From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 8:30 AM To: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: Brian Holtz on Religion- a critique Jim Humphries wrote: > philosophers and logicians evaluate arguments > in terms of their soundness. I never said otherwise. So how does this make my "convincing" any *more* subjective than your "indisputably sound"? > 'Convincing' arguments might be false, however well-presented > they are. I never said otherwise. So how does this make my "convincing" any *more* subjective than your "indisputably sound"? > This is becoming silly. [..] > I think you are arguing for the sake of > arguing Brian First you make two statements that are not in contention and are not relevent to the question of whether my "convincing" is any more subjective than your "indisputably sound". Then you edit out this question from your quotation of my posting and do not even dare address it. Finally, you say our argument is "silly" and that *I* am "arguing for the sake of arguing"! LOL. Recall that this topic began with you disputing my book's claim that humans have no credible evidence or convincing or indisputibly sound proof "of any deities, including a God, Creator, First Cause, Perfect or Necessary Being." You quickly retreated from debating the substance of such evidence or proofs, and have as usual taken refuge behind the non-existence of any mechanical, algorithmic way to settle all debates about philosophical and empirical issues. It is quite obviously *you* who are avoiding the substantive debate, and instead are attempting meta-debate about what would constitute winning the debate. > - you position here is plainly indefensible. My "position" is that my notion of "convincing" is no more "subjective" than your notion "indisputably sound". My "position" is in fact so "defensible" that you dare not even quote it or rebut it. > [ on why there is something rather than nothing] > > A possibly > > meaningful answer is roughly that the universe exists > > (more precisely, is perceived to exist) because it is > > possible. However, this raises the question: why is any > > universe possible? The answer might be roughly that > > absolute impossibility -- the state of affairs in which > > nothing is possible -- is itself not possible. > > > According to your your criterion this is meaningless > since the claims here cannot be verified or falsified. Note that my criterion only applies to analytic statements. "Absolute impossibility is itself not possible" is either just as analytic, or just as synthetically meaningless, as the statements about God in ontological proofs of his existence. > "Roughly" and "Possibly meaningful"are special pleading > for atheism. No, they are simply an admission that my understanding of this idea is incomplete. > the toys only dance > when nobody is watching , and leave no trace if their > activities. Hence one could not verify that there > had been any activity. But the sentence is quite > meaningful- both you and I know exactly what it > means. Oh? Prove it. Tell me "exactly" what it means. As I said (and as you dared not quote): the only meaning I can associate with it is the limit approached by such similar statements as the possibility [of dancing-toy-traces] approaches zero. But that still doesn't imply that the original statement is factually meaningful. > Or perhaps you could tell me what you > you find meaningless about it? I already told you, and you ignored it: It then becomes the same type of statement as "the universe was created five minutes ago", which for obvious reasons should not be considered factually meaningful. Are you unclear about what makes this latter statement meaningless? > It is clear that Swinburne's example is devastating for > your principle. You ignore my rebuttals to the example, and then call the example "devastating". LOL. > Ii keep telling you that almost nobody in philosophy > adheres to your sort of dated verificationism. Yes, you "keep telling" me, but you completely ignored my Mar 28 literature survey of the meaning of verificationism and my explanation of how my principle is different. > Ayer admitted in a letter to Alonzo Church that the > verificationist principle could not be formulated in any > satisfactory way. To the extent that you accurately represent his views, Ayer appears to have been wrong. -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net