(August 22, 2010 at 6:59 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I agree with Adrian. Both points seems to address a false premise.@Frodo/Adrian. Please expand, I am happy to concede that I shhould have added predictability in. But I dont see what difference it makes to the overall argument?
Your refutation, if I understand it, is that god is unrestricted and we are, and from our standpoint the principle of ignorance is a showstopper, but not to god.
My rejoinder to that is that either the principle of ignorance is wrong or that god does not exist because he is either incompetent and/or not omiscient.
Trying to render otherwise leaves us in the realms of mysticism, pushes the concept of god to another different shape or is special pleading or some combination therein.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
