(April 2, 2014 at 7:53 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: It seems to me that some of the arguments against evidentialism from Alvin Plantinga have dealt a huge blow to evidentialism.
Would you please describe which of Plantinga's arguments you feel was most effective in doing so?
(April 2, 2014 at 7:53 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: Particularly the arguments about how we believe in the existence of other minds, yet we don't really have evidence for that belief.
Really? It seems to me that we DO have such evidence. Direct experience of our own minds coupled with indirect experience of other minds.
(April 2, 2014 at 7:53 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: 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?
This would actually be a good point if it didn't lead to solipsism, the most useless idea ever.
(April 2, 2014 at 7:53 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: 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.
It's a desperation tactic. 'There's no evidence for God but we want to claim it's reasonable to believe anyway! What can we do? How about...we say it's okay to believe things without evidence because we can't prove reality is real anyway!'
(April 2, 2014 at 7:53 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: 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.
I think you gave in too easy on the 'other minds' thing. Evidence isn't proof. You can't prove there are other minds, but there is evidence for them.
(April 2, 2014 at 7:53 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: 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?
Good questions, but if you accept that belief without evidence is justified, you can believe anything without justifying it at all.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
