P.S.: Here's a good place to start: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/search?q=%22one+god+less%22 http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/search?q=%22one+god+less%22
Note: Feser does not use the male pronoun to refer to God because he believes God has a gender; he does not. IMHO, his arguments would be clearer to the uninitiated if he used "It" instead of "He." ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : I believe I've already explained why "one god less" is incoherent, in the process exposing all kinds of ideas you had about what God is said to be that are refuted by classical theism (the strongest argument for theism). As I recall, you wimped out of that discussion when it got tough, as you often do (see our exchange about Susan Blackmore for another instance). Classical theism is a complex and demanding argument, both to explain and to understand. I wouldn't attempt it on a forum like this. But I can (already have, I think) pointed you to online sources and at least one book where you could begin to educate yourself as to what you're really up against. I predict you won't bother, though. You prefer to remain ignorant because that allows you to believe you've done the job by refuting the weaker arguments. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : Yawn. Wake me up when you've actually posted a strong argument for "that" idea. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : It really is astounding, Salyavin, how willing--almost eager--you are to flaunt your ignorance. See, here's the thing: If you want to make a credible argument against an idea (any idea), you need to address the strongest argument for that idea. That's just common sense. Now, if you don't even know what the strongest argument for the idea is, you are, to say the least, at a significant disadvantage in arguing against it. That's why philosophers of religion (many if not most of whom are a whole lot smarter and better educated than either you or I, or Curtis, for that matter) just laugh at Dawkins and the other ignorant New Atheists. If they can't be bothered even to inform themselves about the strongest arguments for theism, let alone address those arguments, there's really no reason to take them seriously. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : You may want to massage this thesis a bit, Salyavin, because it doesn't make a lot of sense as you've written it. Although Curtis was a philosophy major at MIU (as I recall), he seemed to be missing a whole chunk of philosophical theology, as Dawkins is. Anybody who would use the "I just believe in one god less" gambit thinking it was a coherent defense of atheism did not have a complete philosophical education. Thanks for the tip. I'll file it under belief in fairies. Some people get intensely philosophical about those too.
