I need help with refutations for this

[theVOID]

No need to mate, just be aware that when you are asking people for ammunition to use against an argument you don't understand you probably have a bias somewhere

[Garmston Ansell]

Good point Garmston Ansell, I think you have spotted a core bias MrJatt has - He should not be looking for refutations when he doesn't "have the expertise to debate with someone" but rather seek to understand the issue.

O_O hmm i see, well I make no apologies for it

Do you regard it as more more of a priority to refute an argument or to fully understand the argument and the issues around it?

[MrJatt]

Good point Garmston Ansell, I think you have spotted a core bias MrJatt has - He should not be looking for refutations when he doesn't "have the expertise to debate with someone" but rather seek to understand the issue.

O_O hmm i see, well I make no apologies for it

Do you regard it as more more of a priority to refute an argument or to fully understand the argument and the issues around it?

I would be lying if I said my first thought wasn't how do i refute this, BUT I think i was assuming there has to be a way to refute this, and to do that I have to understand it.

[Garmston Ansell]

Good point Garmston Ansell, I think you have spotted a core bias MrJatt has - He should not be looking for refutations when he doesn't "have the expertise to debate with someone" but rather seek to understand the issue.

O_O hmm i see, well I make no apologies for it

Do you regard it as more more of a priority to refute an argument or to fully understand the argument and the issues around it?

I would be lying if I said my first thought wasn't how do i refute this, BUT I think i was assuming there has to be a way to refute this, and to do that I have to understand it.

Without the understanding, what made you feel that there was a way to refute it?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

So you need help refuting these?
... I'll give it a shot.

1. I think belief in God is properly basic.

How is god 'properly basic' and why do you believe this to be the case?
Note that 'you' being your religious person who asked this.

2. The likelihood of my cognitive structure structure retaining true beliefs is greater than on theism, than given atheism).

a few problems:
The "true beliefs" and your "congnitive structure" and its method of retention of "True Beliefs" holds exactly as true for every belief, not just one given belief.
As such, no belief can be 'true' based on your cognative ability to "retain it."

This has entirely to do with how one is raised into a particular belief (or by not being raised into a belief at all) than one's natural state of mind. There is no 'likelyhood' in this - it's basic child psychology in that if you raise a child to believe something, that child retains that knowledge.

This is to say that if your religious friend were raised by a muslim family, he would just as likely be muslim by now instead of christian, meaning that #2 is entirely wrong.
There is no 'chance' involved, his 'cognative structure retaining true beliefs' is entirely gibberish and an attempt to sound smarter than he really is when all it really is essentially boils down to how a person is raised and what philosophies he's exposed to.

And for Christian theism in particularly:
3. Argument that God is not a unitarian God.

Based on what, exactly?
There is no evidence, anywhere, that such a being ever existed or influenced human or universal action that hasn't been explained by human scientific standards (which involves actual research and observations and so on).

4. The Resurrection as the best explanation of certain facts about the historical Jesus.

What historical Jesus?

5. Religious experience.

Members of any and every religion often have those. It doesn't make those religions legitimate and 'religious experience' isn't even necessary a sign of relgion being true - especially considering that two religious experiences can often contradict one another and often coincide with the religious faith of the one having the experience. Which is to say, that if your faith is the true faith then how do members of other contradictory faiths to yours (islam, buddism, and so forth) have religious experience that coincides with their faith and not necessarily yours?
If there is only one truth in the universe, then what does the religious experiences of others mean?

(I would expect him to say something along the lines of 'the devil did it' or 'god works in mysterious ways' - both of which are meaningless answers to handwave the thoughts away.)

now i do not have the knowledge to refute these except the 5th one, so i need some help to understand and perhaps refute this.

It's not about the knowledge you have, but asking the right questions.
Specific questions can give you the proper direction in order to find answers.

[MrJatt]

Good point Garmston Ansell, I think you have spotted a core bias MrJatt has - He should not be looking for refutations when he doesn't "have the expertise to debate with someone" but rather seek to understand the issue.

O_O hmm i see, well I make no apologies for it

Do you regard it as more more of a priority to refute an argument or to fully understand the argument and the issues around it?

I would be lying if I said my first thought wasn't how do i refute this, BUT I think i was assuming there has to be a way to refute this, and to do that I have to understand it.

Without the understanding, what made you feel that there was a way to refute it?

Like theVOID just said, i have a core bias towards a-theism.

[reverendjeremiah]

The first is an argument that theism can be rational without knowledge of a good argument for theism;

LMFAO.. So you think Islam and Hinduism and Satanism and Asatru and Helenism, and Chinese traditional all are rational without a need for a good argument?

the second is normally called the "Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism" (EAAN) which argues that the conjunction of evolution and naturalism is self-defeating.

..and you think that evolution, the pride of naturalism, argues against naturalism?

So theism doesnt HAVE to have a good argument to be rational, and naturalist evidence points against naturalism?



Holy shit man..you just brightened up my easter day

[thesummerqueen]

Actually, my dear, I've heard far more rational discussions about Satanism and other aspects of the left-hand path than I have ever for Christianity.

[Eleazar]

LMFAO.. So you think Islam and Hinduism and Satanism and Asatru and Helenism, and Chinese traditional all are rational without a need for a good argument?

..and you think that evolution, the pride of naturalism, argues against naturalism?

All I'm doing is providing information about the arguments and views, not advocating them. That said, it doesn't follow that if theism is properly basic, then a whole theistic belief system is properly basic. And some of those belief systems you list are not even theistic!

[theVOID]

Hi there, MrJatt. If you are looking for more information about 1 and 2, you will want to read up on Alvin Plantinga, who argues for these main points (and others) in a multi-volume work on epistemology.

Which has been so thoroughly refuted that the mere fact you suggest it shows how far from contemporary epistemology you are.

The first is an argument that theism can be rational without knowledge of a good argument for theism

Which is utter nonsense, a rational belief is one that is epistemically justified, plantinga's epistemology is subject to so many refutations that it's barely clear where to start - the Great Pumpkin Objection is my favorite though, his epistemology makes such a belief "properly basic".

the second is normally called the "Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism" (EAAN) which argues that the conjunction of evolution and naturalism is self-defeating.

And which demonstrates his lack of concern for proper form in a Bayesian argument, amongst other things, this is even more thoroughly refuted that his epistemology.

If your friend is a philosopher, you will want to make sure that you understand the strongest form of his arguments before you attempt a refutation.

Agreed.

All I'm doing is providing information about the arguments and views, not advocating them. That said, it doesn't follow that if theism is properly basic, then a whole theistic belief system is properly basic. And some of those belief systems you list are not even theistic!

Good call on that one, though I would contend that a theistic belief cannot be properly basic, especially when you had to first have at your disposal an epistemology (albeit a flawed one) in order to determine that these beliefs are properly basic to begin with - It's like saying "Given you accept warrant and proper functionalism you can conclude that belief in god is properly basic" which in it's self demonstrates that the basic belief must necessarily be the epistemology and not one such conclusion thereof.

And unlike his ideal "properly basic" belief that needs no rational justification and is immune to scrutiny, the epistemology that is required to conclude that such "properly basic" beliefs exist is wide open to refutation and does require rational justification.