Strong and Weak Arguments

[RoadRunner79]

I would like to hear what AF members think are the weakest arguments supporting their position and strongest arguments against it. Believers are invited to admit the skeptical objections they find most reasonable (even if they do not sway you) and critique the worst apologetics. Skeptics are invited to admit which apologetic seems most reasonable (even if they do not sway you) and critique the least valid objections. So I’ll start…

IMO the weakest apologetic is Pascal’s wager since it relies entirely on a specific cultural context.

IMO the most reasonable objection comes from Kant. He proposes that ‘being’ is not a proper predicate and therefore the saying that God’s essence is the same as His existence is problematic.

I don't know that I focus much on weak arguments (they kind of just pass through from both sides) and yes, I would agree, that there are bad arguments from theists; and in either case, I believe these normally come from a lack of thought and effort on the part of the claimant.

One that does stick out to me, which is a little off topic, was about mind dualism.  A podcaster who I normally enjoy listening too, was claiming that color was only in the mind, and giving an example of imagining your mother and then asking what color her blouse was, saying that this color couldn't be found in the brain.   I think that there is a way to clarify what he meant, but at the time I was arguing with the radio, and still think that it could be presented better.

I do think that the problem of evil carries a heavy emotional appeal, and is difficult to explain from that perspective.

Note: On Pascals wager.  I think this is only a weak argument when it is misunderstood as to it's purpose (which I do see theists misusing it).    It's not meant to give reason in support for God or Christianity.  It is a risk vs rewards analysis comparing two worldviews and the consequences.   The ideas behind it are very successful, and wise council in matter's of investment or health.  I even remember in a poker book I had read, how it isn't a good practice to bluff all in, to win a small pot (the risks far out weigh the reward). Pascals wager is using the same principles.  I don't see where it relies on cultural context.  I wouldn't criticize it in principle, but think it has difficulty in it's application.