(November 3, 2021 at 2:33 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Kloro, it's just your silly god, do you understand?
Because you insist that your god is the grand nudger, you think that something about causality must be central to gods and demonstrating them...but if it turned out that there were gods, and they weren't grand nudgers..as the vast majority of gods ever invented by people anywhere at any time, it wouldn't be an issue.
Fundamentally, it can't be an issue for any existent god however the causality cookie crumbles - because either way...if a god exists, it exists concurrently with whatever facts about causality are true - even if the true fact turns out to be that causality isn't.
I already said I agree with what's above. I assume you're aware that you are repeating a tautology -that arguments don't change reality. Sure, nothing about any principle's validity will introduce a deity into existence. But here we're only discussing whether there is a conclusive argument. We can't do better than that....
(November 3, 2021 at 2:33 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Your theodicies aren't compelling to me, but they are an implicit admission that the world does indeed look the way the objection contends. That this alleged gods alleged acts do look pretty bad for god, even from the point of view of the apologist.
The same way you think the appearance of design isn't compelling, I think the appearance of "pretty bad acts" isn't compelling either....