Path: ultra.sonic.net!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!news.walltech.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!206.65.248.4!dialnet!shell.dialnet.net!ejr From: Ed Robillard Newsgroups: alt.books.cs-lewis Subject: Re: Effect of apologetic works Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 06:01:29 -0600 Organization: DialNet USENET News Service. Lines: 86 Message-ID: References: <32D95DE7.367F@flash.net> <32dd906f.3898631@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com> <32E34629.2E82@informatica.com> <32EE0AD4.3E79@cant.ac.uk> <32F8A7A5.6082@cant.ac.uk> <0$wbDGAP9j+yEwUt@aristos.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell.dialnet.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <0$wbDGAP9j+yEwUt@aristos.demon.co.uk> On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Sam Dodsworth wrote: > In article <32F8A7A5.6082@cant.ac.uk>, ian matthews > writes > >Bruce Hietbrink wrote: > >> > >> In article , Sam > >Dodsworth > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > I think in this context "reasonable" means "something an > >> > intellegent person could believe". This includes a lot of things that > >> > could be true but aren't proven or aren't provable. To illustrate my > >> > point, consider the following statements: > >> > > >> > "I have put a full-grown elephant in my wardrobe." (Not reasonable) > >> > > >> > "I have put an overcoat in my wardrobe." (Reasonable) > >> > > >> > "I may not have put anything in my wardrobe." (True) > >> > > >> > If you don't acknowledge the difference between "reasonable" and "true" > >> > then the last two statements must both be considered "true". You now > >> > have to deal with the resulting contradiction. > >To ignore Mr Hietbrink for the moment, (sorry, > >nothing personal), we are talking about belief in > >whether something is true. To use the analogy of > >the wardrobe, both the last two statements are > >'reasonable', but only one would be true. > >Therefore, the other would be false, and to decide > >this means you must have reason as to why one is > >false and the other true. There must be a point at > >which you decide, as you cannot state that they are > >both true. > > > >To bring this back to Christianity, if you find it > >reasonable, why do you not accept the truthfullness > >of it? > > I'm not exactly sure how to read your first paragraph, but I > think you've missed something. Point two is reasonable but unproven > (since we don't know what's in the wardrobe) and point three is > definitely true regardless of what's in the wardrobe. I think you may be > mistaking true in the sense of "that's how reality is" with true in the > sense of "this statement is true". I'm not talking about coats and > wardrobes, I'm talking about statements about coats and wardrobes. To be honest, I don't know if I'd call the third statement true or not, because it is not a definitive statement. You're saying you MAY NOT have done something. Since your statement is in the past tense, we have to assume that you know if you did or didn't put something in your wardrobe. But your statment isn't giving us an oppertunity for a true or false answer. If I go and look in your wardrobe, then I'll know whether or not you've put something in it. At that point, I could say 'You put socks in your wardrobe' and you can respond 'I didn't say I didn't put anything in my wardrobe.' But if I look and find nothing. I can state 'You put nothing in your wardrobe' to which you can respond 'I didn't say I didn't put nothing in my wardrobe'. Opposite results, both covered by your words. Thus, your words give us no value with which to verify the truth, and the words 'I may not have put anything in my wardrobe' is not a statement to which truthfulness can be applied. > I don't believe I just said that. > > Why do I not accept the truth of Christianity? Well... the short > answer is that there's no conclusive evidence that it's true and I do > not, personally, find it reasonable. My original point, though (which > I'd hoped was sufficiently clear from the original post) was simply that > "true" is not the same thing as "reasonable" and confusing the two leads > to all kinds of problems. If there was conclusive evidence, then everyone would believe, and there would be no reason for faith at all. But for whatever reason, God seems to want us to have Faith in him in spite of the lack of sufficient evidence to make it reasonable to an intelligent man. I am, truely, sorry that you feel it necessary to see to believe. I hope that God finds a way to get to you despite this insistance of yours. But that is between you and Him. Ed Robillard