Originally Posted by Maartenn100
That's why it's a good thing there are additional concepts such as a priori
plausibility and Occam's Razor to keep that condition from resulting in nonsensical beliefs. That's especially important when the proponents of those beliefs keep moving the goalposts to avoid what would otherwise seem like the falsification of reasonable deduced consequents. The question you're asking got moved to a different thread. This thread is about a particularly silly attempt at conjuring up a proof for God out of tatters and collages of poorly-rendered philosophy and blatantly bad logic. So the main question we can ask deists, I suppose, is why the desperate need to make believe there's an objective proof for what is almost always claimed in the religion should be a matter of faith?