>
>"Devine, James" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > As far as I can tell, there's no logical argument either for or against
>the
> > existence of "god."
>
>^^^^^^^
>
>CB: First , what is God ? Next, I would call for a combined logical and
>evidentiary argument on the issue ( maybe Jim D. implicitly means to
>include evidence by his meaning of "logical", though).
>
By "logical" you mean "valid"? Or what. there are arguments for: Aqwuinas
had a famous Five Ways. Most philosophers do not think that they are valid,
but Charles's questions is good. Whaich God do you wantto prove the
existence of? Thsu the First Cause argument (which si not valid, runs into a
regress) only gets you a primum mobile, not an all knowing, all good, and
all powerful God. A First Cause might not even be a person. The Arg from
Design gets you a person, but probably a committee, since there's no reason
to think that anything as complicated as the universe was designed by a
single individual. The argument also faces a regress.
There is a very powerful argument against the existence of a a 3-A God: the
problem of evil.
jks
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
