the problem with most metaphysical and theological arguments

Dr. Vallicella, in a Substack post about "the two assurances of religion," says the following:

For it is a meta-philosophical conviction of mine that no argument in metaphysics in support of a substantive proposition, no matter how rigorously deployed, is rationally coercive.

So all of those "logical proofs" for the existence of God don't amount to anything in terms of rational persuasion. How logical those proofs are, in and of themselves, isn't as important as whether the arguments can persuade you rationally if the goal is to bring about change.

Ultimately, it all comes down to faith or core convictions, which tend to be rooted in emotion. And anything rooted in emotion is nearly impossible to uproot. A tendency to liberalism or conservatism, to use an overly simplistic example (because we are all liberal about some things and conservative about others, with our various convictions on a sliding scale from weak to strong), is ultimately rooted in emotion, not rationality, so all the political argument in the world isn't going to do anything to move any needles.

But boy, will we keep trying. Theologians will continue to try to formulate logical "proofs" of God's existence. Politically minded people will continue to offer "logical" arguments for their side—partly rooted in what they consider empirical evidence, partly rooted in what they call "reason," partly rooted in examples meant to evoke powerful, primitive emotions.

Ultimately, there's little point in trying to persuade people. But many of us—maybe most of us—are wired to keep trying. I'm (predisposed to be) persuaded by this point of view.