(December 16, 2015 at 7:23 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Just lucky, I suppose.
In my defense, I have half a dozen or so high speed crashes from my mid-20s, when I used to endurance race motorcycles.
And no, I didn't mischaracterize the arguments. I only simplified them for the sake of satire. I felt that's all they deserved. Despite my tone, I have read and familiarized myself with all of those arguments (and more), both while I was a Christian and after I left faith behind. As I said, it's possible to clean up a few of those into decent arguments--whoever wrote that needs a good editor--but the fact remains that none of those are proofs or even evidence for a deity.
We need to be clear about the nature of the game Delicate is playing, aside from the delight he/she takes in being a douche. Plantinga and his ilk assert that belief in "God" is basic in much the same way that belief in other minds is basic, i.e., that one is not irrational for believing either position even if one is unable to rationally demonstrate them (what the connecting thought between belief in God and rejection of solipsism may be escapes me -- but no matter). So that list of "arguments" is superfluous for purposes of determining whether belief is "rational" or not. By embracing Plantinga, Delicate has already asserted by fiat that it is.
The arguments that follow aren't really meant to prove anything or even provide evidence as the word is usually understood. It's more of a cumulative case that you're either predisposed to accept as largely true (as the Protestant thinkers toiling in Plantinga's wake do) or you're not, in which case the entire edifice will appear ridiculously weak. The reason it's pointless to pursue knocking down each argument in turn -- at least as it applies to Delicate -- is that when you're done, you're still going to be left with a person who crows that belief in God is basic, i.e., not irrational -- even if that's all he has left of his "argument".
It's a waste of time.
