(July 10, 2012 at 9:49 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Well, I think that is probably workable, but you then need to construct an argument to proove why the Christian God cannot exist, but why bother asserting that something doesn't exist when rejecting the claim is good enough? The Christian God isn't so well defined that you could construct an argument against it. Within the religion there is much debate even about the triune nature of God, as well as whether it wants us to be baptized. Why bother arguing against such a noodly concept?
I agree with what you say but I think to get taken seriously when one says 'I reject the claim' one has to give at least one reason. This is obvious because without any reason then the rejection of a claim seems arbitrary and arguably irrational. Therefore, it's inevitable that the reason(s) will be of a nature that in someway make a statement about something to do with the given definition of a god. In other words, the tedious job of having to debate your point has to follow for you to justify your point, hence why such a forum as this exists.
In light of all this (and given I haven't made any logical mistakes) the only position I see reasonable to take is that god X with characteristics Y cannot exist because of reasons Z. In a nutshell, if people claim holy book A is a 'fairytale' then show some reasoning to back that up therefore disproving the relative god.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
