Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lazcatluc · 03-10-2003, 05:16 AM

Quote:

This contradicts what you said earlier, that X and Y are chosen arbitrarily. But if you want to narrow the playing field to only those nontheists who believe that ANB is sound, I am happy to grant that restriction -- it only makes the proposition stronger, since it makes it less open to counterexample. If you dispute my proposition, then show the logical contradiction in a nontheist coming to believe that God exists in a completely naturalistic way

I have done that already in the Feedback forum. I have formulated a step-by-step proof that shows that it is impossible for someone who believes ANB to become a believer.

Quote:

(0) John wants the situation of his life saved to obtain

does not entail

(1) John wants the situation of (either his life saved or his having a new car) to obtain,

any more than

(0') Dave wants the situation of his having a million dollars to obtain

entails

(1') Dave wants the situation of (either his having a million dollars or his being castrated) to obtain

Exactly, so, why would the fact that God wants all people to be saved entail that God wants all people to be saved or almost people to be saved? You claim that "all people to be saved" and "almost all people to be saved" are very closely related while, in my analogy they are not. But, in my opinion, they are not closely related at all (or, at least, there is no evidence that they are). Think of it this way: "I want no car to hit me today". Is this desire closely related to "I want almost no car to hit me today"? I think not. So, until there is a real proof that wanting all people to be saved and wanting almost all people to be saved are very closely related, my analogy still holds.

Quote:

1. There is evidence that God would want all or almost all people to be saved. This is not the same thing as God wanting almost all people to be saved, nor is it derived from it. Also, ANB states not that God would want all or almost all people to be saved (although that proposition strengthens the argument), but that God would want almost all people to believe that certain propositions are true (what Drange calls the gospel message). Again, you're arguing against yourself

ANB does state that God wants all or almost all people top be saved:
(A2) states that God wants to bring about Situation S, where Situation S is defined as "all or almost all people coming to believe the propositions in Set P"
The bible states that God wants all people to be saved and as I believe I have shown above, this does not entail that he wants all or almost all people to be saved, since there is no evidence that these 2 propositions are "closely related"

Quote:

2. Drange probably didn't have a specific figure in mind, and it's not really necessary to have a working numerical figure, since it is clear to any rational person that less than one-third of something does not constitute almost all of something

What about 85%? Is that almost all?
Anyway, the moment we agree on P%, a new argument, similar to the one against Strong-ANB, can be raised by considering not only X and Y but X1, X2,... Xn where n is as much as we need in order to obtain P%.

Quote:

It is an evidential argument. Although it is phrased as a logical argument, the argument establishes the conclusion with a degree of confidence correlating to the degree of confidence with which the premises are established

An evidential argument is an argument who establishes that, if it's premises are true, then there is a certain probability p<1 that it's conclusion is also true. If p=1 then it is not an evidential argument, it's a logical argument. The way ANB is structured by Dr. Drange, shows that ANB is a logical argument, not an evidential one.
Anyway, this is beside the point. Even if there is an evidential argument, there is no problem with that. There can still be people who believe ANB it's true and that's all I need in my proof.

lazcatluc · 03-10-2003, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by K
lazcatluc:

There are a couple of bad assumptions you made in your refutation of ANB.

First, you assumed that believers must start as non-believers and be converted. An omnipotent God could certainly make belief the default.
Second, you assumed a starting point where non-believers existed along with believers. Even if belief were not the default, God would only have to convert the first person to belief in order to circumvent your refutation. If that were the case, every new person would come into a world of believers. With no non-believers, there would be no ANB to convince the new person not to believe.

I would agree with you if we we're talking about God, but
we are talking about the Christian God so, certainly nonbelief is the default because, in the beginning, there were very few, if any, Christians. Also, your other objection does not hold since there was no "first person" when Jesus came.

Jamie_L · 03-11-2003, 09:41 AM

Well, sorry to start a post and abandon it, but things have gotten busy. Won't be around much. But, here's a thought:

Quote:

...we are talking about the Christian God so, certainly nonbelief is the default because, in the beginning, there were very few, if any, Christians.

ANB doesn't just address the issue of converting non-believers. It addresses the whole way in which the world is set up (in my opinion). If, in fact, God wants situation S so badly, why were there few if any Christians in the beginning?

I am admittedly new to the whole world of argumentation and the distinctions between logical and evidential arguements. My OP was just a short-hand explanation, not a reformulation of Drange's arguement.

However, to me, ANB seems very straightforward. If God wants people to believe, and God is omnipotent, why do people not believe? I came to the formal ANB through personal philosophical thought along the lines of: If God were real, and God wanted me to believe, why don't I believe? The only two answers that make sense seem to be: 1) God is fundamentally different from the god described by Christianity or 2) God does not exist at all.

Jamie

Silent Dave · 03-11-2003, 03:50 PM

Catalin--

I need not add to what I have said in my earlier posts. I rest my end of the debate.

Dave

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-11-2003, 03:50 PM	#24
Silent Dave Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bloomington, MN Posts: 2,209	Catalin-- I need not add to what I have said in my earlier posts. I rest my end of the debate. Dave

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.