Until one is able to demonstrate that a God, the God, my God does in fact exist – and that it is therefore entirely rational to state this – how would we go about determining/demonstrating that He is perfect?
Whether what he argues is true or what you argue is false is still just a conflict between what you both believe “in your head” is true/false, based it seems [in the absence of an extant empirical God], on the manner in which you define the meaning of the words you use in the arguments themselves.
And isn’t that “arbitrary” in the absence of a God able to close the gap here between your words and our world once and for all?
He presents a logic argument which is not based on any observed evidence. - This means that the conclusion does not necessarily reflect reality. The stuff that Feynman said about physics theories applies to this argument.
And how is your assessment that his logic is flawed based on any observed evidence? Evidence that does in fact establish the most rational [or the only rational] manner in which to construe God?
And then we’ll have James interject here with his “definitional logic” pertaining to the Real God. The Real Christian God?
Alas, when you are reduced to this sort of “retort”, my respect for your intelligence does take a dent or two. After all, making me the argument doesn’t make my points go away.
We keep going round and round because you don’t have a reasonable concept of rationality. If you did, then we could move forward and make some sort of progress.
Yes, but it is one thing to discuss a “reasonable concept of rationality” in a world of words, and another thing altogether to discuss it in a world where the existence of a God, the God has been established such that we can compare the arguments about God with the real thing.
I have always been willing to commit myself to a definition of rationality based on observed evidence, logic and proven methods of reasoning.
Okay, we live in a world awash in natural disasters – great floods, earthquakes, super volcanoes, tornadoes, devastating droughts, viruses, epidemics, crashing asteroids, gamma ray bursts, CMEs, extinction events.
Now, if someone were to argue that “God is loving, just and merciful”, based on the your own “observed evidence, logic and proven methods of reasoning” would you say that this is a rational conclusion?
Except you can’t do that. You couldn’t do it for the “teaching Boris” scenario and you certainly can’t do in any thread where the word ‘god’ comes up.
Note to others:
Go to this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193464
Note that I had continued my exchange with Phyllo regarding Peggy and Boris. He is the one who abandoned it.