RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
February 26, 2022 at 9:17 pm
(This post was last modified: February 26, 2022 at 9:19 pm by R00tKiT.)
(February 26, 2022 at 9:08 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Nope, you need all of them to work, but none of them do.
lol.. I mean, you really think that God making his existence known to X is not sufficient for X to rationally believe in God ...???
And BTW I think you're confused, I just need 2 -> 3 (which I just proved by contraposition) and then take 3. and 5 (or 4) together for my attempt to work. Why would I ever need to prove that 2 follows from 3..?
(February 26, 2022 at 9:12 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Counterfactual argument, from the first premise. <snip>. End of.
The first premise follows from the definition of "A". End of.