A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

3 doesn’t follow from 2, nor can it be called a ‘restatement’ of 2. One can be ‘rationally justified’ in believing in God without God making his existence known. 

Boru

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

[R00tKiT]

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.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

[The Grand Nudger]

Counterfactual argument, from the first premise. Your pedo prophets never saw the future, and got curbstomped because of it. End of.

[R00tKiT]

Nope, you need all of them to work, but none of them do. 

 
lol.. I mean, you really think that God making his existence known to X is not sufficient for X to rationally believe in God ...??? 

And BTW I think you're confused, I just need 2 -> 3 (which I just proved by contraposition) and then take 3. and  5 (or 4) together for my attempt to work. Why would I ever need to prove that 2 follows from 3..?

---

Counterfactual argument, from the first premise. <snip>.  End of.

The first premise follows from the definition of "A". End of.

[The Grand Nudger]

I see you're still whistling past the graveyard. Good luck.

[Ferrocyanide]

Cleanthes (Hume's Dialogues):  The order and arrangement of nature, the curious adjustment of final causes, the plain use and intention of every part and organ; all these bespeak in the clearest language an intelligent cause or author.

This is an argument from design.

The problem with this argument is that god is a design and requires a designer and the theist can’t offer an explanation for how this design (god’s body) came into existence nor how the environment where he exists in came into existence without a designer, nor how the laws of physics of his environment came into existence.

I am not saying that humans are not designed by the alien being or beings that you call “the jewish god”.
It is possible that this universe is artificial, so is the Earth and so are all lifeforms on this planet and the other planets in this universe.

The problem is that so far, everything that we have observed does not necessitate aliens or alien-gods.
For example, who in this modern age explain rain as something done by a god?
Look at the entire body of science and recent history. Is there any research paper that mentions the jewish god? Is there in newpaper article that talks about the jewish god doing anything?

I think a bottom up approach makes more sense. Things start simple, life started simple, and over time functions have been added.
Also, modern science has blown away the jewish religion for quite some time. Which means derivative works have been blown away as well.

2. (From 1.) No one was rationally justified in believing in God before T.

I disagree. There is rational for believing in gods.
Look at the first line in your post. Who was the first man who thought of that?

Behe's formulation, for example, rests on very recent findings in biology

Micheal Behe promotes intelligent design but hasn’t discovered anything that supports his notion.
The reason is this:
All he does is do research and claims, wow, look at this structure. It is too complex, how could it have formed by natural means. I don’t know therefore god did it!

That’s the problem with intelligent design. It doesn’t explain anything.

Intelligent design is essentially an argument from incredulity.

Similarly the CA rests on very recent results/theories in cosmology like the Big Bang, unsound for the same reason.

I don’t understand.

*In defense of premise 4: God not willing to make his existence known to everyone seems to contradict omnibenevolence (one of the tenets of classical theism) because many believers freely and actively seek a relationship with God. If premise 4 is not true, then the quest for a valid argument in favor of God's existence no longer has any value, and the logical negation of premise 4 can be used to argue for God's non-existence (as in divine hiddenness arguments);

Omnibenevolence? What does that mean? Does that mean that he is suppose to be the ultimate good guy and even a little bit of discomfort would bother him?

Are you sure that your god is omnibenevolence?
If you see a person being beaten up, raped, violated.... would you just stand there and watch?

I think you are going to need to throw in the classical jews/christian/islam/mormon defense into your list:
*God is omnibenevolent (or I wishfully think he is omnibenevolent) but he has a special mission to accomplish and that mission is blocking him from expressing his omnibenevolent nature. Don’t worry, he will express his omnibenevolence afterwards.
Right now, god has a sign hanging on his door that says “Shhhh. genius at work.””

[Belacqua]

The problem with this argument is that god is a design and requires a designer and the theist can’t offer an explanation for how this design (god’s body) came into existence nor how the environment where he exists in came into existence without a designer, nor how the laws of physics of his environment came into existence.

It's a fundamental tenet of all monotheism that God is not a design and does not require a designer. How the undesigned God gives rise to the laws of physics is explained in a number of similar ways, mostly on Neoplatonic principles. 

If you have an argument as to why this is false, you'd have to address the long series of arguments as to why monotheist theologians believe it. 

And for those fans of the Burden of Proof out there, Ferro has asserted that "god is a design and requires a designer," so if the Burden of Proof law is in force, he has the burden here.

[The Grand Nudger]

Technically, "many people believe many things" is a sufficient exploration of and explanation for what many theologians believe. It's a shallow pool.

@Klorophyll

I think you could probably remove 6. A causal agent being variously willing and unwilling is not absurd - it's mundane and in perpetual evidence.

[Fake Messiah]

Ah, another theist defends his delusions with logical fallacies.

Like this one

"Cleanthes (Hume's Dialogues):  The order and arrangement of nature, the curious adjustment of final causes, the plain use and intention of every part and organ; all these bespeak in the clearest language an intelligent cause or author.

Here is an example of that "order" of nature:



Obviously, the intelligent design of nature is a delusion, so he defends it by quoting Hume which should be an Argument from authority logical fallacy (bc Hume was a famous philosopher) and also Quote Mining fallacy. So, like I said: theist defends his delusions with logical fallacies.

Here is the whole formula

Theist argument = (delusion+logical fallacy)^self confidence * persistence