Ineffective Arguments

Tom Gilson authored Four Puzzlers from Michael Shermer at his blog Thinking Christian. For some polemical analysis click here.

This entry was posted on Monday, March 2nd, 2009 at 8:55 am and is filed under The Critics, The Debate. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

2 Responses to “Ineffective Arguments”

Zachriel Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:26 am
Shermer: A is A. Reality is real. To attempt to use nature to prove the supernatural is a violation of A is A. It is an attempt to make reality unreal. A cannot also be non-A. Nature cannot also be non-Nature. Naturalism cannot also be supernaturalism.

There is no effective *logical* argument against the supernatural. We can certainly imagine (or posit) a sky god living on Mount Olympus hurling lightning at the wicked in the Vale of Témpi below. It is quite possible that this angry sky god exists in some spiritual plane that *intersects* with the material plane. At least in a logical sense. You could redefine natural to include the spiritual plane, but that would be contrary to what we usually mean by the term supernatural.

Comment by Zachriel — March 2, 2009 @ 10:26 am

TomG Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
True enough, but also old news…

Comment by TomG — March 2, 2009 @ 10:47 am

Ineffective Arguments

2 Responses to “Ineffective Arguments”

Featured Books