donathos said:
Sqrl said:
donathos said:
Sqrl said:
In order for your uber theist to be part of the same possibility it would beg the question, but it could also legitimately be part of another possibility which would not be begging the question. But as a distinct possibility on its own it doesn't help the argument along because it is distinct and does nothing to disprove the other possibility.
|
Well, then, a universe in which an omnipotent god exists (but not an uber anti-theist) is a distinct possibility. And a universe in which an uber anti-theist exists (but not an omnipotent god) is a distinct possibility. And supposing either takes nothing away from the other supposition.
And we're caught here: we don't know which of these universes we live in.
And so, barring any means by which we could determine which of those universes we live in, we have to admit that both remain possible. And, so long as it is possible that we live in a universe with an uber anti-theist, then it is also possible that there exists an airtight argument against the possibility of a god.
And as long as that possibility exists, we can not logically say that anti-theism is necessarily faith-based.
Do you disagree?
|
The Uber-theist is definitely in the same unprovable boat as God. So I, assumnig I understand you correctly, yes I think we do agree.
|
I love a happy ending! :)
|
Indeed, they rarely end so well.
Out of curiosity, in your view what is the difference between the uber anti-theist and god?
