You ain't convinced me yet!

It is a common theme. AcesLucky observes (in the thread to "Believe propositions p and q and thou shall be saved"):

"I have asked you before to demonstrate knowledge of such a supreme being. Of course you could not, I knew that and so did you, and yet you ACT as an authority of such knowledge."

This reminds me of Kent Hovind. Back before he was imprisoned for tax-evasion, Mr. (oops "Dr.") Dino gained headlines for his challenge to "evolutionists". If they could present evidence for evolution he would pay out $250,000:

"I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution. My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief."

But nobody ever succeeded in convincing Kent Hovind. Indeed, he may well have written something like this to those who attempted to claim the prize:

"I have asked you before to demonstrate knowledge of evolution. Of course you could not, I knew that and so did you, and yet you ACT as an authority of such knowledge."

Gak! I guess there is no evidence for evolution. Right?

But what was really proven in all this? That there is no scientific evidence for evolution? Or simply that Mr. Hovind would not admit the evidence which was there?

We always need to ask this same question, for the mere fact that a person remains unconvinced by a claim is no argument against that claim, be it the incredulity of Kent Hovind, AcesLucky, you or I.

The standard of a good argument is not that it convinces you or me. That may be merely a matter of our personal psychology. We may want it to be true or want it not to be true. Rather, the standard of a good argument is plausible (if not compelling) premises and a conclusion which follows from those premises, deductively, inductively, or abductively.

The fact is that there are many good arguments for the existence of God, when we understand a good argument in the objective terms provided rather than in terms of personal credulity or incredulity. By these terms, there are also some good arguments against the existence of God.

A little while ago I heard Bradley Monton, an atheist philosopher at the University of Colorado at Boulder, make the comment that arguments from intelligent design make him less certain of his atheism than he would have been otherwise. Speaking of my Christian theism I can make the same basic claim relative to the amount, distribution and intensity of suffering and evil in the world.

And through it all, Bradley Monton can still be an atheist, and I can still be a theist. And the Republican who sympathizes with single payer healthcare can still be a Republican. And the Democrat who appreciates the strength of prolife arguments can still be a Democrat.

And maybe, just maybe, somebody, somewhere, someday, will win Mr. Hovind's $250,000.