RE: Properly basic beliefs. (Reformed Epistemology)
December 23, 2010 at 2:49 am
(This post was last modified: December 23, 2010 at 2:55 am by Welsh cake.)
Alvin Plantinga is sadly nothing more than an intellectually bankrupt apologist, he has a poor grasp on presenting consistent logical arguments or how to verify their validity, soundness, structure and content. He really failed spectacularly to understand what scientific theories such as evolution are, repeatedly making his own asinine objections to its apparent lacking in "divine-intervention" and "unguided-ness". I doubt he even recognises the term 'natural occurring'. Like many he has also failed to provide a rational basis for his Christian beliefs and so resorts to a common fall-back tactic, move the goalposts and attempt to redefine every other word in the English language to strengthen his orthodox worldview into more presentable, sensible and less flawed.
He claims our core-beliefs are untestable and don't have to be justified. He is factually wrong across the board. We can test a beliefs' proposition or premise to see whether it is true or not.
The root of the problem is that Alvin, much like Ray Comfort, has no idea what the word 'rational' means.
He claims our core-beliefs are untestable and don't have to be justified. He is factually wrong across the board. We can test a beliefs' proposition or premise to see whether it is true or not.
The root of the problem is that Alvin, much like Ray Comfort, has no idea what the word 'rational' means.
