quote:
The flaw is simple. The conversation takes place where the word "God" is never defined and the arguments vacillate between arguments that might be over the question "Is there a God of the Bible" to being over "Is there some all powerful force that created the universe" to "could there have been supremely advanced beings that created the universe?

The problem is, often, you see counter arguments that apply to ONE of the above being used to apply to a different element of the above. IE, the "eyeball" argument used by people as support for the God of the Bible when all it really supports(if anything) is the idea of SOME creator who may or may not be supernatural. And frick, even supernatural is problematic here. What if a supremely advanced race from ANOTHER universe is in the universe creating business. They would exist OUTSIDE our "nature" so, they'd be "supernatural". LOL

And BOTH the theists and the atheists have this problem. Basically, the core discussion takes place as if it was still 500AD.

You see theists using "evidence" that really just supports the idea that there had to be some "designer" but that really is only evidence of about 100 possible designers even if accepted as evidence at all.

On the other side, you get atheists who travel from the reasonable, "the God of the Bible is a highly suspect concept" to the absurd "we can absolutely know that there is no creative force responsible for our universe at all.

Then, we call people who recognize that we can't possibly fathom what supremely advanced beings might be capable "agnostics" but that term loses all meaning if we are suddenly expanding "God" to mean "anything other than completely random shite happening".

OK. Soap box complete.

What's interesting about this rant about pointing out the "fundamental flaw" of the God debates is that you yourself can't even clearly state what the problem is