From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 3:40 PM To: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: Brian Holtz on Religion- a critique Jim Humphries wrote > > > there are not indisputably *sound* proofs for the existence > > > > ["convincing"] is no more subjective than your formulation of > > "indisputably sound". It's objective enough for my purposes. > > No, soundness is a very precise notion in logic. > A sound argument is a valid argument > with true premises. But the truth of the relevant premises is (as you conceded) disputable. The bottom line is that it's just as easy for a person to say "I dispute the truth of your argument's premises" as it is for him to say "I am not convinced by your argument". You once again seem to be trying to invoke what I've before called "the inevitable lack of a mechanical procedure for resolving debates" that are not subject to purely formal (i.e. mathematical or logical) resolution. That tactic may be useful in arguing the trivial point that you're not indisputably wrong, but it's useless in arguing that you're right. > > By "convincing" I don't mean "able to convince any possible > > person". I mean "tending to convince any reasonable person". > > Then you have the problem of who counts as a > 'reasonable person'. That's not such a tough problem to have. Courts deal with that problem all the time. > > Do you deny that reasonable people tend not to be convinced > > by the alleged evidence for demons, forest spirits, vampires, > > werewolves, faeries, ghosts, reincarnation, alien abductions, etc.? > > Depends what you mean by 'reasonable person'. I mean that phrase's ordinary common-usage meaning. Again: for any definition of "reasonable people" that you wouldn't look silly trying to defend, do you deny that reasonable people tend not to be convinced by the alleged evidence for demons, forest spirits, vampires, werewolves, faeries, ghosts, reincarnation, alien abductions, etc.? > It also depends on the time, historical period etc.. Bzzt. "Tend" is present tense. You'll have to come up with some other way to dodge this question. > My position on Platinga's argument is that it is perhaps sound, > and at least provides good grounds for > believing that God exists. [..] I will present his argument asap Please do. > > I see no reason to assume that the series as a whole needs > > a separate cause outside the series, > > As I said, you have no explanation. As I said, you haven't demonstrated (or even argued) that the series as a whole needs a separate explanation. You've merely asserted it, and then deleted my argument to the contrary: any more than that the series of every other cause needs yet another outside cause. > > there are other, more plausible > > explanations for the origin of human nature (such as evolution). > > Evolution is *not* a theory of the *origin* of > human nature. Do you deny that evolution helps explain the origin of human nature? Have you not heard of the entire subdiscipline called evolutionary psychology? > > And thus it is not a good reason for a typical atheist to adopt > > theism. > > I argue that if we supplement the argument it *can* provide > good reason! Only if there is good reason to believe the "supplement" -- i.e. that either El/Yahweh exists or no deities exist. As I show in my book, there is no good reason to believe this. > > "Most"? Then why have you failed three times to answer my request > > for the name of a *single* Christian believer who does > > not have any beliefs based on revelation and exempt from doubt? > > Surely the well- known example of St Thomas, The Apostle Thomas left no writings, and the Gospels hardly tell us enough about him to justify the claim that he never had any beliefs based on revelation and exempt from doubt. > as well as much religious literature on the subject, tells you > that theistic belief is subject to doubt. As I've told you repeatedly, I'm not claiming that Christians or theists never have any doubts. So you've still not given us the name of a Christian that you can justifiably claim does (or did) not have any beliefs based on revelation and exempt from doubt. Nor have you dared answer the question I here repeat for the fifth time: Can you name any Christians who hold subject to doubt the statement of John 3:16 that "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life"? > > would you agree that it > > is inadvisable to hold any belief based on revelation and > > exempt from doubt? > > 'Inadvisable' in what sense? In the common-usage sense of not to be advised. In the future, please assume common-usage dictionary definitions for any term whose definition is not indicated by the context. > > If a synthetic statement is neither falsifiable nor > > verifiable under any possible circumstances, then it > > is propositionally meaningless. [..] > > my statement is analytic -- > > i.e. it defines what is to be considered meaningless. > > Your statement is *not * analytic: an analytic statement > is one in which then predicate is contained in the > concept of the subject http://www.xrefer.com/entry/551265: [..] held that an analytic statement is one which is true or false purely in virtue of the meanings of the words used to make it and the grammatical rules governing their combination. This definition has the advantages that it does not have application only to statements of subject-predicate form and avoids either reliance on the obscure notion of 'containment' My statement help defines what is to be considered meaningless, and thus is analytic. -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net