An Argument Against Supernatural Causation

[fr0d0]

I agree that it isn't a knockdown argument, but then we really don't have any knockdown philosophical arguments against theism. Its a philosophical argument that, in practice, would force the theist into increasingly absurd and arbitrary speculation to defend their position. In my intro I said that it 'indicates' (note: not 'proves') that supernatural causation is incoherent; I think thats a fair description.

Imo there is no one 'master argument' against the theist position. There are philosophical arguments- this one, various non-cognitivist arguments, various arguments re the conflicting attributes of god- that are more or less effective. There are also empirical arguments- arguments coming out of evolutionary theory, archaelogy and textual analysis- that are more or less effective. Its the cumulative weight of the philosophical and empirical arguments, rather than one argument in particular, that makes theism untenable.

It seems to me that all of your arguments plead to materialism, even the philosophical ones, which makes them more than weak.