RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
February 26, 2022 at 6:06 pm
(This post was last modified: February 26, 2022 at 6:07 pm by R00tKiT.)
(February 26, 2022 at 6:03 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Lame. 2 doesn't follow from 1. 5 is a bare assertion and causes dependent arguments to beg the question.
5. is clearly entailed by 4...
2. may be based on some controversial definition of rational belief. But you should consider whether you really want to reject 2.