Posted: Apr 07, 2011 8:14 pm
hotshoe wrote:
Supporting arguments? In other words, it takes 100 pages of obfuscation and sophistry to obscure the simple fact, observed just above here, that little Willy can't provide any actual, err, evidence.
"Inasmuch as evidence is the sort of thing which confers justification, the concept of evidence is closely related to other fundamental normative concepts such as the concept of a reason. Indeed, it is natural to think that ‘reason to believe’ and ‘evidence’ are more or less synonymous, being distinguished chiefly by the fact that the former functions grammatically as a count noun while the latter functions as a mass term.
Note:
Perhaps ‘evidence’ also has something of an empirical connotation that ‘reason to believe’ lacks: it sounds more natural, at least to some ears, to describe a priori philosophical considerations as reasons to believe some philosophical thesis than as evidence for that thesis."
(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence)
Craig offers both a-priori, rational reasons to believe in KCA's soundness and a-posteriori, empirical reasons to believe in KCA's soundness.