Originally Posted by boink!

i took the liberty of reading that 14 page paper, and i'm sorry to inform you it's not convincing at all.

and for those who are lazy to read, let me quote something from the paper that effectively summarizes the main assumption in the argument of the paper:



so from the latter basis, the author argues that faith is not merely a belief, or belief in the absence of evidence; but a rational belief that generates trust and action.

but look, any rational person will point out that the foregoing argument (faith is based on evidence) rest on these assumptions: (1) God exist, (2) God does not lie, (3) the bible is the word of God, and hence (4) the bible is true.

what is essentially lacking is the justification for thinking these 4 assumptions to be true. nonetheless, there are at least 2 approach the author might take. he might take the semantic route by arguing that (1) and (2) are analytic truths (e.g necessary truths), hence (4) follows on the basis of (3). but to take the semantic approach is to open a whole philosophical can-o-worms, see (google) gaunilo island, or Kant's critique of existence as a predicate.

the other approach the author might take involves forming an argument to support any of the preceding assumptions. but, any attempt to show these assumptions to be necessarily true would fail because it is viciously circular (see ampliative/non-ampliative distinction). hence, the best any such arguments will succeed in doing is to show such assumptions to be probable or contingent. nevertheless, any such probable arguments will face considerable philosophical critique.

therefore, the author has failed in established his proposition that faith is based on evidence. he might succeed in doing so if he provides a plausible argument - that stands philosophical critique - to support his argument.