Conversion

[LukeMC]

Assuming that more evidence was available, which is an assumption you are making that is not a part of the scenario Plantinga speaks of, then until that evidence was collected, it would still be externally unverifiable and the external verifiability of an internal knowledge which is properly basic would be possible both theoretically and practically. There are real cases where people are innocent and yet the evidence is against them due to either viscious coincidences or conspiracies. The external unverifiabillity of an internal knowledge is possible and there are many actual examples of it within the very criminal system of a country like America, where people have been released up to 20 after being convicted of a crime they didn't commit, because the discovery and collection of some new evidence suddenly occured.

My bold.
If there was no other evidence available then the example is fictitious and couldn't possibly happen. There always will be evidence, although it may be impractically difficult to come across.

My italics.
The claims are unverified- not unverifiable. Again, there are cases where verifying the evidence is extremely difficult, but the evidence is there. It is veriable, although currently unverified.

[Jon Paul]

There always will be evidence, although it may be impractically difficult to come across.

Of course, and that's all I meant. Practically unavailable, practically unverifiable. Verification requires the practical possibility of it.

[LukeMC]

So where are we on the idea that scientific evidence is a reasonable requirement for belief in a god?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Yet curiously Arcanus argues the exact opposite! I do wish you wingnuts would fucking agree on things

No, he argued the same (as far as I have read).

Read it and weep Muppet:

"The TAG does not argue that God created morality." Arcanus

Kyu

[Jon Paul]

So where are we on the idea that scientific evidence is a reasonable requirement for belief in a god?

External verifiability is not a premise for internal properly basic and justified belief in God.

But it is a premise for external verifiability.

And I do believe that the existence of God is externally verifiable. See my thread if you want to know why.

---

Read it and weep Muppet:

"The TAG does not argue that God created morality." Arcanus

Kyu

Did you even read the post you quoted? I said the exact same thing:

So how did you conclude that TAG states that the moral and logical order is created? It affirms the opposite, that it is part of Gods absolute, transcendent and uncreated nature, and as a result is imposed on his Creation.

[bozo]

Jon, what's your idea of fun? You're 17?

[Rhizomorph13]

And I do believe that the existence of God is externally verifiable. See my thread if you want to know why.

I've been following your arguments this whole time and I don't get it, could you please repeat what is externally verifiable evidence of God?

Thanks,
Rhizo

[Jon Paul]

Jon, what's your idea of fun? You're 17?

Not writing on this forum, no doubt. I'm not here for fun, but for some intellectual challenge.

---

And I do believe that the existence of God is externally verifiable. See my thread if you want to know why.

I've been following your arguments this whole time and I don't get it, could you please repeat what is externally verifiable evidence of God?

Thanks,
Rhizo

Please, keep that to my thread which already exists about it. Read the first three pages of the thread, within which both of my arguments are sketched out.

[Tiberius]

Saying that something is a part of Gods nature, apart from what he does, is not the same as saying that something is a result of Gods external operation and action. In that case, saying that God is good (a predication of his nature) would be the same kind of statement as saying that God created Saturn, which is a predication of his action in a potentiality outside of his own nature, not a predication of his nature independently of that action.

Now I'm confused. Either the TAG states that God created morality (and is thereby nulled by the fact that there are other explanations, and the argument is based on mere assumption (and is not a proof). Or TAG states that morality is because of God (it is transcendent or whatever), which is again nulled by the same fact and is still based on assumption.

Either way, TAG isn't a proof of anything. One could just as easily say that the FSM or Richard Dawkins is responsible for logic / morality.

As for the argument itself:

(1) Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality)
(2) If there is no god, knowledge is not posssible
(3) Therefore god

I agree with statement (1), but (2) is a non-sequitur. It is an assumption and simply does not follow through. In fact I'm a little bit disappointed by this argument, given that Arcanus sticks by it so strongly. The argument itself gives nothing to explain (2), it just states it.

[LukeMC]

I agree with statement (1), but (2) is a non-sequitur. It is an assumption and simply does not follow through. In fact I'm a little bit disappointed by this argument, given that Arcanus sticks by it so strongly. The argument itself gives nothing to explain (2), it just states it.

Brace yourself. It's a coming.