RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
But then seem to think the following is perfectly acceptable:
"Apologist: God exists because of proofs x, y, and z"
Atheist: I don't have to accept those as proofs and neither do you."
All these show is the foolishness of the atheist, not the faultiness of the argumentation used with him, and yet the atheist's response in the one is a fault of the method but not in the other?
Here is where I see the difference. I would point out to the atheist that he has already conceded the law of causality in everyday life. Given that, he must now show where causality fails in the ontological argument. I maintain he cannot do that. I do not worry about whether he can make sense of all of reality. Maybe he can, maybe he can't. I don't really care. My point is that he cannot show where my argument is wrong.