What Is a "Good" Argument?
People claim there are no good arguments because a skeptic can always reject (one or more) premises linked to a conclusion. In other words, there are no arguments that rationally compel. Perhaps (… and only perhaps), but this misses the point of argumentation in their everyday role. The purpose of an argument is to pick out tensions in a person’s position, then offer a reasonable resolution.
For example, the naturalist is committed to wanting to explain things as far as possible. But the argument from contingency claims only theism can ultimately, satisfactorily explain why any finite-contingent thing exists instead of nothing. Thus, a tension has been located in the naturalist’s worldview. On the one hand, they want to push explanations as far as they can go; on the other hand, naturalism (according to the contingency argument) cannot explain as much as theism. What to do?
The naturalist can always “bite the bullet” or “accept the cost” of admitting brute facts into their worldview: that explanations arbitrarily peter out.1 But this doesn’t mean the argument from contingent isn’t good. It is good, since it provides a reasonable alternative to resolve the tension: namely, to abandon naturalism.
Kenny Pearce summarizes the issue well, “An argument is good if and only if: 1) it exposes a genuine tension in one or more worldviews actually held by at least some members of the audience, 2) at least some members of the audience would be rational to respond to that tension by endorsing the conclusion.”2
There are, as I’ve written about many times, numerous issues with admitting brute facts, including skeptical scenarios. For an articulation of this, see: http://robkoons.net/uploads/1/3/5/2/135276253/koons-pruss2020_article_skepticismandtheprincipleofsuf.pdf
Is There a God? Pg. 181.