The real religion?

[SteveII]

The point of the conversation about 'is belief in God properly basic' (as opposed to just basic) centers around the fact that it is an intuition (not inferred--based on evidence) that God exists and therefore is warranted (as opposed to justified) to believe so. They only way to defeat this position is to show this belief to be false. Simply proposing another way this intuition may have developed is not a defeater. 

Correction-- the only way to defeat this position is to be disinterested in it and to find something else to do.  The world of ideas isn't divided into God/not-God.  It's divided into JHVW, Thor, Zeus, Buddha, Krsna, atheism, and indifference.  If you don't want to assert something, then you are using a suspiciously large amount of words to do so.  If you want to assert something based on your intuition, then you have the BOP of demonstrating that your intuition is somehow more valid than that of literally hundreds of different intuitions.

See, that's the problem with intuitions-- they aren't shared in a common objective framework.  So unless you can find a way to share yours with me, then however much you value the experiences which you attribute to God, that God idea will remain irrelevant in my framework.

The conclusion of this line of reasoning is that you (the atheist) are not justified in complaining that a Christian's belief in God is irrational. While there is other evidence, none is required if belief in God is 'properly basic'.

Sounds like WLC to me.

Anyway, if a belief in God were properly basic, as I understand you to mean it, young children would have an unnamed belief in God, and would instantly recognize the thing when it was described to them.  This is not the case.  It is more the case that people of different cultures have various religious beliefs, which are not coincidentally those of those parents, but that as adults, they cannot recognize that their ideas represent cultural learning.

Here's the thing that for me sinks you entirely-- you have a nearly impossible 2-step process: 1) claim that your intuitions and feelings represent knowledge of reality; 2) demonstrate that the intuitions and feelings of dozens of other cultures and thousands of subcultures do NOT represent knowledge of reality.  That you will achieve that second step seems highly unlikely to anyone who isn't already a Christian.

It's actually Plantinga. 

This is not specific to Christianity. One cannot know vast amount of details intuitively (properly basic).  The fact that different cultures flesh out the intuition differently does not undermine the basic premise. Both the intuition and the details can be defeated simply by showing they are false.

[LadyForCamus]

Correction-- the only way to defeat this position is to be disinterested in it and to find something else to do.  The world of ideas isn't divided into God/not-God.  It's divided into JHVW, Thor, Zeus, Buddha, Krsna, atheism, and indifference.  If you don't want to assert something, then you are using a suspiciously large amount of words to do so.  If you want to assert something based on your intuition, then you have the BOP of demonstrating that your intuition is somehow more valid than that of literally hundreds of different intuitions.

See, that's the problem with intuitions-- they aren't shared in a common objective framework.  So unless you can find a way to share yours with me, then however much you value the experiences which you attribute to God, that God idea will remain irrelevant in my framework.

Sounds like WLC to me.

Anyway, if a belief in God were properly basic, as I understand you to mean it, young children would have an unnamed belief in God, and would instantly recognize the thing when it was described to them.  This is not the case.  It is more the case that people of different cultures have various religious beliefs, which are not coincidentally those of those parents, but that as adults, they cannot recognize that their ideas represent cultural learning.

Here's the thing that for me sinks you entirely-- you have a nearly impossible 2-step process: 1) claim that your intuitions and feelings represent knowledge of reality; 2) demonstrate that the intuitions and feelings of dozens of other cultures and thousands of subcultures do NOT represent knowledge of reality.  That you will achieve that second step seems highly unlikely to anyone who isn't already a Christian.

It's actually Plantinga. 

This is not specific to Christianity. One cannot know vast amount of details intuitively (properly basic).  The fact that different cultures flesh out the intuition differently does not undermine the basic premise. Both the intuition and the details can be defeated simply by showing they are false.

So, then any religion believed in by anyone could b considered, "properly basic"?

[LadyForCamus]

Correction-- the only way to defeat this position is to be disinterested in it and to find something else to do.  The world of ideas isn't divided into God/not-God.  It's divided into JHVW, Thor, Zeus, Buddha, Krsna, atheism, and indifference.  If you don't want to assert something, then you are using a suspiciously large amount of words to do so.  If you want to assert something based on your intuition, then you have the BOP of demonstrating that your intuition is somehow more valid than that of literally hundreds of different intuitions.

See, that's the problem with intuitions-- they aren't shared in a common objective framework.  So unless you can find a way to share yours with me, then however much you value the experiences which you attribute to God, that God idea will remain irrelevant in my framework.

Sounds like WLC to me.

Anyway, if a belief in God were properly basic, as I understand you to mean it, young children would have an unnamed belief in God, and would instantly recognize the thing when it was described to them.  This is not the case.  It is more the case that people of different cultures have various religious beliefs, which are not coincidentally those of those parents, but that as adults, they cannot recognize that their ideas represent cultural learning.

Here's the thing that for me sinks you entirely-- you have a nearly impossible 2-step process: 1) claim that your intuitions and feelings represent knowledge of reality; 2) demonstrate that the intuitions and feelings of dozens of other cultures and thousands of subcultures do NOT represent knowledge of reality.  That you will achieve that second step seems highly unlikely to anyone who isn't already a Christian.

It's actually Plantinga. 

This is not specific to Christianity. One cannot know vast amount of details intuitively (properly basic).  The fact that different cultures flesh out the intuition differently does not undermine the basic premise. Both the intuition and the details can be defeated simply by showing they are false.

Reformed epistemology IS specific to Christianity though...so like Crossless was saying, how do you intend to bridge that gap between specific Christian beliefs and all other religious beliefs?

[SteveII]

At any time, you can offer defeaters for a properly basic belief to show that it is not true. Go ahead, what is the defeater that shows that God does not exist? A 'properly basic belief' is both a belief that does not rely on inference and may be true. If it is not possible to be true, then it is not a properly basic belief.

So it's our job to show that your unfalsifiable claim is not true? That old game again?

Actually, no. That is not what the argument achieves. It simply removes the charge that belief in God is irrational, unjustifiable, or unwarranted. While it contributes to a cumulative argument for the existence of God, it does not prove it.

[Edwardo Piet]

Okay I'll play serious for once. Do you think there can be knowledge of God, Steve?

[SteveII]

If you want to know the dates of 27 different documents, look them up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

So, your reason why my belief is 'laughable' is...what? There would have been more surviving Roman literature on what happened in Palestine during the life of Jesus? That is the criteria for laughable??? You're sure the evidence of the NT is not solid, yet...nothing of substance has been forthcoming.

Why are you quoting me, and then straw-manning the word "laughable"?

See, here's the thing you don't get.  We aren't Christian.  If you want us to believe what you believe, then you'll have to demonstrate that it's worth adopting your beliefs.  Quoting fantastical tales from 2000 years ago won't do this, unless you can provide a great deal of convergent evidence.  You really have none at all, so far as I know.

What is the world is 'convergent evidence'? Seem like a term you use when you keep moving the bar. You still have not told me why these are not evidence (I numbered them so you can reply more easily):

1. 27 documents of the NT that survived. 
2. The fact there were churches across the Roman empire with 20 years of Jesus' death
3. The fact that the gospel writers (still within the lifetime of eyewitnesses) seemed to have even earlier writings available to them (putting those writings even closer to the actual dates.) 
4. The fact that we have late first century and second century writers who believed and referred to both the earlier documents, people, and events. 

What about the fantastical tales of ancient Babylonians, Egyptions or Romans?  They are MUCH better documented, and by many more sources, than the Bible.  Should I demand that you disprove the existence of Ra, or Zeus, or whatever?

The life and death of Jesus is the most attested to series of events in ancient history. How do these compare exactly? Actually, you are making things up because you couldn't possible make  a case for anything you said in that paragraph. 

See, literally whatever you say, whatever historical or logical argument, requires special pleading.   You must allow very liberal (i.e. low) standards of evidence to stand as meaningful, but deny the same (or even better) standard of evidence for many other world views and belief systems.

The problem is, non-Christians will not entertain your special pleading.  They will, instead, ask you for evidence compelling enough TO THEM to make it worth adopting your ideas.  Which, in this case, they know you cannot.  Thus the word salad.

We are back to the life and death of Jesus is the most attested to series of events in ancient history. So by what stretch of imagination do you think anyone applies 'special pleading' to the events that the NT describes?

[The Grand Nudger]

I see those fairy tales up above..are you implying that this is evidence? How about this...they are a combination of non-specific, and untrue things..assertions upon which you will build a non-sequitur ultimately ending with "therefore god". This is why it's not evidence....evidence is evident, not asserted, and reasserted ad naus.

[SteveII]

It's actually Plantinga. 

This is not specific to Christianity. One cannot know vast amount of details intuitively (properly basic).  The fact that different cultures flesh out the intuition differently does not undermine the basic premise. Both the intuition and the details can be defeated simply by showing they are false.

So, then any religion believed in by anyone could b considered, "properly basic"?

No, not 'any religion', the existence of God. To get to a religion, you need many many details that could not possibly be intuitive.

[SteveII]

deleted

[purplepurpose]

Stevell, we have see this kind of debate for dozen of times here. BUT even if science finds evidence backing Jesus or God, people will say "Why should I worship him?". And you will be like "Hmm hm. He will possibly torture you for your life which spinned around pleasure". After this there will be words like "Please ★★★★ off".