Warrant and the Atheist game of proving

Image result for toulmin's model of argumentation


Pixie is fussing over my use of the term "warrant but he can't seem to understand it, Let's just take out the bothersome Toulmin stuff and say this. Warrant means there is a good reason to believe in God. I have a good reason to believe in God even though I can't prove God exists.  

Pixie asserts that I have to use the term to make the arguments, but  here here are two of my arguments that do not use the term  to make the argument function.


Version A: CA for Eternal, Necessary Being

1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists exists either necessarily or contingently.
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
4. Therefore, there exists at least one necessary thing.
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'6. Therefore God exists.[1]

On that argument you can see I do not use the term Warrant at all. Now I still say that argument  warrants belief. That  is the way I use the term not to make an  argument function but as the goal of the argument,I argue to show belief is warranted. Here is one where I use the term in  the argument:

(1) mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know,
(2) Random ordering is usually inefficient and the odds are against its dependability
(3) The Universe Displays a Law-like efficiency and dependability in the workings of it's natural machinations. \
(4) Such efficiency and dependability is indicative of mind as ordering principle (from 1,3), therefore, it is logical to assume mind as the best explanation for the dependability of the universe..
(5) A mind that orders the universe fits the major job description for God, Thus mind is the best explanation, assuming the choices are mind vs random chance.(6) Thus we have a rational warrant for belief that Go exists

Notice here it is. it is in the place of the conclusion where it would normally say: therefore God is proven, since i don't claim to prove God it's warranted, But It's not part of the argument itself it doesn't  make the argument function; it's the goal to which the argument   aspires.


I think Pixie is harping on this idea because my use of  warrant really negates one of the major games atheists play. Atheists assert you an;t prove God,there fore you can't believe in God  (unless you are an idiot) thus there must not be a God. But the fact that God belief is rationally warranted (has good reasons) means  you are not an idiot to believe  in spite of not proving. That blows their thing because they can't beat God arguments with out the impossible  bar of proving.

[1] actually Clark;s CA
Sauel Clarke's;

life
thought

Comments

The Pixie said…
Joe: I think Pixie is harping on this idea because...

And yet you are the one who keeps bring it up.

Joe: ...Warrant means there is a good reason to believe in God. ...

That is quite a different usage to Toulmin. You use Toulmin to give your usage some validity, but it is merely a facade; a fake validity.
The Pixie said…
Joe: 1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists exists either necessarily or contingently.
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
4. Therefore, there exists at least one necessary thing.
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'6. Therefore God exists.


This is just defining God into existence. Something started everything, and you are choosing to label that something "God", without any regard to its other properties (such as intelligence).

Joe: On that argument you can see I do not use the term Warrant at all. Now I still say that argument warrants belief.

So in fact you do use the word "warrant" when using that argument to support your belief, completely undermining your claim: "here here are two of my arguments that do not use the term to make the argument function."

Thank you for proving me right.
The Pixie said…
Joe: (1) mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know,
(2) Random ordering is usually inefficient and the odds are against its dependability
(3) The Universe Displays a Law-like efficiency and dependability in the workings of it's natural machinations. \
(4) Such efficiency and dependability is indicative of mind as ordering principle (from 1,3), therefore, it is logical to assume mind as the best explanation for the dependability of the universe..
(5) A mind that orders the universe fits the major job description for God, Thus mind is the best explanation, assuming the choices are mind vs random chance.(6) Thus we have a rational warrant for belief that Go exists


I shoot this one down several times a year you trot it out so regularly.


(1) Is just plain wrong. The ordering in a snowflake or salt crystal is efficient and dependable, but due entirely to natural processes.

(2) "Usually"? You need to do better than that in a proof.

(3) and (4) are basically the sad out argument that a law of nature needs a law maker, failing to realise that a law in nature is quite different to a legal law.

(5) "fits the major job description"? You need to do better than that in a proof.

Then (6)... Well, it turns out that you do use the word "warrant" when using this argument too!

So your claim that you do not use "warrant" in all your arguments is based on two arguments, both of which do exactly what I said!
The Pixie said...
Joe: I think Pixie is harping on this idea because...

And yet you are the one who keeps bring it up.

Joe: ...Warrant means there is a good reason to believe in God. ...

That is quite a different usage to Toulmin. You use Toulmin to give your usage some validity, but it is merely a facade; a fake validity.

No it;s not every different,I covered that when I said,I am going further. look at the graphic on top of the post. reabel the boxes

initial claim we have good reason to believe in God

data 1 million animals killed becomes thousands of target levels exist or fine tuning

Warrant well being animals more important becomes hitting the proper levels is not inevitable

backing cosmetic cp,panes use animals becomes hitting target levels extremely improbable.


what makes that a possession argument is the argumemt that it;s not inevitable so because there;s a warrant to believe you have a reason to believe,

The Pixie said...
Joe: 1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists exists either necessarily or contingently.
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
4. Therefore, there exists at least one necessary thing.
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'6. Therefore God exists.

This is just defining God into existence. Something started everything, and you are choosing to label that something "God", without any regard to its other properties (such as intelligence).


no it;s not, mo philosopher will take you seriously. stop getting canned responses from atheists websites that nonsense goes with OA not the CA. there's not hinging about the first argument that is defining anything into existence,

Joe: On that argument you can see I do not use the term Warrant at all. Now I still say that argument warrants belief.

So in fact you do use the word "warrant" when using that argument to support your belief, completely undermining your claim: "here here are two of my arguments that do not use the term to make the argument function."

there;s a distinction between the actual content of an argument and the means of deciding the truth of an argent. Warrant pertains to the latter not the former, I said that already you should understand that

Thank you for proving me right.

I just proved you illiterate,

Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: (1) mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know,
(2) Random ordering is usually inefficient and the odds are against its dependability
(3) The Universe Displays a Law-like efficiency and dependability in the workings of it's natural machinations. \
(4) Such efficiency and dependability is indicative of mind as ordering principle (from 1,3), therefore, it is logical to assume mind as the best explanation for the dependability of the universe..
(5) A mind that orders the universe fits the major job description for God, Thus mind is the best explanation, assuming the choices are mind vs random chance.(6) Thus we have a rational warrant for belief that Go exists

I shoot this one down several times a year you trot it out so regularly.

I kid your ass


(1) Is just plain wrong. The ordering in a snowflake or salt crystal is efficient and dependable, but due entirely to natural processes.



that is totally begging the question you have no proof that it;s natural you have no evidence you are asserting it because it deals with nature you assert a prori no God therefore no God



(2) "Usually"? You need to do better than that in a proof.



why? minor exclaims would not disprove the perponderemce of evidence



(3) and (4) are basically the sad out argument that a law of nature needs a law maker, failing to realise that a law in nature is quite different to a legal law.



wrong on 2 commits: (1) I don't argue from a lawmaker analogy,I never assumed it;s a legislator and say that.(2) saying indicative of mind does not make it the legislature analogyy .The law-like dependability is that the thing being described (assuming Physical laws are observations of universal behavior ) is unfailing as though obeying. mind is indicated due to purposiveness but not from analogy but from the behavior of the universe,



(5) "fits the major job description"? You need to do better than that in a proof.



Ot's spot on and you know ot/ Again your assumption is a priori no God therefore a prori no god. it is such an obvious fit you can;t have it, you reonl yspoiuting ieologicalbroimides at it



Then (6)... Well, it turns out that you do use the word "warrant" when using this argument too!



Not in the argument, but as the decisions making paradigm is exactly how Isaid it is sed, you do not understand the issues involved .



So your claim that you do not use "warrant" in all your arguments is based on two arguments, both of which do exactly what I said!



It's not in the argument dumb ass it;s over it,
To be clear about 3 four I am not using the analogy to rules and law makers. The warrant for saying the universe seems to actin a law-like fashion is not because rules need lawmakers but because it never dearest from the pattern as though there is a set rule.

I speak of mind in relation to God analogously and not because we need minds to make set patters but because of the definiteness and fitness of it implies purpose.

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

Scientifically Documented Miracles

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

A Simple Illustration of the Trinity