Well the other day I was thinking about this, and the matter of fact is that its true. All arguments that are for the nonexistance of God are always viewed as rhetorical. Basically meaning a play on words and emotions, or using incorrect logic.
Well the other day, (more like the other year.) I was sitting and thinking about this. And as truth turns out, a long time ago, philosophy was actually much different. It was common knowledge that the theories of Gods existance were in question. All arguements for the existant of God were based on logic that required reverse logic, double think, and the like.
Well along comes a philosopher named locke... locke stated that because God exists, philosophy must be wrong if its proving his unexistance, so therefore we must remoddle philosophy. This idea was very liked by numorious groups: kings, queens, popes, and theologans instants took to the idea and philosophy was remade to say that arguements against god were wrong, while arguements in his favor were correct.
Hmmmmm, well this is rather odd scince it ment that all arguements would have to be in favor of a greater being, rather then against it, to be correct. Therefore, doesn't this mean there is a good chance that modern philosophical method is based on a baised system?
Well thats just theory... The church, kings, and many other facides had good reason to remake these things. Philosophy and god had really nothing to do with it. Ever heard the quote "the devine rule of the kind", or "papal infalability?" sounds sort of stange to me doesn't it. Why would philosophy be remade unless someone had something to gain from it?
I'll leave the rest up too you.
