This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Gosh. Is my argument really that strong??? Uh, no.
I don't know if he is the best opponent.
As an agnostic I will say that your argument is one of the better ones for God.I don't think that it is strong enough to make atheists run for the hills.
I can imagine forfeiting a debate like that because the opponent is either annoying or the exchange isn't productive. A beret suggests that the first condition might have been a contributing factor.
If the exchange wasn't productive, it was only because the atheist in his opening statement, rather than present some good arguments, decided to tell the theist he was defining "God" the wrong way. That's lame.
Well, that was quite the ass-whuppin'.
I could imagine myself forfeiting in a debate if I didn't understand the argument and needed time to reflect on it further.
Wow, you sure notice things rather quickly!
Indeed it is that strong.Good example of the old truismdebates:philosophy::bullet chess: standard chessThat dude's flag just fell, so he loses. Put a 0 in his column.
I can think of some real garbage openings that will almost certainly befuddle a bullet opponent.
"1. No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes"Rationally inferred? Is not every inferrence rational? Or are there any irrational inferrences? Is computer reasoning irrational or rational?
Leonard,In a purely naturalistic framework, to talk of rationality would be meaningless. Since our cognitive faculties are geared for survival, not rationality or truth, we have no reason to think any of our beliefs are true, even the belief in naturalism.
Post a Comment