For those theists that use one or all of the philosophical arguments (cosmological, teleological, ontological, TAG) for the existence of a god to support their beliefs:
"Were these the arguments that convinced you? If not, why are you using them to try to convince me?"
What I have found in 100% of the cases I've ever observed, theists use these arguments to support their own, already existing beliefs, that they themselves know are not supported by evidence. They use these arguments to convince themselves that their beliefs are justified.
I believe they are being intellectually dishonest when they use these, because even after showing the flaws in them, they still continue to use them.
William Lane Craig has said himself that he would not accept any evidence that shows his god does not exist, because the, "Self authenticating witness of the holy spirit" is all he needs.
"Were these the arguments that convinced you? If not, why are you using them to try to convince me?"
What I have found in 100% of the cases I've ever observed, theists use these arguments to support their own, already existing beliefs, that they themselves know are not supported by evidence. They use these arguments to convince themselves that their beliefs are justified.
I believe they are being intellectually dishonest when they use these, because even after showing the flaws in them, they still continue to use them.
William Lane Craig has said himself that he would not accept any evidence that shows his god does not exist, because the, "Self authenticating witness of the holy spirit" is all he needs.
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.
