http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-religion.aspx

http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-god.aspx

http://www.dabase.org/noface.htm

(you want the last word?)

I would have thought that the purpose of providing argument summaries would be so that would-be readers could follow his arguements, and then read the book for more (supporting) detail. But these summaries don’t function as is. And argument summaries should function.

In short, the details in the book should merely be clarifying and/or supporting to the arguments; which should be able to be stated in a follow-able way. As is, however, the arguments need more than clarification/support – they need to be re-built.

B – And your “few examples” say nothing other than ‘you should have read the book’. Come on. Show me just one example of some actual specific detail from the book which earth-shatteringly makes any of these arguments suddenly ‘work’.

Here’s an example of an argument which logically works (even if you dont’ agree with it):

1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2 The universe began to exist
3 Therefore, the universe has a cause

Now, we can fill in detail, but this logically works. We can define terms (‘exist’, ’cause’, ‘universe’, etc.), and we can suggest (for example) that our universe was ’caused’ by a prior universe, or something… whatever… but this argument ‘as is’ logically flows. Point 3 actually follows from 1 & 2.

Now, one of his arguments:

1 Man is finite
2 God (if he exists) is infinite
3 Therefore man cannot recognise God or know that God exists

The difference is stark. The ‘therefore’ of 3 does not follow from 1 & 2. It’s a non-argument. What the heck does God’s infinite nature have to do with Man’s (supposed) inability to recognise him?

Again, summaries are summaries – so let no one say that a summary should be long, detailed and provide all the clarifications. That is no longer a ’summary’.

But the summary can at least be sensible as a logical progression.

Can you at least admit that the summaries could be better stated?

(Might I say that if you had read the book you may have understood my criticism.)

But a few examples:

Page 1 point 3 “A massive chasm in logical progress.” What do you expect for a summary? If you had read the book you wouldn’t have seen any “chasm.”

Point 4 your claim: “No logical connection.” Well, of course not – but if you had read the book you would have seen it. Berg’s reference to statistical analysis here may have mislead you (I don’t think the term was appropriate in this specific case – no real analysis was used) but you would have understand his meaning if you had read the book.

Page 2, point 3 – “No logical argument leading to ‘therefore’ statement.” Again my point about the summary. If you had read the book you would have seen the argument.

I could go on (and on). But surely you see my point. You are criticising Berg for your own neglect (to really look at his argument instead of an abstracted summary) not his (because, I believe, in most, if not all, cases he has developed these arguments in detail). Berg’s logic may well be faulty (how do you know until you consider it) but I don’t believe you can accuse him of neglect (quite the opposite).

It’s the detail of these arguments you should engage with. Your current criticism doesn’t do that and therefore appears as a subjective, unconsidered, response. It is, anyway, a wasted effort for this reason.