From: posting-system@google.com Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 9:39 AM To: brian@holtz.org Subject: Re: JH: The Design Argument From: brian@holtz.org (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: JH: The Design Argument References: <29c16047.0201161632.69006fbc@posting.google.com> <200201251909.LAA13298@lsil.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.236.1.8 Message-ID: <29c16047.0201270938.1abd7ff1@posting.google.com> "Paul Filseth" wrote > > Why wouldn't the Christian God Yahweh not meet my definition > > (or, alternatively, not be possible to exist)? > > That question goes on the shelf until ground rules are agreed to. Here's a candidate ground rule: people who dodge a question (e.g. by debating ground rules) are presumed not to have a good answer to the question. :-) > > > I was the one pointing out discrepancies between your definitions > > > and how people actually use the words. > > > > Oh? As I noted in my unrebutted posting of Sep 3, your last posting > > in that thread simply ducked my question about actual usage: > > > > > > Do you seriously doubt that most philosophers (and most people > > > > in general) would conclude that the debate had been settled in > > > > favor of something they call "supernaturalism"? > > One of the ground rules I want is no more vague appeals to "most > philosophers." First, I note that you kept your "I was the one.." quote, but omitted my counter-quote of you saying earlier "Why do you care so much what most people would conclude?". I guess this is as close as we can expect to a concession that I indeed care about usage. :-) Second, when you're dodging a question, you should try to do it in a way that hasn't already been addressed. :-) Only 4 weeks ago, in my article previous to the one you're quoting, I wrote: > Repeatedly waving your hands in the general > direction of "the philosophical community" instead of quoting > it isn't evidence for that premise Almost every article at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/arguments.html use the terms "God" or "deity", most use "supernatural", and none (that I've seen) bother giving specialist definitions for them. Good exampels are: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/victor_reppert/miracles.html http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/miracles.html You completely ignored these citations. And on Nov 29 in this thread I told John Secker: > I am not going to debate the thoughts of unnamed "philosophers". William Lane Craig. Quentin Smith. Alvin Platinga. Richard Swinburne. David Hume. Immanuel Kant. Thomas Acquinas. So do you simply have no explanation for why all these (named) philosophers, both theistic and atheistic, take as well-defined a term you consider ill-defined? > It is entirely possible that people you would classify > as philosophers generally mean something different by "supernatural" > from what typical English speakers mean. Something "different", maybe; something *clearer*, definitely. That's why I distinguished the two categories in my question. Now, any estimate on what year you might try to answer it? :-) > > Do you or do you not think there is any possible definition of > > 'supernatural' that would render meaningful the traditional > > philosophical debate over whether supernaturality exists? > > How should I know, if you won't reproduce (or link to) samples > of "the traditional philosophical debate" for me to evaluate the > meaningfulness of? I gave you the links two articles ago, on Dec. 28. You completely ignored them, and now you ask for them again. What "ground rule" covers this practice of yours? :-) > if you think your answers qualify > as a refutation, then you shouldn't feel the need to wave in the > general direction of professionals any more. There's nothing wrong with making a strong case stronger. :-) > The question is whether they have a > good reason to agree with the dictionary definition. If you claim > they have such a reason, then the burden is on you to support your > claim that they have a good reason, by producing their reason so we > can evaluate it. That is a burden you cannot meet by presenting your > own arguments for why they're right, and cannot meet by calling them > "professionals". You can only meet it by _quoting_ them. Again, two articles ago I told you: How can I "reproduce" an argument that I've been explicitly claiming does not exist? I note that the philosophy literature also use terms like "concept", "scientific", "event", "phenomenon", and "true" -- all without any evidence that they are invoking any published philosophical justification for their meaningfulness. Are you claiming that a term used ordinarily and repeatedly in the philosophical literature should be presumed not to be meaningful? > the central issue raised is whether the concept of a natural > law is consistent with exceptions or with domain restrictions, especially those related to overriding or interference by volitional agents such as divinities. As demonstrated by my citations from the literature, your and McKinnon's simplistic concept of natural law has been convincingly rebutted. > > has been convincingly rebutted. > > That's another shelf topic. I hope your "shelf" is different from JH's, where issues on which he can't win vanish and are never heard about again. :-) > > A paper by Keith Parsons (an atheist) at [..] > > Glory be! When push comes to shove, the man is capable of quoting > his authorities. [..] Are you willing to do it > like that in the future and not demand that I joust with shadows? Not only will I continue to do it in the future, but I've done it in the past -- only two articles ago. I also did it in my Sep 3 posting "Re: definitions of god, atheism, etc", to which you never replied. > Or was this just a fluke? No, it was an egregious failure of your memory. -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net