RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
February 26, 2022 at 8:51 pm
(This post was last modified: February 26, 2022 at 8:52 pm by R00tKiT.)
(February 26, 2022 at 8:45 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(February 26, 2022 at 8:28 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Easy proof:
4. God made his existence known to someone before T.
5. (From 4.) At least one person is justified in believing in God before T.
The contraposition of the conditional statement (4.->5.) is (non-5. -> non-4.), which is exactly (2.->3.). QED.
I saw you palm that card. God making his existence known is not conditional on the argument for God’s existence. And vice versa.
Boru
I am not sure I follow. God making his existence known to X is a sufficient condition for X to rationally believe in God... disagree?
If I understand your objection correctly, you think God making his existence known to X is not a necessary condition for rational belief (one can rationally believe in God without God making his existence known to them), and although I disagree, I can concede your objection and my argument still holds, because I only need 4 -> 5.
