It seems to me that some of the arguments against evidentialism from Alvin Plantinga have dealt a huge blow to evidentialism.
Particularly the arguments about how we believe in the existence of other minds, yet we don't really have evidence for that belief. Or the existence of the external world, the only way we can verify if the external world exists is through our senses, and who's to say our perceptions are completely incorrect, and we're actually a brain in a vat, dreaming all of this?
I know, that these arguments do not prove god, it just justifies believing in god without evidence, but I don't think we can just let that slide. How can you believe in a god without evidence, and be called rational? Sure, we may believe in the existence of other minds without evidence, but the existence of a god is not nearly as obvious, nor serves any practical relevance. You can't be justified in a belief in god because 'it's obvious to me', I think it needs to be obvious to everyone in order for it to be justified. If god's existence is 'just obvious', why is it not obvious to a large percentage of the population? If there were a god, wouldn't there be evidence of his existence? If so, why do they need to resort to making certain beliefs justified without evidence in order to make their case?
Particularly the arguments about how we believe in the existence of other minds, yet we don't really have evidence for that belief. Or the existence of the external world, the only way we can verify if the external world exists is through our senses, and who's to say our perceptions are completely incorrect, and we're actually a brain in a vat, dreaming all of this?
I know, that these arguments do not prove god, it just justifies believing in god without evidence, but I don't think we can just let that slide. How can you believe in a god without evidence, and be called rational? Sure, we may believe in the existence of other minds without evidence, but the existence of a god is not nearly as obvious, nor serves any practical relevance. You can't be justified in a belief in god because 'it's obvious to me', I think it needs to be obvious to everyone in order for it to be justified. If god's existence is 'just obvious', why is it not obvious to a large percentage of the population? If there were a god, wouldn't there be evidence of his existence? If so, why do they need to resort to making certain beliefs justified without evidence in order to make their case?
