Trav, I suspect you may be thinking yourself into a corner.

>>Pericles, if we’re isolating Plantinga’s comments on “teapotism” then the relevant question is whether the proponent of “anti teapotism” has any obligation to provide support or evidence for their view, or whether that is simply the default view.<<

If by "default view" you mean the view that exists in the event of a lack of external stimulus, then my answers would be no, there's no obligation, and yes, the default view is a-teapotist. For example, if you were to find yourself in the command module of a space shuttle, your default position would be "wtf?", until some external stimulus (this is the start button, this opens the door) is applied.

(I realise I am making the assumption that you are not NASA-trained. Apologies if that isn't the case)

>>Pericles, the key to my question was “to the same extent”. I was interested in your comparison of religions. Many atheists seem to think all religions are similarly unintelligent or that all religions have the same level of evidence (none)<<

Big correction here. I don't believe it has anything to do with intelligence. I know some highly intelligent people who are also religious, in that they believe in the existence of a supreme being. Also, I don't see any association between intelligence and a particular religion. I am fortunate to know a number of people who are way, way smarter than I. Some are Christian. Some are Muslim. And some, believe it or not, are actually atheist.

But you are dead right about the evidence.

>>...all religions have the same level of evidence (none)<<

Pericles,

I cannot react without trying to clarify things even if you call it “splitting of hairs.

>>"An argument... that only a Christian would even consider vaguely relevant to the point I was making. <<

I cannot find this sentence in your previous post. What you wrote was “Only one who already believes in a deity would countenance Aquinas' conclusion.”, and I agreed because it explicitly referred to Aquinas’ Five Ways.

There are many arguments for or against the existence of God (which are neither proofs nor evidence), and they should be considered by any open-minded person, theist or atheist. They can strengthen one's beliefs or unbeliefs, but seldom - if at all - lead to a conversion, one way or the other. If you agree with this then indeed we are in agreement.

>>"arguments for or against the existence of God are only relevant to people who already believe that there is a God".

I checked this thread but did not find anything where I would have said this (even less your corollary), though I would agree if you replaced “relevant” with “persuading” or “convincing”.

>>But... I believe you offered this:<<

You are referring to what I conceded was a clumsy (because lengthy) formulation. It was starting with “since”, so it was of the form A implies B, and I claimed it was a logical tautology. I did not claim the premise A ! Like the implication “since everybody in this room speaks sillinese, John who does not speak sillinese is not in this room” is valid irrespective of which room, who is John and what language is sillinese.

>>And the opinion in question? <<

For instance, the sweeping statement “And this is in fact exactly the Christian position: there is a God, because the Bible says so.”

There seems to be a bit of ducking and weaving going on here, George.

Not that it really matters, of course, since we seem to be in agreement on all the key issues. But...

>>>>"An argument... that only a Christian would even consider vaguely relevant to the point I was making.<< I cannot find this sentence in your previous post.What you wrote was “Only one who already believes in a deity would countenance Aquinas' conclusion.”, and I agreed because it explicitly referred to Aquinas’ Five Ways.<<

Yer tiz, George. This sentence, here...

"An argument - especially the 'guaranteed' bit - that only a Christian would even consider vaguely relevant to the point I was making. Which is, strangely, exactly the point I was making."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15995#277881

And it didn't involve Aquinas, who made his appearance slightly later, as someone who did not need the Bible to posit God. Unlike all my Christian acquaintances, who rely upon it entirely to underpin their beliefs.

>>>>"arguments for or against the existence of God are only relevant to people who already believe that there is a God".<< I checked this thread but did not find anything where I would have said this (even less your corollary), though I would agree if you replaced “relevant” with “persuading” or “convincing”.<<

Well you wouldn't find it, would you. Basically because it was something I had said, not you.

>>>>And the opinion in question?<< For instance, the sweeping statement “And this is in fact exactly the Christian position: there is a God, because the Bible says so.”<<

Different opinion. You can't just go round substituting something out of context, and expecting to use it as justification for anything. I was quite specific which of my opinions I was referring to, and it was not that one. Once again, it was the observation that my Christian friends, every one, relied upon the Bible for their Christianity.

But we are rather drifting away from the point, so I can see why you might be becoming a little confused.

I understood what you meant, George.

<<I reacted to three of your statements hoping that some of those who read this will understand what I meant. I am sorry you were not one of them.>>

However, you were indirectly rebutting me in saying…

“Indeed, what is “objective” evidence?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15995#277837)

…right after Trav had responded to me saying…

“What is “objective” evidence anyway?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15995#277831)

So given that the Christian god was the god that Trav was defending, it became appropriate for me to point out that the defence you offered was not relevant there.

You then came back saying that I was confusing Spinoza’s more general concept of a god with the more specific Christian model…

“You are confusing the belief in something beyond both the physical … and mental that I called the divine REALM, and the Abrahamic REPRESENTATION/model … of this realm.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15995#277863)

So I then pointed out to you (assuming that you had kept up with where the discussion was at) that the distinction you were making didn’t get you around the fact that your defence was irrelevant to the Christian god.

<<On the other hand, I did not understand the relevance to my post of most of what you wrote.>>

I figure that now. Hopefully the above brings you back on track.

<<You are not the only one who lost his faith and you would not be the only one to find it again, although not as a consequence of not being able to "defend a position that doesn’t actually require defending at all".>>

I agree with you there… I think. Which is why I like to challenge my beliefs (or lack thereof) on OLO and by reading and countering apologetics. My pointing out of the fact that the non-believer does not need to defend their position was purely from a philosophic standpoint and was not meant to reflect my actual approach.

THERE ARE..known truths..knowable truths..un-nowable truths..BUT
whaT..is the truth..of god?..[the logic revealed in gods love-light..sustaining life/living.]

THE strength..of the christian..trinity..comES to mind
the idea/specifically..of /the holy spirit..[that isnt god the father]
not christ..a son of the father sun.

YES I HAVE MEt [or rather seen..'god'..we all have..god is the sun
the sUN..[IS one of infinite suns of the holy spirit]..THE HOLY SPIRIT..IS OMNI-present..our gods true NAME..is @N@..[OR ANA]..[APHA NEGATIVE ALPHA]

FREEL FREE TO..confirm..or deny..anyhow now you know
undeniably..life exists..cause of our father sun..clearly..via sunspot..activity..the father brings the rain..in its season..HIS LIGHT SUSTAINS ALL LIVING.

to deny the sun..is absurd..SCIENCE STUDIES 'THE SUN-FATHER/AND THE EARTH Mother..faTHER SUN EJECTULATED..from himself..our fertile earth motHER..[AS WELL AS 8 other brides..[the father SUN..OF COURSE IS A RELITIVE TERM..[GOD IS SANS 'SEX']

anyhow above..[in the heavens]..are many 'gods'..OTHER SUNS..[INFINITE GODS/SUN-GODS..EACH SUN having its oWN LET THERE BE LIGHT MOMENT..AND EJACULATING HIS WORD SEED..UPON THE deep..let there be light..live..via logic..that life find love.

THERE IS REVEALED..MUCH..IN THE DEEP..[STRANGELY..THE LIFE THAT BEGAN..IN THE DEEP..dont rate much of any mention/in the evolving theory of chance linial-evolution..VIa infinate genus..

anyhow..there are demons in hell
AND hell is surrounded..by a ring..of fire
the dark MATTER MANNERS[JINN]..attacks the light relentlessly
TRY TO OBSCURE THE LIFE SUSTAINING light..thus send them selves..to hell..[sUN SPOTS ARE huge battles..going on in hell.]..

indeed LIGHT FROM THE SUN..is emissions of the SPIRITUAL hateful-hurtfull..SINFUL passions..EMMIT TED/RADIATED BY HELLS MINIONS ..by such who deceived others awaY FROM THE Father..

or those who subverted/perverted free will..and other gross hurTS

PLEASE REFUTE..[I HAVE LOOKED UPON OUR FATHERS FACE
HE LOOKS..like an engorded nipple..radiating life fORCE
PROVIDING THE HOLY SPIRIT..THE LIVES WITH WHICH..THE Holy spirit reveals herself..

[thinK as you will..but as we evolve away from..human nature[mankind]..we evolve our HUMILITY..AND OUR humanity
TILL THE DAY..WE HAVE OUR OWNLET THEre be light moment..[ye shall trueLY BE SUNS OF THE HOLY-SPIRIT..[radiating not thyne own light..but his.

into ETERNITY..THE HEAVENS SHALL BE FILED WITH SUNS
EACH ADDING/REVEALING/PRESERVING..OUR HOlY SPIRITS..REVEALINGS.

so now you know gods infinite
refute.

Pericles,

>>There seems to be a bit of ducking and weaving going on here.<<

This patronising remark does not do you credit.

So it was your sentence not mine that you quoted. The link you provided reminded me that I did not understand it, so I offered a reformulation, apparently unsuccessfully. Of course, I have nothing against you agreeing with your own statement.

>>my Christian friends, every one, relied upon the Bible for their Christianity.<<

Of course, they did, I never claimed otherwise. This is quite different from your previous “this is in fact exactly THE Christian position: there is a God, BECAUSE the Bible says so”(my emphases). The Bible is about what God said, did, etc, no arguments for His existence. That is tacitly assumed. People can read the Bible as fiction and find inspiration from it, without being led to believe in God, and many do so. For those to whom the Bible was originally addressed was the existence of God, (or gods) as obvious as that of the sun. It was much later that Christians begun to philosophise, “faith seeking understanding” as St Anselm put.