Evolution? How?

If science is limiting, religion is open to all manners of human imagination.
I'd rather believe in science with its limits.

Hi Neo,

If you remember, in order for me to demonstrate the validity of the proposition that all types of God have equal merit, I would have to prove God exists.

Thus spake Chum: if there is a god of any sort, the Rational Theist is guaranteed to cover it, something that cannot be said for most (all?) theologies/religions.

Thus spake Chum: the validity of the proposition that all types of God have equal merit can only be expressed by saying that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Rational Theist is on firmer theological ground than all others.

It's irrational to expect an answer to the equal merit / necessity question, but it's not necessarily irrational to abide by the present state of general theological understanding (or lack thereof).

So I figure you would put love as you #1 axiom not humor, and you would be right, but I can't help the tongue in cheek stuff!

I don't believe you would have to prove God exists to see the qualitative and quantitative difference between an all powerful God and one bound by necessity. They are different by definition.

neologist wrote:

I don't believe you would have to prove God exists to see the qualitative and quantitative difference between an all powerful God and one bound by necessity. They are different by definition.

OK, but that is not what you challenged me with originally however, and I quote you: "But you were never able to demonstrate the validity of the proposition that all types of God have equal merit." Of which I have correctly responded (here and elsewhere): "If you remember, in order for me to demonstrate the validity of the proposition that all types of God have equal merit, I would have to prove God exists."
. . .

Because there is no evidence to suggest one version of god or god(s) is more likely to be true than another.

If all possibilities are similar or equal you have:

1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 etc = T

Where "1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc" ad infinitum are the permutation of god(s) and where "T" is the truth.

Remember however, that it's just as likely there is more than one answer for "T" such that:

1 = T
2 = T
3 = T

But all possibilities are not equal.

Look at it this way since you are a fan of monotheism:

Unproven assumption: some version of some god somewhere is the correct one and all others are false. This argument only has assumable merit under the precept of monotheism. Without the assumed precept of monotheism this dog doesn't just not hunt, this dog was never born.

Anywho......

If we then assume some version of some god somewhere is the correct one and all others are false, we need to do one of two things:

a) prove the one correct version as being right (which by default exempts us from b)

or

b) prove all the other incorrect versions as being wrong (which by default gives us a)

As you can see in both a) and b) the existence of god as proof is mandated, if that cannot be accomplished, we are back to my prior proof!

How can you do any better than prove the correct version to be right once you have defined it as being 'correct'? :wink:

OK, I'll go with 'a' if I am allowed to define the God as the one reputedly calling himself "He who causes to become." and "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be." This is the God who has no limitations.

However, it would be presumptuous of me to offer anything claiming to be definitive proof. The best I can do is offer articulate reasons for my belief.

Part of my job would be to show how traditional priesthoods have adulterated the truth in order to gain control over the masses. I've actually offered a few trial balloons in this direction, only to face stiff challenge from Setanta, Timber and Farmer, to name a few. Of course, I am right and they are wrong; but nevertheless I respect their opinions.