When discussing philosophy and 'theology' why do people use arguments they know are flawed? In no other area of intellectual pursuit does this happen.
I don't read about physics and see a physicist explain:
The aether exists, all waves propagate through a medium, light is a wave and the aether is it's medium! You can't get interference if the waves aren't in something.
Then other physicists explain:
The Michelson-Morley experiment proves that there is no aether, by demonstrating a lack of aether wind.
Then a few weeks later see the exact same flawed and rebutted argument for the existence of the aether! Wouldn't that be annoying.
To any reasonable person; if an argument is shown to be flawed it is retracted and not used again. To use a knowingly flawed argument to convince someone of your views is deception!
Time and time again, however, I hear the same flawed arguments in support of the existence of the supernatural. Perhaps it's a case of "the ends justify the means" - "as long as I convert someone it doesn't matter if I lied to them"