#43 by pelfdaddy » Jul 28, 2015 10:54 pm
So it goes kinda like this...
First, apologists throw into the ring a fairly easy-to-understand, relatively standard model of what anyone would call "God".
Skeptics demonstrate that this definition entails certain things, but that our universe reflects anything but these things that we should clearly expect.
Second, apologists assert without grounds that our universe most certainly reflects that which is expected, because the skeptic's definition of God lacks sophistication and nuance.
Skeptics respond that the apologetic tendency to re-define God is merely an escape tactic, and that the evolving definition leads to numerous contradictions with the standard model in which people actually believe.
Absurdities are noticed.
Third, apologists complain that a sneer is not an argument, that skeptics lack understanding of theology, and that "atheists are arrogant".
Conclusion: Someone is reading from a script. I wonder who...