(August 3, 2012 at 8:56 am)Rhythm Wrote: No, no, crystal clear. I'm just wondering why they argue that. It's a fairly ridiculous statement (imo anyway). Are those using this argument perfectly okay with it being directed towards any god whatsoever? I mean, when I'm thinking of Wotan, I must be thinking of something that actually exists? Correct (as per the argument)? Wakan-tanka also. Ah, and Tom Navy too. It's a good thing that there's alot of room "up there" because the skies are filling up with gods rather quickly in my mind atm.
No, I think the argument is tailored specifically to "God" defined as "that which possesses all perfections." Whether or not a particular religion's deity is identical to this same "God" depends on the properties the deity has (as well as how you decide to distinguish between objects--for example, if you hold to the identity of indiscernibles, then in order to show that a particular deity is the same as "God" amounts to showing that every proposition that is true of one must be true of the other.)
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
