A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?

[Angrboda]

Lame.  2 doesn't follow from 1.  5 is a bare assertion and causes dependent arguments to beg the question.

5. is clearly entailed by 4...

2. may be based on some controversial definition of rational belief. But you should consider whether you really want to reject 2.

Sorry, my numbering was off. I meant 4.

No, 2 isn't dependent on a controversial definition of rational belief. A isn't the only way to rationally justify belief, so 2 doesn't follow from 1.

You're also ignoring revelation, divine intervention, and sensus divinitatus, all of which can rationally justify belief prior to A.

You're also ignoring that God may have reasons for remaining hidden which would also pooch your argument by invalidating the sequelae from 4.


Anyway, the teleological argument is crap. You're just too stupid to realize this.