Or they could be ignorant of the facts regarding the reasons why the arguments are flawed. Its not as simple as naive OR dishonest. there are plenty of other reasons. I think the biggest thing for a Theist though, is that these things don't matter to them. Faith is far more important than some argument for the existence of God because they already believe. To them God is very much involved in their life because they "feel" his presence. I have a completely different view on these things than they do though. Unless I have direct evidence for the existence of something, I am literally unable to believe in it, some will be perfectly happy not having direct evidence for it, I just can't have it that way.ScottBarger wrote:KTR,
To be fair, not all of the theist arguments have "been resoundingly beaten hard, and fail." If this were true, it would mean that all theists are naive or dishonest.
But back to the whole naive or dishonest, I see this with Tony and his (mis)use of the Big bang theory. What he fails to understand is that Time/Space "as we know it" is what they are talking about. So when he uses the cosmological argument, its flawed because he has not understood what the science behind it actually means. Its not dishonest of him or naive, at least I don't think so, Its just misinformed. We don't say that everything in existence began, Just that for the current state of our observable universe, the matter, and time/space as we know it have their origins linked to the big bang.
Could you possibly be misinformed then? If you could Scott, would you mind breaking down the cosmological argument for me? At least your understanding of the argument, I am not familiar with any Arguments for the existence of God that are in any way valid and sound. But I would love to hear any if you have them.I will be the first to admit that some of the arguments are flimsy, but not all. In fact, some of them are convincing to me (the cosmological and contingency arguments, for example) and I don't think that I am naive or dishonest.