> the problem is actually a philosophical one.
This is what I would say too if I had no evidence for the things I was claiming exist.
> your stance is that God doesn't exist because God doesn't exist?
You said Kierkegaard et al's arguments should be easy to refute. If I come up with a clever argument for the existence of leprechauns, and no one can refute my amazing logic, do leprechauns all of a sudden magically exist? Again, there is nothing to refute. You can come up with the most magnificent argument you like for a god, but that god either exists or does not, independent of that argument, and my inability to refute any claims you've made is not evidence your god exists.
>How do you know whether or not it exists?
Is there a hidden third option I'm missing?
> Disagree completely, they all presented interesting arguments.
Replace in any of those arguments the word "unicorn" instead of "god" and they are as equally meaningful.
This is what I would say too if I had no evidence for the things I was claiming exist.
> your stance is that God doesn't exist because God doesn't exist?
You said Kierkegaard et al's arguments should be easy to refute. If I come up with a clever argument for the existence of leprechauns, and no one can refute my amazing logic, do leprechauns all of a sudden magically exist? Again, there is nothing to refute. You can come up with the most magnificent argument you like for a god, but that god either exists or does not, independent of that argument, and my inability to refute any claims you've made is not evidence your god exists.
>How do you know whether or not it exists?
Is there a hidden third option I'm missing?
> Disagree completely, they all presented interesting arguments.
Replace in any of those arguments the word "unicorn" instead of "god" and they are as equally meaningful.