(September 25, 2012 at 7:23 pm)Dranu Wrote:(September 24, 2012 at 3:15 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Particularly with regards to issues related to your claim that non-contradiction implies neccessarily possibility. I do not displute that claim.My problem with it is that "god" is so ill-defined in your argument to render the possiblility of finding contradiction meaningless. However, as the claim of necessary possibility is not currently under dispute, I see no need to belabor the point until the claimed properties of the entitiy are established.So you do admit that the thing designated by my definition is necessarily possible, just that you don't think I have connected to 'God' in the more colloquial sense, correct? Just trying to understand before proceeding.
I think he is basically saying that you can arbitrarily define god as anything, so you can't disprove it. If you arbitrarily declare "my god is necessarily possible" we can't dispute that god has just been redefined as necessarily possible, but, we have no reason to trust that definition.
John Adams Wrote:The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
