I've just been listening to a debate between William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll on the Unbelievable podcast. I think Carroll won. Indeed, he wiped the floor with WLC, but anyway.
What I found myself thinking (other than 'what the heck is a Boltzmann brain?') was this:
If there is a creator God who can do anything and everything, and therefore can create any universe, then any conceivable universe (and indeed any inconceivable universe), including a universe where there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for God, is consistent with the existence of God.
So evidence becomes utterly meaningless in the search for God. It doesn't matter what you observe (or fail to observe) in the universe, anything is consistent with this definition of God. So if you believe in that sort of God, then there is no evidence to dissuade you from your belief...
So given that a great many believers of several religions actually do believe in this sort of God, then there is little point in attempting to reason them out of that belief on the basis of evidence.
So given that a great many believers of several religions actually do believe in this sort of God, then there is little point in attempting to reason them out of that belief on the basis of evidence.
3 comments:
I don't think many people believe in just that sort of god. They believe in a god who is love, or who is merciful and compassionate, or who is at least just. Therefore if the world were full of purposeless, undeserved suffering, that would be evidence against the god they believe in.
What do you mean by "a creator God who can do anything and everything"?
Seems like you may be setting up a straw-man here. God's attribute of omnipotence means that he can do anything that is logically possible. I don't know that the scenarios you present meet that definition.
For instance, God cannot "create... any inconceivable universe", because a universe must be conceptualized to be actualized. This is a simple violation of logic. Even God cannot create a square circle. It's a meaningless construction.
"[I]f you believe in that sort of God, then there is no evidence to dissuade you from your belief..."
I agree.
"[G]iven that a great many believers of several religions actually do believe in this sort of God..."
What people believe does not determine what is true. Your point stands regarding the futility of reasoning with some atheists (and some theists). Their minds are made up, don't confuse them with the facts.
Further, Carroll was not debating "a great many believers of several religions". Unless this was Dr. Craig's position, (and I know that it is not), this too is a straw man argument.
My comments were a tangent from the WLC-Carroll debate, not really a comment on it.
As far as 'inconceivable' goes, I meant inconceivable to us. That kind of God could create something conceivable for him that we could not conceive of.
I never claimed that what people believe in has any bearing on truth. Its more the other way about, does truth have any bearing on what people believe in?
I suspect if someone has a firm belief in a God who can do anything (anything logical, if you wish to limit God that way), then there is no evidence, no truth, that is actually inconsistent with their belief. So what's the point in even trying to debate these issues?
Post a Comment