RE: Respectable books on apologetics?
April 16, 2014 at 9:23 am
(This post was last modified: April 16, 2014 at 9:29 am by MindForgedManacle.)
(April 15, 2014 at 3:01 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: You think "solving" regress by saying "it just proves God because God" is critical thinking?
No, and neither does Plantinga so far as I know.
Quote:You do know Plantinga thinks the KCA is a solid argument, despite all historical objections, right?
Okay let's say he thinks it's a solid argument: so what? "Solid argument" does not equal "irrefutable argument". Plantinga also thinks his modal version of the Ontological Argument is solid, but he clearly states the argument does not and cannot prove God's existence.
(April 15, 2014 at 4:35 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: The problem is he's doing it within the framework of epistemology, which is supposed to be a field dealing with what constitutes knowledge. "I dunno: therefore God" is not only an non-academic way of approaching the problem, it's intellectually dishonest.
I've yet to see Plantinga try anything as stupid as your straw man of him.
Quote:He's presupposing unsupported knowledge on which to base knowledge. He knows this, and yet continues to do it.
You'll have to elaborate here.
(April 15, 2014 at 9:46 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I reject the books of apologists because they are not arguments for universal science. They are nothing more than arguments for personal comic book super heros they know do not exist.
Wait, so you're criticising apologetics books because they're not science books? Non sequitur much?
Well if you value things that can be proven, why don't you go ahead and prove that all apologetics books are "arguments for personal comic book heroes they [apologists] know do not exist". Claiming apologisrs KNOW God doesn't exist is an extremely stupid thing for you to say. You might as well be a Presuppositionalist claiming atheists just pretend not to know God exists...
