So have you convinced anyone that God exists and is dishonest? If not, then people are not responding well to your argument, because they still assume “God exists and is honest, or he does not exist at all.” In other words, unless you have persuaded someone that God exists and is dishonest, everyone (both theists and atheists) is still assuming the same thing: that God, if he exists, is honest.
People are emotionally attached to their belief. This keeps them from rationally evaluating arguments for the existence of an all-powerful being.
But, if they realize that they can’t justify belief in an all-powerful AND honest being...
They don’t just keep believing in an all-powerful deceiver. Their emotional attachment is broken, and they are more able to rationally assess the arguments that there’s an all-powerful being at all.
Turns out those arguments don’t hold up well under rational analysis
I am skeptical that you have actually persuaded anyone of anything with this particular method.
But even if you have, this just means that you have persuaded them of something unreasonable. The reason to reject a dishonest God is that such a belief would be pointless; so if they have a reason to believe in an all-powerful being, that by itself will suffice as a reason to believe in an all powerful being that is honest.
Look, man, I have nothing to say about whether or not there’s any “point” to believing or disbelieving in a dishonest God. I have spoken only on what kind of evidence would suggest such a being was real or not.
Sure. But as long as it is pointless to believe something, there is no reason to believe it, regardless of the condition of the evidence. This is basically a tautology.
So have you convinced anyone that God exists and is dishonest? If not, then people are not responding well to your argument, because they still assume “God exists and is honest, or he does not exist at all.” In other words, unless you have persuaded someone that God exists and is dishonest, everyone (both theists and atheists) is still assuming the same thing: that God, if he exists, is honest.
People are emotionally attached to their belief. This keeps them from rationally evaluating arguments for the existence of an all-powerful being.
But, if they realize that they can’t justify belief in an all-powerful AND honest being...
They don’t just keep believing in an all-powerful deceiver. Their emotional attachment is broken, and they are more able to rationally assess the arguments that there’s an all-powerful being at all.
Turns out those arguments don’t hold up well under rational analysis
I am skeptical that you have actually persuaded anyone of anything with this particular method.
But even if you have, this just means that you have persuaded them of something unreasonable. The reason to reject a dishonest God is that such a belief would be pointless; so if they have a reason to believe in an all-powerful being, that by itself will suffice as a reason to believe in an all powerful being that is honest.
Look, man, I have nothing to say about whether or not there’s any “point” to believing or disbelieving in a dishonest God. I have spoken only on what kind of evidence would suggest such a being was real or not.
Sure. But as long as it is pointless to believe something, there is no reason to believe it, regardless of the condition of the evidence. This is basically a tautology.