[snip]:: Well, you see, i would not say that i consider them persuasive just because i am an advocate of one side. I do not consider myself a partisan and am quite willing to be convinced of god's existence it is just that no christian (nor the good lord for that matter) has been able to undercut my arguments in such a way as to show that i am wrong.
:My point, precisely! You recognize the nature of observational evidence, and therefore reject arguments that are based entirely on untestable, unfalsifiable assertions. An assertion with no supporting evidence (the Gotch approach) is simply never going to be convincing to anyone that isn't aleady convinced.
Well, i aM SURE that Gotch would say that he HAS evidencec for his position, it is just that his position, without more (religous experience perhaps) is not very convincing.
:: I believe that it is possible to come to a reasoned conclusion on these matters.
:That's very true; "reasoned" conclusions are inevitable, IMHO, because we are reasoning creatures. But these conclusions are non-evidential, and therefore non-demonstrative. There are no performance criteria for any claims about which there can be no evidence. An example (stolen from Carl Sagan's brilliant opus The Demon Haunted World): if I assert that there is an invisible dragon living in my garage, you'll reasonably tend to assume that I've forgotten to take my medication, right? So, if I offer to show you the dragon, assume you wish to humor me and you go out to the carport and look. You will certainly reply "I don't see any dragon." To which I can respond "Exactly, that proves he's invisible!" You can try to touch the dragon, of course, but I can say "oh, he has the power to make your hand pass right through him." You can spread fine powder on the floor, hoping to get traces of the dragon's footprints, but I can respond that he's a _flying_ invisible, non-tactile, silent, odorless dragon, ad infinitum. Does all this mean that the dragon isn't there? Not logically, although that's a reasonable conclusion. If there really was a dragon with all those characteristics, (or more accurately, lack of characteristics,) the universe would behave as though there was no dragon at all. Therefore the two propositions (is a dragon: isn't a dragon) can not be differentiated on the basis of evidence. One might argue "well, I have never seen a garage-dwelling, invisible, odorless, flying, silent dragon in any other context, and so it is less reasonable to assume there is one than to assume that there is not, but this is still not a logical proof it is only a statement of statistical probability (based on a sample size of one, so therefore not even a very convincing probability argument!). When absolutely no evidence exists one way or the other, our ability to argue one side of an issue over another rests on assertions, arguments from authority, and so forth.
I think that i should make it clear that i would draw a fundamental distinction between arguments based on experience and reason and those based upon revelation. Experience and reason can be used to draw out inconsistencies and what is likely and what is not. In other words it can be used as justification, just as scientific expeiements are used to justify.
Such reasoning falls down of course when confronted with arguments from revelation (But see my post to nikhil).
:: In fact this brings me to another question. If as you contend we cannot show either side to be true and we are just 'advocates' then what sort of knowledge can we have of these matters? One side will be just as correct as the other. It will just be a matter of who asserts loudest and best (ie one foot on the slippery slope to relativism).
:Exactly! We can't have demonstrated, useful, practical knowledge when no evidence for or against competing propositions exists. In such situations, we are reduced to the equivalent of chirping crickets, as our words cease to have practical value.
:: Then again if you are correct are we now not just advocating different positions?
:Oops, you caught me, I actually DO get involved in philosophical debates after all! ;-)
::You cannot prove yourself that science is the only way to prove something as the proof you are attempting is not in fact science.
:You lost me there. Let me see if I understood you correctly. I believe you're saying that the attempt (to prove that science is the only source of knowledge) is not science, and therefore can not be successful. IOW, the attempt is not science, so if it is true, it can not be proven, whereas if it can be proven, it is, by definition, false, since it is a non-scientific proof. Is that what you were saying? That would be a considerable paradox! However, I'm not arguing that science is the only source of knowledge. Rather, I'm arguing that it is the only way we can make meaningful statements about the physical world, and therefore the only way to make statements that we can apply to the material world.
So we have other sources of knowledge? Ok then if we take the socratic formulation of knowledge (accepted i believe by most although problematic due to the gettier counterexamples), then knowledge consists of justified true belief. One way of justifying a belief is through scientific experientation.
Now, as you believe in sources of knowledge other than science, it follows that you must find acceptable sources of justification other than science. Yes?
[snip]
