God" is ill-defined, and many examples, such as the euthyphro dilimena, demonstrate the inconsistency of theism. "Can God make a rock so big that he could not lift it?" While Craig can answer all of these, it is because theism is so ill-defined, and hence, a concept that could not, in principle, ever be falsified. It's like allowing division by zero in mathematics, 2 = 1 becomes a true statement, which means that any number can equal any other number, and as one mathematician demonstrated, one could "prove" that Winston Churchill is a carrot.
