I hope this time my design choices for “size” and “direction” become usefully obvious in my diagram below. The bottom part of the diagram now illustrates why it is important to keep god-definitions clear. When arguing about ‘god’, spelling out the qualities of the god being debated will save lots of time.
Some Theists feel they have good philosophical arguments that support their god. Here are the big ones:
- The Ontological Argument
- Kalam’s Cosmological Argument (see Luke’s posts: here and here)
- The Temporal Contingency Argument (see Luke’s fantastic post)
But these arguments, at their best, would only support a stripped-down, tiny god like the deist creator god. At their worse, they fail miserably. Nonetheless, these arguments don’t work as proof from their big god. Yet these theists, consciously or unconsciously, use these tiny-god arguments to sneak in their big god. They do this because the word “God” carries the connotations of the bigger, falsely puffed-out gods: the Judge, the Miracle Worker or The Divine Presence.
So when debating a theist, be sure to ask them more about their god. Ask them which god they are trying to prove. Don’t let them fool you into thinking they have argued for their big, miraculous, tribal, anthropomorphic god. Keep them focused on how tiny the god of their “proofs” actually is.
For an excellent short post on this same issue see Luke Muehlhauser’s: “I Don’t Care if God Exists“.