Yttrium
Independent Centrist
- May 19, 2019
- 3,877
- 4,310
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Single
Your approach strikes me as reasonable, though I'm not sure how you can simultaneously assume that there was a cause and not believe that there was a cause. A belief is just something that you think is true, so you've committed quite the psychological trick if you can assume something is true without thinking it's true.
Is it tricky? One can always assume something is true for the sake of argument. Is this so different?
In any case, what I'm critical of here is a particular use of the words "I don't know," one that's pretty ubiquitous in discussions like these. Rather than being a hopefully temporary condition, it's used as a rhetorical ploy, an escape route to avoid actually engaging with the argument at hand.
The argument is an attempted proof of God's existence, which includes an assumption of cause and effect. It's not up to us to provide an alternative, but to evaluate if the proof is successful. A position of "I don't know" on the topic of causality actually opposes the assumption of causality. If we can't be sure that cause and effect applies in all cases, then the assumption may be incorrect, and so the proof is insufficient.
Upvote
0