The other thing is that Bob's game is trivially easy to play in reverse, if he wants to prattle on this faith idea. According to his argument if you just define something as outside the universe and not subject to physical laws, you are absolved from ever having to demonstrate it, and you are justified in holding it just 'cause. So just make something up, and assign it the properties that he assigns to god.
What's he gonna do? Argue that those attributes aren't convincing? Well, then the same thing applies to his god, and his argument is done; the difference is that we know the thing we're proposing is just made up. If he can't formulate an argument against those properties applied to anything, then that should be sufficiently instructive as to just how useless those properties are, and his argument is done.
Ideally, he would produce an argument for why those attributes don't work when applied to anything but god, but the very nature of the attributes themselves prevent him from making the declarative statements that would accomplish that; after all, his whole position stems from the idea that his central claim resists testing and doesn't operate under sensible rules.
Effectively, his argumentation allows for any claim to be "verified" by the terms of logic he set down, and there's nothing he can do to rebut that. it's what makes it a useless argument overall.
What's he gonna do? Argue that those attributes aren't convincing? Well, then the same thing applies to his god, and his argument is done; the difference is that we know the thing we're proposing is just made up. If he can't formulate an argument against those properties applied to anything, then that should be sufficiently instructive as to just how useless those properties are, and his argument is done.
Ideally, he would produce an argument for why those attributes don't work when applied to anything but god, but the very nature of the attributes themselves prevent him from making the declarative statements that would accomplish that; after all, his whole position stems from the idea that his central claim resists testing and doesn't operate under sensible rules.
Effectively, his argumentation allows for any claim to be "verified" by the terms of logic he set down, and there's nothing he can do to rebut that. it's what makes it a useless argument overall.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
