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

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Neither Kant nor Hume agree with you. I guess I should be proud of how stupid I am.

You're full of shit.  I can quote you where Hume shits all over the teleological argument.  Show us where Kant or Hume say the teleological argument isn't crap.  

(And Kant is a moot point, as he was a theist bound determined to bend himself into a pretzel to prove God, so he's hardly a worthwhile defeated.)

^This is why I suspect Kloro hasn’t read Hume’s ‘Dialogues’. Cleanthes’ assertion quoted above is pretty handily demolished. The ‘Dialogues’ were written as a framework of fictional debates to reject arguments for God.

Hume had his weaknesses, but supporting teleology wasn’t one of them.

Boru

[R00tKiT]

 Show us where Kant or Hume say the teleological argument isn't crap.  

Sure:

‘This proof always deserves to be mentioned with respect’: Immanuel Kant.

[Angrboda]

 Show us where Kant or Hume say the teleological argument isn't crap.  

Sure:

‘This proof always deserves to be mentioned with respect’: Immanuel Kant.

As noted, Kant's testimony is rather moot, but where did he say that?

[R00tKiT]

[Angrboda]

[R00tKiT]

[brewer]

Oh boy, arguing god into existence.

Wheeeeeeeeeeee.............

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yay another tired attempt by Klor to make belief an invisible sky wizard into being 

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

[R00tKiT]

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.