Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: June 9, 2025, 11:16 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Properly basic beliefs. (Reformed Epistemology)
#13
RE: Properly basic beliefs. (Reformed Epistemology)
(December 26, 2010 at 7:52 am)theVOID Wrote: It was just your statement that he was "nothing more than a bankrupt apologist" that set off a red flag because it's plainly not the case. I never said reading all his works was required either, It just seems to me like such a statement would only come from someone who hasn't read his work or has read very little - A lot of people including his critics admire him at least for his effort and sincerity and he's done a heap to challenge naturalists.
Didn't I already admit retrospectively I was being overly-abrasive and dramatic in my second post? Treading old ground is tedious so let's stop.


Quote:Where does Plantinga say that naturalism is incoherent because it doesn't acknowledge God? Go find that for me please, I must have missed it...
His work on the evolutionary argument against naturalism? Naturalism Defeated? An argument so malformed and chalked full of errors he had to re-formulate it, and still other creationists and even proponents of intelligent design such as Michael Ruse have criticised its shortcomings.


Quote:And like you need your whole life to read enough to get a realistic opinion, your melodrama is another red flag.
Now was that really necessary void? You've smart enough to know I was speaking metaphorically, i.e. a rhetoric figure of speech.


Quote:What argument are you referring to?
What are you addressing? I'm not responding to any argument I'm merely begging the question as to whether or not Plantinga used his reasoning skills to come to the conclusion of the premise that Christianity is true.


Quote:Rowe's argument intended to show that an omnibenevolent God probably did not exist, Plantinga presented a case where it was logically possible for God and Rowe's E's to coexist - That is all that is required.
And how does Plantinga not contradict himself by making the proposition that god is unable to create a universe without cause and effect or consequences (evil) if he is by nature and definition all-powerful?

Omnipotence is one of the characteristics attributed to God in Christianity orthodoxy is it not? That does not resolve the paradox either; it merely changes the definition of an omnibenevolent God into something else that the argument's premise does not contain. I recall a long time ago reading someone's response (a theologians’ I believe, but please don't ask because I can't remember) that the only tempting answers that could one arrive at was either God does not care, does not know, or simply lacks the power to stop evil in the world, all three are addressing a being that is not recognized as 'God' and therefore are unacceptable non-answers. That's why when I used to be a theist I argued that God had a unknown plan for evil and natural evil from the beginning of time, not this free-will nonsense, both are bullshit though I must confess. Big Grin


Quote:Where did he simply assert that? And what argument are you referring to? His arguments for belief in God being similar to belief in other minds was flawed, but anything but an assertion, like always he builds a comprehensive case for his beliefs.
Umm, the nature of necessity? The work we are (or were) currently talking about am I right? Huh


Quote:Why should Plantinga be so criminalised for trying just like everyone else to build a comprehensive argument for his positions? Hate him all you like but you could never justifiably say he didn't give it a fucking decent attempt.
I don’t hate him. I just don't think he's contributed anything worthwhile to philosophy. My informed opinion is all.


Quote:Yeah I've read more criticism than his actual work and at no point during his work or any refutation did I come across the accusation that he changed the meaning of epistemology from "A theory of knowledge and justification".
Then why seek to reform it in the first instance void? You've done this several times now, its getting so tiresome to the point where I feel like I've hit one big berserk button with you and Plantinga. Would you also like me to provide citations that some theists substitute the label "universe" for "god" also?
Reply



Messages In This Thread
Properly basic beliefs. (Reformed Epistemology) - by theVOID - November 3, 2010 at 7:09 pm
RE: Properly basic beliefs. (Reformed Epistemology) - by Welsh cake - December 26, 2010 at 2:51 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Street Epistemology LadyForCamus 10 1817 October 28, 2018 at 2:35 am
Last Post: SteelCurtain
  Plato's Epistemology: Is Faith a Valid Way to Know? vulcanlogician 10 1977 July 2, 2018 at 2:59 pm
Last Post: Succubus
  Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology? Ignorant 69 12848 May 26, 2016 at 7:49 pm
Last Post: Ben Davis
  can identical twins have different religious beliefs? ignoramus 16 4943 June 25, 2014 at 9:05 am
Last Post: LastPoet
  How did the Universe Come to be? (my beliefs) BrumelyKris 24 8216 October 10, 2013 at 6:28 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  Is Knowledge of God's Existence Properly Basic? MindForgedManacle 8 3266 September 17, 2013 at 4:25 pm
Last Post: Simon Moon
  think my beliefs have changed again :S what am I now? Jextin 20 5171 June 18, 2013 at 6:41 am
Last Post: LastPoet
  Rosenberg's Argument Against Beliefs Neo-Scholastic 29 16704 April 23, 2013 at 4:39 pm
Last Post: Neo-Scholastic
  Do your beliefs imply a Necessary being exists? CliveStaples 124 54613 August 29, 2012 at 5:22 am
Last Post: Categories+Sheaves
  What is your epistemology? theVOID 43 19601 September 14, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Last Post: ib.me.ub



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)