(April 15, 2014 at 3:01 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:(April 15, 2014 at 2:02 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: So... I'm here to say that most of the above is bullshit in my view. :p While I think Craig is a repetitive bore, Plantinga's no slouch and to say he's an afront to critical thinking is just silly shit, to be frank.
You think "solving" regress by saying "it just proves God because God" is critical thinking?
You do know Plantinga thinks the KCA is a solid argument, despite all historical objections, right?
He's also stated that his modal version of the Ontologiocal argument is not convincing.
He acknowledges that no ontological argument has the kind of persuasive character that would convince a non-believer; rather, they can realistically hope to reinforce the convictions of a theist.
WHAT...?!
Aopologetics is designed to reinforce already existing beliefs. Who would have thought that?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
