[split] Critical Thinking Skills

[Mister Agenda]

I think this all misses the point. Jstrodel was challenged to present a logically compelling argument for the existence of God. (Reviewing the original post by Mister Agenda, it appears his requirements are that it be sound and not employ logical fallacies; this may be a case in which truth is in the eye of the beholder, as there is likely to be little agreement from both sides on this. While I suspect the argument has failings, I must confess, personally, that it is emotionally, if not strictly logically, troubling. It seems to make intuitive sense, at least up until the special pleading bit; but even then, it's still a troubling argument in that it appears to demand that something fulfill that role filled by God in the argument, and regardless of what that something is, it would seem to also require special pleading, regardless of what it is. Since that bit ultimately requires dissolution, it appears the only way to truly dissolve it is to attack the premise that every thing that exists has a cause [or however it is worded], and to the best of my recollection, that has not been done.) Whether the particular argument is valid or sound, the history of the argument shows that it has been taken seriously by many, and thus readily meets the challenge. If you're going to challenge someone, perhaps you should propose a bar that is not so easily met.

I was not aware that being taken seriously historically by many makes special pleading nonfallacious.