To me, they show the limited role of reason. Even if one accepts one or more of these arguments they tell us nothing about the character of this God or Supreme Being, or the action of this God in history, or how we can or should relate to this God.
To me, none of these arguments presents a particularly compelling “stand alone” argument. I find the Moral and Teleological arguments the most convincing, perhaps because they are not just purely philosophical but engage with external evidence. On the other hand, putting all the arguments together with a Biblical world view, they may suggest that faith in God is not unreasonable.
Your representation of apologetics demonstrates almost conclusively how vapid they are.
ReplyDelete1. Ontological can be reduced to " I can think of a being", therefore that being is really." Idiocy.
2. Cosmological only implies a deity, provides no necessity, since we have no indication that the universe we live in is the only existence ever, and that there was nothing prior. Disproven.
3. Teleological - just call it ignorantly presuppositional, because it has no more substance than that.
4. Moral - that morals must be bestowed from a transcendent source is utterly ludicrous. Morals come from experience and the goal of idealizing society. Like numbers and language, morals are human-founded.
5. Experience is personal, and is only a personal reason to believe; it contains no weight that could convince another thinking individual to "get on board".