RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
February 26, 2022 at 9:08 pm
(February 26, 2022 at 8:51 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:(February 26, 2022 at 8:45 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 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.
Nope, you need all of them to work, but none of them do. What you’re doing is attempting to link God revealing himself to a hypothetical argument for God’s existence.
Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson