Doubting that the answers matter

Disclaimer* I don't like opening a conversation with a disclaimer, but I am here. The disclaimer is I am not going to dismiss Christian thinkers and apologists in this post. Just the answers they give at times.



 The following link is to an article that discusses the 50 questions posed by RE Pucket, questions that Christians can't answer. Turns out Christians are happy to answer them. But the answers are of the type that beg the question, and various other fallacies.

  While I may not think that all 50 of these questions are worth of a lot of thought, the general theme is something that I think is important. Is there or is there not a god is an important question. The morality of supreme beings if they exist and the morality of humans is an important question. But if the answers that are given spend too much time in another dimension they lose usefulness in this dimension, the dimension where the questions are asked.





Answering "Top 50 Questions Christians Can't Answer" (16 through 20) - Baltimore Christianity | Examiner.com

"Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them" - Peter Ustinov

Well said Sir Peter.

Do you doubt that Zeus exists?

In the article  here Gary Gutting does something really cool. He gives you the chance to defend the belief that Zeus exists, in an intellectually honest way, against some reasonable objections. The subtle trick is you may or may not realize you have defended your own belief in your own god the same way.
   The really interesting thing is you are fairly certain that Zeus does not in fact exist, but you have successfully defended the possibility. Do you feel that you have successfully defended your own belief? Are others fairly certain that you are wrong?

Doubt that science plays a role in objecting to medical coverage

There is no shortage of conversation surrounding SCOTUS and Hobby Lobby and I will not spend much of my cyber energy on either of those two institutions or corporations or persons. It seems reasonable to me to think that the important topic in all of this is womens health. How it ends up being in the decision making hands of employers, religious as they may be, is difficult for me understand.
    The claim is that Hobby Lobby, being a religious something, does not pay for abortion. If it really is that simple it seems simple enough to read the following quote from this article and see that even if they wanted to avoid such, the items they refuse to cover are not such.

""There is no confusion in the scientific community regarding the mechanisms behind each contraceptive option and the medical community is in agreement that none of them equate to abortion," says Gupta. She adds that making women pay for their own contraception limits their options to less effective methods that ultimately yield more unwanted pregnancies and abortions."

   Clearly there are some things that are unclear to Hobby Lobby which makes me all the more doubtful that they need to be able to refuse to pay for legal medical procedures, treatments, or medications.

I doubt this is any stronger than Kalam

Seems to me that if the very thing you may be arguing against is doubt one of the weakest arguments may be "I know it and you don't". There may be a bit more sophistication in the way that Wartick lays it out but a straightforward articulation of his argument offers little more that personal experience.

   There may be more to this that meets the eye but if anyone sees anything other than the author stacking up more unprovable evidence and calling it more evidence, please let me know.



Move Over, Kalam, Here is the best argument for theism | J.W. Wartick -'Always Have a Reason'