I see a lot of people labeling them as invalid arguments. (Teleological, Cosmelogical, Ontological)
Wouldn't this be seen as someones belief in God is greater and perhaps holds more weight than an a priori or an a posteriori argument proving his existence?
I guess I am asking what it would take to have an actual valid argument in the existence of God. I for one think William Paley's design theory is somewhat valid when you look at it in a simple, broad approach. By the way, aren't complex problems nothing more then numerous simple ones? Could we not apply them to proving the existence of God?
Thanks.
2007-03-21
18:29:04
·
12 answers
·
asked by
DOSBOXBUD
1
in
Philosophy