The real religion?

[LadyForCamus]

Right...

"It is tempting to raise the following sort of question. If belief in God can be properly basic, why cannot just any belief be properly basic? Could we not say the same for any bizarre aberration we can think of? What about voodoo or astrology? What about the belief that the Great Pumpkin returns every Halloween? Could I properly take that as basic? Suppose I believe that if I flap my arms with sufficient vigor, I can take off and fly about the room; could I defend myself against the charge of irrationality by claiming this belief is basic? If we say that belief in God is properly basic, will we not be committed to holding that just anything, or nearly anything, can properly be taken as basic, thus throwing wide the gates to irrationalism and superstition?"

At any time, you can offer defeaters for a properly basic belief to show that it is not true. Go ahead, what is the defeater that shows that God does not exist? A 'properly basic belief' is both a belief that does not rely on inference and may be true. If it is not possible to be true, then it is not a properly basic belief.

I am under no obligation to offer any defeaters regarding anything not existing, as I'm sure you know. "The Great Pumpkin" objection demonstrates that falling adequately within the criteria of "properly basic beliefs" (as I understand them explained) is just about any other wild thing the human imagine is capable of drumming up. Plantinga's rebuttal: 'well, you can't prove there AREN'T other criteria that might exclude all these other things,' is not a rebuttal at all. It's a logical fallacy, which is a problem for reformed epistemology, not for me.