I believe the argument is that since we accept the existence of other minds without proof, it is also rational to accept the existence of a god without proof.
The argument as I see it is not meant to prove the existence of 'God', but to provide a rational reason to believe in 'God'.
The argument fails on many obvious levels.
While I guess it can't be proven with absolute certainty that other minds exist, (please let's not sink into a discussion on solipsism), the evidence for other minds existing is pretty massive. Even before modern advances in neuroscience.
The evidence for the existence of 'God' is none existent in comparison.
And even if the argument was valid and sound, it still does not get you to Yahweh or Jeshua.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The argument as I see it is not meant to prove the existence of 'God', but to provide a rational reason to believe in 'God'.
The argument fails on many obvious levels.
While I guess it can't be proven with absolute certainty that other minds exist, (please let's not sink into a discussion on solipsism), the evidence for other minds existing is pretty massive. Even before modern advances in neuroscience.
The evidence for the existence of 'God' is none existent in comparison.
And even if the argument was valid and sound, it still does not get you to Yahweh or Jeshua.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
