(July 3, 2009 at 3:25 am)Arcanus Wrote:(July 3, 2009 at 1:40 am)fr0d0 Wrote: By "conclusively established" I assume you mean rationalize without conclusive proof? Again the exact meaning is elusive IMO.
I chose the word "conclusively" to suggest arguing toward a conclusion that withstands critical analysis, in order to disqualify ipse dixit pronouncements and airy-fairy arguments that don't really have any clout (e.g., personal testimony or experiences that don't escape the biographical). And I didn't like the word "proven" because that only characterizes evidentialist arguments, ignoring presuppositionalist arguments which don't have God's existence in the conclusion. But the word "established" captures both types.
To the lay person I think that would mean someone who has established conclusively that God exists. I think that sounds a bit final and over stepping the mark. Is that a correct reading?
