tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post4823923357477483232..comments2024-03-29T03:30:25.637-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: New God Argument: God on the BrainJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-67672485732936211012012-05-04T09:08:41.667-07:002012-05-04T09:08:41.667-07:00Given that, the issue becomes how and why you inte...Given that, the issue becomes how and why you interact with them. And in the midst of your tangents, you have said that you want "to be right" and you want "to be loved." You also mentioned wanting to understand the nature of the universe, which suggests that you believe that the universe can be reduced to the logic of the human mind, or else that such logic is the least problematic option available.<br /><br /><b>NO it doesn't. Logic is obviously one tool for understanding. We have no understanding without logic. Even intuitive sorts of understanding if not enunciated and developed through logical means go away and soon become forgotten veg impulses that mean nothing.</b><br /><br />This leads naturally to the following questions:<br /><br />1. By whose standard and in whose eyes do you want to "be right"? What would accomplishing this mean to you?<br /><br /><b>my own of cousre. what would it accomplish? this is a case where you keep going with the why it's going to become counter productive. I want to be right so I wont be wrong. I don't want to be wrong becuase I don't want ot be false and untrue. I don't to be false and untrue because I associate that with dishonesty if you know you are false and you don't care. I don't want to be dishonest because it's not right. I want becasue right becuase it's true. here we have a circular rationing. so in the end it breaks down and nothing meaning and there's no reason to be right.<br /><br />so lets' say I want to be wrong? can't you do the same circular thing starting form the desire to be wrong? and that breaks down?<br /><br />so there has to be a stopping out and being right seems intuitively to be more valid than being wrong.</b><br /><br />2. How does creating and defending logical arguments about belief in God make you "feel loved"?<br /><br /><b>it reminds me that God is real and thus the feeling of God loving me is all the more valid.</b><br /><br />3. Do you believe that the universe can be reduced to systems of human logic? <br /><br /><b>of course not but that's one of the major checks we have agaisnt deception and one of the major tools we have for understanding. I see it as a parallax view with the intuative.</b><br /><br />What about those aspects that appear to be irrational to the human mind? Do you accept that there are logical systems explaining the universe that do not involve God?<br /><br /><b>that I don't know. I have an intuitive sense that God and logic are inextricably bound up together and that doing logic can be a trigger for mystical experience.I think that's why some of those big math guys were mystics.<br /><br />I don't think that relationship is as crass as bad pervayers of the TAG argument make it seem.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-13149676659672704902012-05-04T08:59:18.571-07:002012-05-04T08:59:18.571-07:00The reason I keep asking "Why?" is becau...The reason I keep asking "Why?" is because it forces the responder to go deeper into her or his chain of assumptions and motivations, to levels that otherwise go unexamined. If that is uncomfortable for you, then you can decline to answer. But I will ignore the tangents and challenges and focus on the progress.<br /><br /><br /><b>the reason people don't think small children are cleaver when they do that is becuase a point after which it comes tiresome and unnecessary and coutner productive.</b><br /><br />I will break it down for you from my point of view. You initially kept saying that rational warrants are valuable because they are logical. I asked why it matters if they are logical. Valuable and true things can be illogical, and useless and untrue things can be logical.<br /><br /><b>No they can't. I don't of anything that is valuable and illogical. Ok for example diamonds are only valuable because people say they are, but it's not necessarily illogical to pick out some thing of that nature and decide to value it. If people value it for its beauty then it has value in that sense. Maybe not so much.</b><br /><br /><br /> Moreover, many people decide on things based on intuition and other non-logical processes and experience and only afterward try use to logic to give them a more academic sense of credibility.<br /><br /><br /><b>I can just see myself using "intuition" in this discussion and what you would say about it.</b><br /><br />Thus I pointed out that logical arguments have no intrinsic value.<br /><br /><b>those are two different things. saying that intuition is valid or a value and saying that logic has no intrinsic value are two different things. intrinsic vs extrinsic and saying "no value" are two different too.</b><br /><br /> I did so as a pointer to deeper motivations for valuing such arguments. Something with intrinsic value does not need anything else, any activity or interaction, to have value. If people never read, pondered, or otherwise interacted with logical arguments, they would have no value. <br /><br /><b>I don't know that I need deep motivations to make God arguments. I think simple direct motives are a good enough reason. the reason for making them does not have to line up with the reason why I believe in God.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-20816129379497323132012-05-04T08:53:28.650-07:002012-05-04T08:53:28.650-07:00Your numerous comments replying to my single comme...Your numerous comments replying to my single comment are a demonstration of why you sometimes have problems communicating your ideas to people.<br /><br /><b>NO I made simple starightforward obvious comments first and you would not accept them.</b><br /><br /><br /> Before you decide to get even more defensive, <br /><br /><b>gee why would I be defensive just because you sound like a public prosecutor?</b><br /><br />consider that you are going all over the map bringing up things that I never came close to mentioning. You have this whole set of things that simply erupt in your mind that color your perception and your reaction and lead to a number of tangents.<br /><br /><b>I have a set of things in my mind? don't you? I think that comes out when you keep badgering about the same points becuase you want accept a simple answer.</b><br /><br />I only brought up examples from everyday life to highlight that people don't generally come to their beliefs or behaviors through rigorous philosophical inspection, and I only brought that up because you implied this was a social norm which explained your own behavior.<br /><br /><br /><b>I'm not other people</b><br /><br />You managed to make some progress in answering my question while accusing me of pretending to know more about logic (I didn't) or browbeating you into accepting "my" philosophy (I haven't) along with other things that have nothing to do with what I actually wrote.<br /><br /><b>what?<br /><br />I don't understand why a reason that's good enough for me isn't all the progress I need? why do you get to the be decider of progress?</b><br /><br /><br /> How you managed to drag in the claim that 90% reportedly believe in God or why you are going off the common man versus the atheist is a mystery.<br /><br /><b>that's clear. just read it again. you are the one who say "most people don't decide this this way." so the standard of a norm is valid when you use it but not valid when it works against you.<br /><br />is that how most people do it?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-27625050355238553722012-05-04T08:21:52.201-07:002012-05-04T08:21:52.201-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-40311133250509394502012-05-04T07:59:11.727-07:002012-05-04T07:59:11.727-07:00Maybe I don't understand logic in a formal sen...Maybe I don't understand logic in a formal sense either.I've tried to. I'm not saying you don't but you never seemed to be that into the ins and outs of formal logic.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-4840740778897671222012-05-04T07:54:31.291-07:002012-05-04T07:54:31.291-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-21917710529984368502012-05-03T08:45:25.066-07:002012-05-03T08:45:25.066-07:00Your numerous comments replying to my single comme...Your numerous comments replying to my single comment are a demonstration of why you sometimes have problems communicating your ideas to people. Before you decide to get even more defensive, consider that you are going all over the map bringing up things that I never came close to mentioning. You have this whole set of things that simply erupt in your mind that color your perception and your reaction and lead to a number of tangents.<br /><br />I only brought up examples from everyday life to highlight that people don't generally come to their beliefs or behaviors through rigorous philosophical inspection, and I only brought that up because you implied this was a social norm which explained your own behavior.<br /><br />You managed to make some progress in answering my question while accusing me of pretending to know more about logic (I didn't) or browbeating you into accepting "my" philosophy (I haven't) along with other things that have nothing to do with what I actually wrote. How you managed to drag in the claim that 90% reportedly believe in God or why you are going off the common man versus the atheist is a mystery.<br /><br />The reason I keep asking "Why?" is because it forces the responder to go deeper into her or his chain of assumptions and motivations, to levels that otherwise go unexamined. If that is uncomfortable for you, then you can decline to answer. But I will ignore the tangents and challenges and focus on the progress. <br /><br />I will break it down for you from my point of view. You initially kept saying that rational warrants are valuable because they are logical. I asked why it matters if they are logical. Valuable and true things can be illogical, and useless and untrue things can be logical. Moreover, many people decide on things based on intuition and other non-logical processes and experience and only afterward try use to logic to give them a more academic sense of credibility.<br /><br />Thus I pointed out that logical arguments have no intrinsic value. I did so as a pointer to deeper motivations for valuing such arguments. Something with intrinsic value does not need anything else, any activity or interaction, to have value. If people never read, pondered, or otherwise interacted with logical arguments, they would have no value. <br /><br />Given that, the issue becomes how and why you interact with them. And in the midst of your tangents, you have said that you want "to be right" and you want "to be loved." You also mentioned wanting to understand the nature of the universe, which suggests that you believe that the universe can be reduced to the logic of the human mind, or else that such logic is the least problematic option available. <br /><br />This leads naturally to the following questions:<br /><br />1. By whose standard and in whose eyes do you want to "be right"? What would accomplishing this mean to you?<br /><br />2. How does creating and defending logical arguments about belief in God make you "feel loved"?<br /><br />3. Do you believe that the universe can be reduced to systems of human logic? What about those aspects that appear to be irrational to the human mind? Do you accept that there are logical systems explaining the universe that do not involve God?tinythinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137637122776756669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-9119955603262631412012-05-03T03:40:40.034-07:002012-05-03T03:40:40.034-07:00They don't have intrinsic value,
I value the...They don't have intrinsic value, <br /><br /><b>I value them. who are you to say they don't have intrinsic value?<br /><br />the fact of the experiences I've had is a high value for me. I feel that this is an insight into reality that I've had and I'm trying to figure out what it means and be consistent with it.<br /><br />I really don't give a damn if others can't understand that.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-43373123991349611372012-05-03T03:38:39.196-07:002012-05-03T03:38:39.196-07:00That still leaves the question, what do you person...That still leaves the question, what do you personally see as the value of making logical arguments about belief in God. <br /><br /><b>You don't a contradiction here? you want me to tell you MY VALUE in something when I do then it's not good enough because the common man wouldn't understand it, then you go back to asking me my value. <br /><br />which do you want to know? why ask my value if the common man is your standard? (or woman).</b><br /><br />You are tap dancing around the issue.<br /><br /><b>every time I answer it directly you find some petty reason to disprove or keep asking "why?"</b><br /><br /><br /><br /> Saying that no one wants to claim to their beliefs are irrational is a dodge.<br /><br /><b>In the human era we thought that it was an indication that logic idea are a value. If an idea was proved in logical argument that's a good reason to hold it. Yes it was a common value. how old are you? This would be like from maybe 68-75? I'm sure no one every thought of it afer that.</b><br /><br /><br /> Your superfluous challenges insinuating you know more about logical arguments are irrelevant. Do you have a reason for spending so much time trying to make these arguments or not?<br /><br /><br /><b>O yea, what about your superfluous challenges pretending you know more about logic?</b><br /><br />If you don't know the motivation behind your activities, just say so.<br /><br /><b>why do you not believe that being right is a motivation? Why do you not believe that logical coherence is a value vis "being right?"<br /><br />do you actually want to be wrong?</b><br /><br /><br /> Just say that you do it and you can't explain why. <br /><br /><b>so now you are trying brow beat me into accenting your philosophy?no answer is good enough unless it echos your ideas?</b><br /><br /><br />Otherwise, say what the motive is. <br /><br /><br /><b>what's wrong with wanting to be right?</b><br /><br />What is the value of these rational warrants? <br /><br /><b>they make me feel loved.</b><br /><br /><br />They don't have intrinsic value, so their worth must lie in their use. So what good are they? What are they for?<br /><br /><b>what in the hell are you labeling about? you don't have an actual reason to reject what I've said already?<br /><br />I want to loved to like everyone else. is that what you are looking for in an answer?<br /><br />I want a logical reason to hold to something because I think that's a good chance of it being true, it's logical. the fact that it dove tails with empirical data and my experiences is also a good added bonus on the truth score. What else can we do in terms of understanding things? Empirical, personal and logical, why is that not a good basis upon which to make a deicsion about placing confidence in a hypothesis?<br /><br />You have not actually given me a reason why I should be distinguished with that as a reason?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-51584533736258330952012-05-03T03:36:05.991-07:002012-05-03T03:36:05.991-07:00Did you really grow up in a world where everyone a...Did you really grow up in a world where everyone actually assumed that logic was proof?<br /><br /><b>see here we go with the super literalistic stuff again. you can't understand a common statement or assume common knowledge.<br /><br />Did I say logic = proof? I said in a "practical sense." Have you ever read of the Critique of practical reason by Kant?</b><br /><br /> And even if you did, how many everyday people actually constructed logical arguments for proof of things in there regular lives?<br /><br /><b>Wait a minute, now it's not good enough to be logical and scholar I must also assume the common layman is the standard?<br /><br />Yes people in the world that was believed that if an idea was logical that's a good resaon to hold it.</b><br /><br />Did people ask others to marry them by offering a rational warrant for doing so? Did people decide on what they wanted to eat for dinner using differential diagnosis? How often did people construct syllogisms in discussing their appreciation of art?<br /><br /><b>Is understanding the nature of reality on a par with getting married? What do you want form an deicision making paradign.<br /><br />good luck finding a paradigm that's totally appealing to the common person and that atheists will accept as intellectual and scientific. <br /><br />while you are at why don't you explain how it is that 90% of people in the world bleieve in God but somehow they are not cool with a logical God argument?<br /><br />of the common person is your standard of proof and truth then why bother with understanding all the Buddhist jazz?</b><br /><br /><br />People may have assumed logic was meaningful and useful, but hardly for everything. And even for the things which were considered amenable to logical assessment, most didn't employ it. Their practical beliefs about topics such as religion tended to have very little to do with formal logical arguments and citing various theologians and philosophers.<br /><br /><b>so what?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-22066513008112134342012-05-02T05:50:14.863-07:002012-05-02T05:50:14.863-07:00Did you really grow up in a world where everyone a...Did you really grow up in a world where everyone actually assumed that logic was proof? And even if you did, how many everyday people actually constructed logical arguments for proof of things in there regular lives?<br /><br />Did people ask others to marry them by offering a rational warrant for doing so? Did people decide on what they wanted to eat for dinner using differential diagnosis? How often did people construct syllogisms in discussing their appreciation of art?<br /><br />People may have assumed logic was meaningful and useful, but hardly for everything. And even for the things which were considered amenable to logical assessment, most didn't employ it. Their practical beliefs about topics such as religion tended to have very little to do with formal logical arguments and citing various theologians and philosophers. <br /><br />That still leaves the question, what do you personally see as the value of making logical arguments about belief in God. You are tap dancing around the issue. Saying that no one wants to claim to their beliefs are irrational is a dodge. Your superfluous challenges insinuating you know more about logical arguments are irrelevant. Do you have a reason for spending so much time trying to make these arguments or not?<br /><br />If you don't know the motivation behind your activities, just say so. Just say that you do it and you can't explain why. Otherwise, say what the motive is. What is the value of these rational warrants? They don't have intrinsic value, so their worth must lie in their use. So what good are they? What are they for?tinythinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137637122776756669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-68118209045796473352012-05-01T18:45:05.512-07:002012-05-01T18:45:05.512-07:00I think you are being rather picky Dave. what'...I think you are being rather picky Dave. what's obvious is that a rational justification is a good valid reason to think something. that's what everyone wants. you never know anyone who says "I just want to be irrational and wrong?" <br /><br />ratinoal warrant is basically saying "this is true, it makes logical sense."<br /><br />you talk about articulating, I doubt that you can articulate for me why rational warrant is not on a par with practical proof.<br /><br />"Why do you see value in making logical arguments about belief in God?"<br /><br />don't you think that's the obvious bit? I mean in the world I grew up in most people that logic was proof and if you prove something its true and being true is a reason to believe it. Let's see if you can articulate a reason why it's not? anyone can ask "why" after everything.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-38144562345191533822012-05-01T10:42:52.027-07:002012-05-01T10:42:52.027-07:00It isn't self-evident, and failure to be able ...It isn't self-evident, and failure to be able to articulate a basic reason for doing something other than claiming that doing it has obvious value suggests a lack of a proper foundation for the endeavor.<br /><br />Why do you see value in making logical arguments about belief in God?tinythinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137637122776756669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-80115937930045211202012-05-01T08:06:00.895-07:002012-05-01T08:06:00.895-07:00I do think that rational warrant is analogous or e...I do think that rational warrant is analogous or equivalent to proof.It's not proof and the burden it has to meet is less than that of actually proving an argument. It's easier to prove a reason to bleieve in God than to actually prove God exists.<br /><br />I think they equivalent in that it's a level of "practical reason." In other words life is too short,it could take centuries to find a really good proof, given God's transcendent nature, so the next best thing is for practical reasons as good as proving it.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-46058666849380455892012-05-01T07:52:18.783-07:002012-05-01T07:52:18.783-07:00I meant to say the last step before the actual pro...I meant to say the last step before the actual proof. It's the necessary ting that lines up an argument so it's in a position to have the proof; that is the justification for a proposition.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-25488010217277496302012-05-01T07:51:01.728-07:002012-05-01T07:51:01.728-07:00Dave I think it's obvious to the point of bein...Dave I think it's obvious to the point of being self evident. Sometimes hard to explain self evident propositions becuase they are so obvious.<br /><br />If there is any merit in a proposition being proved by logical argument, then there has to be merit to rational warrant and it would be same merit. The reason is it's it's the last step any logical argument must take to be proved; the step that give justification of logic to a proposition.<br /><br />If you don't see merit in that then fine. It looks self evident to me. you have asking for something more, I don't know there has to be any more. What more do you need?Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-1077114917154255652012-04-30T14:42:12.303-07:002012-04-30T14:42:12.303-07:00I didn't mention any big trick. I asked what t...I didn't mention any big trick. I asked what the point is. You keep assuming rational warrant has value in and of itself, even when you try to explain the value of it. You presume the importance of explaining the utility of logic by saying that it wouldn't be logical otherwise.<br /><br />That is beside the point. I am asking why that matters so much to begin with. What is the purpose of trying to make logical arguments for God?tinythinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137637122776756669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-28008620540795267812012-04-30T11:27:59.443-07:002012-04-30T11:27:59.443-07:00Sure i have. I don't think that requries any b...Sure i have. I don't think that requries any big trick. it's a common of any argument. you are wrong. Read Toulmin. Rational warrant is necessary and required for any conclusion that's right. any time lgoic is invoked (and it is involved in empirical matters--you can't make sense of data with out logic) a reason for holding any idea has to be warranted.<br /><br />"warrant" simply means' logic and coherent permits this as a valid reason.<br /><br />If an idea or an argumnt is ratinally warranted it can't be called stupid or unimportant or arbitray. These are the things athists say about belief in God.<br /><br />How many times do they do "there's no reason at all of any kind to believe in your God." YOUR GOD> (as opposed to Snuffy Smith's God).<br /><br />IF it's rationally warranted then there is. <br /><br />The reason for that level is becuase it's than actually proof. it doesn't take as much work to show that it's warranted as it does to show it's proved.<br /><br />I had an article of a logician saying that logicians now accept the idea that we can place confidence in a partially proved hypothesis.<br /><br />so logically we can place confidence in a rationally warrant hypothesis.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-6030311140946129882012-04-30T08:55:57.402-07:002012-04-30T08:55:57.402-07:00You are assuming that logical proof is always appr...You are assuming that logical proof is always appropriate or valuable, that it is presumed to be superior. This needn't be the the case for all ideas and experiences. In fact, it can be counter-productive.<br /><br />But other than your presumption that logical arguments are simply worthwhile in and of themselves, you still haven't provided any reason for trying to argue rational warrant for belief in God. <br /><br />The question still stands -- what is the point?tinythinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137637122776756669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-44118469823192068032012-04-29T06:31:15.691-07:002012-04-29T06:31:15.691-07:00Dave "What specifically is the value of a rat...Dave "What specifically is the value of a rational warrant for belief in God? What is the value of a logical reason for such belief?" <br /><br />Toulmin says rational warrant is the logical step that all arguments must make in demonstrating something. Whatever is accepted as proved must first be warranted by logic.<br /><br />If we value logical proof, the first step on the way to proof is to find a warrant for a proportion in logic.<br /><br />Now if you ask "what is the value of proving something."I don't know. It just seems better to go by proof, logical proof when you can get it. If you can't then the next best thing would be to have a logical reason for agreeing with a propitiation.<br /><br />It seems more rational (as in logical) to have a reason for something than not.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-37107781367673764682012-04-29T06:26:40.519-07:002012-04-29T06:26:40.519-07:00People often confuse instinct with ideas. Intrins...People often confuse instinct with ideas. Intrinsic are innate for sure.Instincts are not ideas. Ideas are constructs. you have to explain them you have to think about them and you have to determine their truth and they can be argued against.<br /><br />Instinct does not have to be thought about, you don't have to convince anyone to follow it and you can't argue with ti.<br /><br />Atheists sometimes think ethics can be based upon instinct through genes.That is a violation of Hume's fork and it assumes that ethics are nothing more than fine feelings. That's really taking moral decision out of ethics.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-79483284027546767092012-04-29T06:24:09.978-07:002012-04-29T06:24:09.978-07:00That God is an innate idea? Innate ideas were an i...That God is an innate idea? Innate ideas were an idea way back in the 18th century. Even the 17th century. The concept of innate ideas assumes God.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-40296951308726313552012-04-29T00:19:57.543-07:002012-04-29T00:19:57.543-07:00"Science doesn't recognize innate ideas. ..."Science doesn't recognize innate ideas. " <- You had me at this. It's my #1 argument against anyone who denies God.Tejashttp://blog.tejaskumar.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-84262595814759058962012-04-28T14:16:30.868-07:002012-04-28T14:16:30.868-07:00What specifically is the value of a rational warra...What specifically is the value of a rational warrant for belief in God? What is the value of a logical reason for such belief?tinythinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137637122776756669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-8075990086214711422012-04-28T07:04:33.635-07:002012-04-28T07:04:33.635-07:00The value of rational warrant, what is the value o...The value of rational warrant, what is the value of having a logical reason for something?Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com