RE: Refuting Plantinga's God and Other Minds
November 19, 2013 at 2:19 am
(This post was last modified: November 19, 2013 at 2:22 am by MindForgedManacle.)
Honestly, I just find reformed epistemology to be nonsense on stilts. From the get-go, Platinga has to do two things:
Heavily critique evidentialist apologetics, thereby giving up essentially all arguments for God's existence ever made (INCLUDING HIS OWN)
and then
Special plead that you cannot use his critique of the evidentialist against his foundationalist view, which is demonstrated in the "Great-Pumpkin Objection".
Since an honest reformed epistemologist will have to admit that such makes, on their view, atheism and theism equally rational, they can't even use abductive reasoning (i.e an inference to the best explanation) to bolster theism's odds, because that would mean that at least some the arguments for God's existence do work, but the reformed epistemologist has to give them up as NOT working in order to establish their position.
I repeat, PlantingDerp.
Heavily critique evidentialist apologetics, thereby giving up essentially all arguments for God's existence ever made (INCLUDING HIS OWN)
and then
Special plead that you cannot use his critique of the evidentialist against his foundationalist view, which is demonstrated in the "Great-Pumpkin Objection".
Since an honest reformed epistemologist will have to admit that such makes, on their view, atheism and theism equally rational, they can't even use abductive reasoning (i.e an inference to the best explanation) to bolster theism's odds, because that would mean that at least some the arguments for God's existence do work, but the reformed epistemologist has to give them up as NOT working in order to establish their position.
I repeat, PlantingDerp.
