Response to miserlyoldman @134

Posted by:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/reasonabledoubts/2014/01/18/rd-extra-debate-is-belief-in-god-irrational-chris-hallquist-vs-randal-rauser/#comment-13538

I feel that I already addressed this. I made the point that some debates are not worth having so the fact that both parties agreed to the debate doesn’t make it any more worth having.

Also, take a look at the Wikipedia article on Omipotence. It describes some of the ways the omni-words have been defined. The two sides in the debate never explained which definition they were using.

2

Comments

  1. jonP  February 1, 2014

    “I feel that I already addressed this. I made the point that some debates are not worth having so the fact that both parties agreed to the debate doesn’t make it any more worth having.”

    To be fair, miserlyoldman is technically correct, that agreement on the definition of god was one of the only things they actually agreed on. This was a huge mistake for Randal, because he was backed into the argument of suffering. Randal’s solution was god only needs “sufficiently moral reasons” to not prevent suffering. This reduces god’s potency, because he must allow some innocents to suffer for the Ultimate Greater Good.

    Regarding the omni assumptions, one solution is to redefine omni until it’s slightly less than omni, e.g. god can’t be self-contradictory.

    Omni-everything god is highly logically contradictory. At least one assumption must be contradicted. Every possible solution to this problem creates a new, equally probable description for god. The next task would be to find the set of every possible god, and find all that do not contradict our actual observations (the only things we can be even a little certain really exist).

    But as you had pointed out, they were not intending to debate the validity of god beliefs, but only if believing in god was irrational. The existence of god is not the same as the rationality of belief. I think we already agreed on this, though.

    reply
    • Unapologetics  February 2, 2014

      To be fair, that still wasn’t my point. I never argued that they did not agree on a definition of god.

      reply

Add a Comment