Let's be honest

[Neo-Scholastic]

@Kingpin, IMHO every demonstration for the existence of God presupposes a philosophical framework. For example the logic of the 5 Ways are impeccable and the premises sound but it only works if you accept the assumptions of classical philosophy regarding infinite regress and honor basic distinctions between potentiality/actuality, etc. What tends to happen is the apologist defends the argument while to atheist goes meta to sidestep the argument, either to nihilism or their substitute god of the multiverse.

In your opinion, is it '[going] meta' to point out that it doesn't answer the fundamental question it purports to answer, not to me anyway, ie why something not nothing? ...because it itself is something not nothing? From my POV then, all it does is offer an unfalsifiable leap of faith, that may provide a sense of meaning if that's what you're after, but given my view also that I've seen nothing to suggest God's intervention in the world we see, and indeed you seem to allude to similar views yourself with what you've often said about 'divine hiddenness', then the most I could take from that is deism. It's possible, that's all I can give it, but the most it could ever mean to me was deism.

IMHO your notion that the arguments do not demonstrate what they set out to demonstrate is a fair point and not "going meta". To me theism is a logical conclusion within the existential stance that reality has an intelligible order and also that human reason is effective. If someone else does not share both those stances then there is no common ground for discussing the 5 Ways. And that is where things tend to go sideways. On set of athiests will argue that reality does not have an intelligible order (usually making reference to quantum phenomena) And another set will challenge the implicit foundationalism of Scholastic philosophy, with radical skepticism...the kind that ends with brains in vats. That is what usually happens.