RE: No reason justifies disbelief.
March 21, 2019 at 8:40 pm
(This post was last modified: March 21, 2019 at 8:41 pm by Belacqua.)
(March 21, 2019 at 8:19 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Well, if you’d bothered to read, quote, and respond to the rest of that paragraph, it would be obvious why I asked it.
It isn't obvious. Where did I ever say that all arguments for God are arguments for the Christian Trinity-type God? Why should I have to "admit" that an argument for one thing is not an argument for another?
Quote:So...what good are they then? What do they tell us about the origins of the universe? What meaningful thing do they tell us about any god?
I'm not sure yet. They pose a lot of interesting questions. They point out, among other things, how many questions there are that science can't answer, and maybe can't be answered at all.
Quote:Why aren’t you persuaded by the logical arguments for the existence of god?
I'm not sure I have them right. People disagree. The arguments are complicated and I see that few people understand them properly.
What's the hurry?
Quote:Why should we take these arguments seriously if their premises rely on the empirical observations you said we couldn’t use to investigate god?
The premises may be reliable but not in themselves point to a God. The extrapolations from those premises may or may not point to a God, depending on if you find the argument persuasive or not.
Quote:What is this reliable, alternative method to science, of investigating god-claims, and how you know it’s reliable?
Traditionally, philosophers use logic based on premises that we are likely to agree on. I'm not sure if it's reliable or not. You seem to be sure it's not a reliable.