Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion

[Angrboda]

If the logic of an argument is sound, and the premises appear sound, you can still come up with an unsound conclusion. This indicates that one or more of the premises is actually not sound. But what of ontological arguments, the 5W of Aquinas and such. It's not clear that all of the premises are sound because many of them have no application outside the argument, are unfalsifiable, or are just plain weak. When the conclusion of an ontological argument is all you have to say that a God exists, it's impossible to tell whether or not this conflicts with reality because there is no other evidence. In that case, one is left forever wondering whether the conclusion is sound, or whether one or more of the premises are faulty. Further ontological arguments cannot put this doubt to rest because they suffer the same flaw.

So there may be nothing wrong with a priori inferences, but if it's all you've got, there is plenty of room left for doubt.