JAG Writes:
An alternative title for this thread: Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Plausibility)
My view is (and has always been) that with regard to arguments that deal with
the spiritual unseen world and with moral values and with the supernatural, that
there are no arguments that can rise to the certainty-level of 5 + 5 = 10, and
that the very best anyone can ever hope to establish is probability, not certainty.
`
What I just said deals with showing Christianity to be true as opposed to knowing
Christianity to be true. William Lane Craig makes this point in his book
Reasonable Faith.
`
What that means is we Christians hold that we can know Christianity to be true
based upon the inner witness of the Holy Spirit that lives in us and tells us that
Christianity is true. It is utterly impossible for us to prove this to be true with
intellectual arguments that rise to the certainty-level of 2 + 2 + 4.
_________________
So I admit (as does William Lane Craig) that we can not demonstrate with logical
arguments that Christianity is true, with proof that rises to the certainty-level of
the following syllogism:
All men are mortal.
Socrates was a man.
Therefore Socrates was mortal.
``
So?
`
So it is impossible to establish certainty (as noted above).
`
We have to be satisfied with establishing probability.
But when we attempt to establish probability, we immediately enter the realm
of the subjective and that is where the constant bickering and arguing back and
forth occurs, because one man's probability is another man's improbability.
`
For example, the Teleological Argument for the existence of God seeks to establish
probability based on the obvious order, design, and complexity that we see in the
natural world, in the human body, in the Hubble Deep Field, and for that matter on the
shelves of Walmart and Sam's Club --- all evidence of endless variety of products made
from endless varieties of raw materials. Intelligent Design.
`
The very best anyone can do with the Teleological Argument is to establish probability,
and thereby enter into the world of the subjective. Most Christians find the evidence
for Intelligent Design to enjoy high probability. It ought to be safe to say that all atheists,
by definition of atheism, will find the Argument from Intelligent design to be improbable.
________________
Certainty vs. Probability In Argumentation.
Says William Lane Craig:
"The Christian apologist may employ both deductive and inductive arguments in defense
of Christian theism.
In order for the arguments to be good ones, the premises need to have a particular epistemic status for us.
But what sort of status is that?
Certainty is an unrealistic and unattainable goal.
Were we to require that we have certainty of the truth of an argument's premises, the result
for us would be skepticism.
What we're looking for is a comparative criterion: the premises in a good argument will have
greater plausibility than their respective denials."___William Lane Craig
__________
Then Craig makes this statement:
"Plausibility is to a great extent a person-dependent notion.
Some people may find a premise plausible while others do not.
Accordingly some people will agree that a particular argument is a good one, while
others will say that it is a bad argument.
Given our diverse backgrounds and biases, we should expect such disagreements.
Obviously, the most persuasive arguments will be those which are based on premises
which enjoy the support of widely accepted evidence or seem intuitively to be true."
___William Lane Craig,
All quotes above are from Reasonable Faith, Third Edition, by William Lane Craig, page 55
__________
Definitions of what I mean when I use the following words in the Opening Post:
Plausibility - the quality of seeming reasonable
Probability - the likelihood of something happening
Probable - likely to be the case or likely to happen
epistemic - relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation
`
`
An alternative title for this thread: Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Plausibility)
My view is (and has always been) that with regard to arguments that deal with
the spiritual unseen world and with moral values and with the supernatural, that
there are no arguments that can rise to the certainty-level of 5 + 5 = 10, and
that the very best anyone can ever hope to establish is probability, not certainty.
`
What I just said deals with showing Christianity to be true as opposed to knowing
Christianity to be true. William Lane Craig makes this point in his book
Reasonable Faith.
`
What that means is we Christians hold that we can know Christianity to be true
based upon the inner witness of the Holy Spirit that lives in us and tells us that
Christianity is true. It is utterly impossible for us to prove this to be true with
intellectual arguments that rise to the certainty-level of 2 + 2 + 4.
_________________
So I admit (as does William Lane Craig) that we can not demonstrate with logical
arguments that Christianity is true, with proof that rises to the certainty-level of
the following syllogism:
All men are mortal.
Socrates was a man.
Therefore Socrates was mortal.
``
So?
`
So it is impossible to establish certainty (as noted above).
`
We have to be satisfied with establishing probability.
But when we attempt to establish probability, we immediately enter the realm
of the subjective and that is where the constant bickering and arguing back and
forth occurs, because one man's probability is another man's improbability.
`
For example, the Teleological Argument for the existence of God seeks to establish
probability based on the obvious order, design, and complexity that we see in the
natural world, in the human body, in the Hubble Deep Field, and for that matter on the
shelves of Walmart and Sam's Club --- all evidence of endless variety of products made
from endless varieties of raw materials. Intelligent Design.
`
The very best anyone can do with the Teleological Argument is to establish probability,
and thereby enter into the world of the subjective. Most Christians find the evidence
for Intelligent Design to enjoy high probability. It ought to be safe to say that all atheists,
by definition of atheism, will find the Argument from Intelligent design to be improbable.
________________
Certainty vs. Probability In Argumentation.
Says William Lane Craig:
"The Christian apologist may employ both deductive and inductive arguments in defense
of Christian theism.
In order for the arguments to be good ones, the premises need to have a particular epistemic status for us.
But what sort of status is that?
Certainty is an unrealistic and unattainable goal.
Were we to require that we have certainty of the truth of an argument's premises, the result
for us would be skepticism.
What we're looking for is a comparative criterion: the premises in a good argument will have
greater plausibility than their respective denials."___William Lane Craig
__________
Then Craig makes this statement:
"Plausibility is to a great extent a person-dependent notion.
Some people may find a premise plausible while others do not.
Accordingly some people will agree that a particular argument is a good one, while
others will say that it is a bad argument.
Given our diverse backgrounds and biases, we should expect such disagreements.
Obviously, the most persuasive arguments will be those which are based on premises
which enjoy the support of widely accepted evidence or seem intuitively to be true."
___William Lane Craig,
All quotes above are from Reasonable Faith, Third Edition, by William Lane Craig, page 55
__________
Definitions of what I mean when I use the following words in the Opening Post:
Plausibility - the quality of seeming reasonable
Probability - the likelihood of something happening
Probable - likely to be the case or likely to happen
epistemic - relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation
`
`
