As simple as possible to summarize the best way you can, first, please. Feel free to expand after, or just say whatever you want lol. Honest question.
Assuming you're a skeptic...
There’s no way to know the truth on this particular subject. [i.e. God]
Arguments for God's existence (such as classical theistic arguments) are not merely isolated truth claims—they function at the paradigmatic level, offering a foundation for knowledge itself.
If you deny God's existence, you must account for the reliability of reason, logic, and abstract universals like mathematics. If these are simply “self-evident,” then you're assuming the very thing your worldview has no means to justify.
No, you can use logic to prove certain things can’t exist. If there’s a contradiction, it can’t be correct, for example.
Only if you can justify the validity of logic in your worldview. But without a transcendent source of rationality, why assume logic is binding or that it applies universally? You're using a tool (logic) without explaining why it ought to work or why it's trustworthy in a purely materialistic or skeptical framework.
I’m not making a universal statement. I’m making the statement that someone who values truth should seek truth. That seems self-evident.
Okay well this is just an opinion then. My main point here is that you can't propose any "oughts" without a justification.
Again. I'm being nit-picky but I feel like this thread is meant to invite some apologetic banter.