"I can prove the god of theism doesn't exist. I and others have done so
many times in this forum. If somebody means something else by god then
let's discuss that too."
I was just now looking through your thread
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/269000/pastor-my-old-church-tried-re-convert-me-yesterdayAnd I'd say you do a thoroughly good job of dismantling the notion of any god existing who has omni attributes and is supposed to give even the faintest glimmer of a fuq about mankind. I don't actually believe I've seen someone break down the epicurean problem quite so mercilessly before. We seeminly have zero conflict of opinion there.
(The christian kerfuffle is hilarious, I'll be going back to continue reading the lulz)
"As soon as the person posing the question carefully defines what they
mean by "god" we can prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it does not
exist."
This is untrue though.
All you can do in regards to a claim of a god who is either absent or unknowing - is dismiss and scorn. Understandable, but not the proof you offer. [Though I guess the argument would then rest upon what you consider to be proof "beyond all reasonable doubt"]
I don't believe you to be ironmanning, but it kinda looks like it.
I don't think it's intentional, or I'd have said so, but it is what prompted my comment.
I would agree that it is pointless and meaningless to discuss or debate this silent god... However, it would not ipso facto make the god itself pointless or meaningless, just outside of our understanding. Which, after all, one might readily expect from something inhuman.
For this to render the god itself "pointless" or "meaningless" implies an expectation that the god behave a certain way. An expectation with no basis in regards to any god outside of the theology you refer to.
It seems like a dismissal upon the basis that the god doesn't meet a theological standard you have already established as flawed.
If we (rightly) dismiss gods within that theology because of its holes - but also dismiss any idea of a god who fails to meet the standard that same theology sets (because they are absent from, or silent to, mankind).
We have ourselves in a position where we would dismiss the proposal of a true god, even if such a thing were (or could be) offered.
The claim that a god can not be disproved is very often smug, but not in the least bit vacuous.
"I have no idea what point you are trying to make."
Hope I cleared that up for ya.
