GentleReader9
Since the rules of logic generally are allowed to state that you can't prove a negative, there is no such thing as proving something is impossible.
This is actually a common misconception about logic. You actually can prove a negative far beyond a reasonable doubt. Take the statement,
"There are no elephants in this shoe box" as an example. All one has to do is open the shoe box and see that the shoebox contains no elephants and they have just proved a negative. Of course you could counter with, "Ahh...but maybe there is an invisible immaterial elephant in that shoebox that you could not sense with your sensory organs." If you did I would walk the other way, literally, because I'm not very good at having civil conversations with this sort of person.
Naturally, opening the shoebox and seeing there isn't an elephant in there is not mathematical proof, but it constitutes scientific proof and certainly the everyday sort of proof you and I utilize to navigate through the complexities of life. Could a philosopher argue me in circles with me stuttering and stammering unable to explain how I know the shoebox is elephant-free? I guess so. I've seen it happen here on BookTalk.org quite a few times. But in the end, for all intents and purposes, opening the shoebox, shaking it upside down for a few seconds, and noting that no elephants have fallen out into your lap, leaves a rational person under the impression and with the conclusion that the box didn't and doesn't contain an elephant. A negative has been proven.
I'm aware that we could go back and forth about this issue. My purpose was to show that it is indeed very possible to prove a negative. And with just as simple of an example it is possible to prove something is impossible. If I said, "It is impossible to put a real alive full-size elephant into this shoebox," I would be correct.
People abuse this rule of logic all the time. Yes, it is impossible to prove a claim is impossible if the claim is defined vaguely in an untestable manner. "God does not exist" is a negative statement that cannot be proven to be true. But this is because "God" has been left wide open for interpretation. Also, are we including the entire known universe? How about other universes? Theists have fun with the "you can't prove a negative" that same way they misuse the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in debates. Clarification is essential, but clarity is not the objective with some debate participants. The objective is to trip their opponent.
It also goes to show how even logic demands we start with some shared premises that will never be able to be made practically, absolutely demonstrated.
Very true.
You can demonstrate how unlikely something is statistically, but since most Christians are saying the Virgin Birth only happened the one time, that doesn't help.
The virgin birth can be countered without resorting to statistics. Just al elementary understanding of animal reproduction, and specifically human reproduction, informs the educated and rational person that babies aren't born without sex (or artificial sex). The virgin birth didn't happen because it is impossible because an egg cell and sperm weren't united, blah, blah, blah. I shouldn't have to go on and I won't.
Moreover the assertion that one mistake in critical thinking means we can assume the whole thinking process of the person who made the mistake is irrational would really mean everyone is irrational since we all make mistakes.
Again, very true. But when a mistake in thinking is pointed out to this same person and they refuse to change their beliefs....? Are they still a clear thinker? When human reproduction is explained to a believer in the virgin birth and the believer brushes it aside should we assume this person is rational?
When a person makes an error in thinking and this error has been pointed out repeatedly and in depth, yet the person clings to the erroneous belief, they are now showing that they might not be such a clear thinker after all. Theists that get into debates are presented with clear scientific facts that challenge their beliefs, yet do not change their beliefs based on the introduction of clear scientific facts. These people are not acting rationally.
I'm aware that theists that believe in the virgin birth are not, by default, morons. They could possible excel in a critical thinking class and in everyday life. But with regards to their religious beliefs they are clearly suspending their critical thinking skills. In these cases the rewards for belief in the impossible or irrational exceed the rewards for disbelief. For their own personal reasons they have opted to ignore the rules of logic and principles of clear thinking, if only for this one issue.
Personally, I find it strange and troubling and a little sad that people are comfortable behaving rationally and reasonably in most areas of life, but when it comes to religion they allow the rational part of their brain to be disengaged. This scares me, quite frankly. But I'm not throwing this people away as irrational nutcases. Religion or religious belief is extremely powerful and I liken it to brainwashing. As much as I'd like to not admit it I think the faithful are almost helpless against the forces of indoctrination. I fault them only when they are bright enough to understand the arguments for and against theism, are exposed to the arguments; yet still cling to religious belief. And when I say I fault them I don't mean I hate or dislike them, but I do believe in personal accountability. When you've been taught about the errors in your thinking and you keep committing those errors at some point you are to blame.
This is probably true, but hardly a basis to discount the whole of what someone says because we dislike their particular flavor of irrationality.
I agree and have never argued this.
I am referring to this book as "30 Reasons" because Chris is allowed to say people who say they are Christians aren't allowed their definition unless it matches his definition,
I don't make such childish arguments. You're taking my words out of context, purposely.
and if the author of the book is allowed to discount the kind of Christians who read C.S. Lewis or other intellectual Christian theologians because he thinks there are so few of them
Again, you're not being fair. The author doesn't discount them at all. He is addressing an audience he chose to address. Not addressing each and every religion or cult on this planet is absolutely essential if the author wants to write a book that will have value to a large audience. Maybe Guy Harrison doesn't devote 4 chapters to Wiccan beliefs because such a book wouldn't sell. There aren't enough Wiccans or people interested in Wicca for such a book. Or maybe Guy Harrison just isn't interested in Wicca enough to write about it. Look at the title of the book. This should be a hint. The book is about "50 reasons." Maybe you're reason or reasons for believing in a god aren't in the 50 he discusses. Read the Intro and you see that he is addressing the 50 reasons most commonly given to him by believers.