tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post5417459485841335775..comments2024-03-28T11:25:20.916-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Is proof necessaryVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66697012282976147732018-04-30T05:07:33.937-07:002018-04-30T05:07:33.937-07:00There are two issues I see raised here, The issue ...There are two issues I see raised here, The issue of proper basically. Lydia McGrew seemed to say that if you argue proper basicality you can't make God arguments. I don't see why you can't do both, if there is a reason let me know.<br /><br />The piece by CSL suggest not PB but stopping short of proof, making lesser truth claims, such an approach might be my argument that we don't need proof but that belief is rationally warranted.I make this https://www.amazon.com/dp/0982408714/argumet in my book, <b><i>The Trace of god:Rational Warrant for Belief,</i></b><a href="" rel="nofollow"><b>(see amazon).</b></a><br /><br /><br /><br />The argumet I wrote we discussed on this board,my own "argument from Transcendental signifiers," on <a href="http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2018/04/argument-from-transcendental-signifiers.html" rel="nofollow"><b>CADRE blog</b></a><br /><br />Quantum Theory does not prove the universe could emerge from nothing. See: "QM Field Theory does not prove Something from nothing,"<br /><a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/04/qm-field-theory-no-proof-something-from.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Metacrock's blog</b></a><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com