Properly basic beliefs. (Reformed Epistemology)

[Welsh cake]

And from that I have to assume you haven't actually read his work...

I have not read all of his published works. My patience with him was thoroughly exhausted after he started asserting from probability that evolution and naturalism were 'self-defeating' because they were contradictory to his (Plantinga's) calculations. I also haven't read everything C.S Lewis ever wrote down either. So what? Please tell me whether any of this really matters at the end of the day.

I don't have all-my-life to get worked up over some guy who counter-argues everything given to him or thinks naturalism is an incoherent mess because it doesn't acknowledge his god-concept or other supernatural entities.

You don't doubt his reasoning skills, but you this he is unable to appreciate a logical and rational argument? How are those two statements not a contradiction?

Right, but now we're talking about philosophy and yes, the labour of reason is rationality, however reasoned arguments are not quite the same as rational arguments. Plantinga used his reasoning skills to generate the conclusion of the premise that Christianity is true (by faith) did he not?

As for his abilities, how about this: Plantinga was the one who defeated Rowe's argument from evil

No, Void he did not. He used the 'Get Out Of Jail Free' card with the free-will clause which doesn't resolve the Epicurean logical paradox William L. Rowe developed his work upon. Rowe's position is questionable as well at any rate, I've read several of his reviews and papers and couldn't for the life of me understand how he was actually defending theistic arguments or following (maybe even supporting) Plantinga's work.

He started the post-positivism boom of Christian philosophy, his work in "The nature of necessity" is praised by philosophers regardless of their religious beliefs and his early "God and other minds" was a fairly serious challenge for many epistemologies.

Oh I bet it was, asserting the claim "God is rationally justified" would blow anyone's socks off. I couldn't possibly think of one single way to respond to that claim. Nope. At this point it is worth mentioning to you that I do not care what the reception of people's work is; I care about substance, the content of their work, in other words is it rational? Meaningful? And so on. The Bible for all its atrocious dogmatic content, absurd ethnics and continuity contradictions is also widely cited as an important "flawless work" of art, so what?

He didn't redefine epistemology

He redefined or rather 'bastardised' epistemology into something where he could defend his faith as rational. Have you also read criticisms of his work?

[theVOID]

And from that I have to assume you haven't actually read his work...

I have not read all of his published works. My patience with him was thoroughly exhausted after he started asserting from probability that evolution and naturalism were 'self-defeating' because they were contradictory to his (Plantinga's) calculations. I also haven't read everything C.S Lewis ever wrote down either. So what? Please tell me whether any of this really matters at the end of the day.

I don't have all-my-life to get worked up over some guy who counter-argues everything given to him or thinks naturalism is an incoherent mess because it doesn't acknowledge his god-concept or other supernatural entities.

It was just your statement that he was "nothing more than a bankrupt apologist" that set off a red flag because it's plainly not the case. I never said reading all his works was required either, It just seems to me like such a statement would only come from someone who hasn't read his work or has read very little - A lot of people including his critics admire him at least for his effort and sincerity and he's done a heap to challenge naturalists.

Where does Plantinga say that naturalism is incoherent because it doesn't acknowledge God? Go find that for me please, I must have missed it...

And like you need your whole life to read enough to get a realistic opinion, your melodrama is another red flag.

You don't doubt his reasoning skills, but you this he is unable to appreciate a logical and rational argument? How are those two statements not a contradiction?

Right, but now we're talking about philosophy and yes, the labour of reason is rationality, however reasoned arguments are not quite the same as rational arguments. Plantinga used his reasoning skills to generate the conclusion of the premise that Christianity is true (by faith) did he not?

What argument are you referring to?

As for his abilities, how about this: Plantinga was the one who defeated Rowe's argument from evil

No, Void he did not. He used the 'Get Out Of Jail Free' card with the free-will clause which doesn't resolve the Epicurean logical paradox William L. Rowe developed his work upon. Rowe's position is questionable as well at any rate, I've read several of his reviews and papers and couldn't for the life of me understand how he was actually defending theistic arguments or following (maybe even supporting) Plantinga's work.

Rowe's argument intended to show that an omnibenevolent God probably did not exist, Plantinga presented a case where it was logically possible for God and Rowe's E's to coexist - That is all that is required.

He started the post-positivism boom of Christian philosophy, his work in "The nature of necessity" is praised by philosophers regardless of their religious beliefs and his early "God and other minds" was a fairly serious challenge for many epistemologies.

Oh I bet it was, asserting the claim "God is rationally justified" would blow anyone's socks off. I couldn't possibly think of one single way to respond to that claim. Nope. At this point it is worth mentioning to you that I do not care what the reception of people's work is; I care about substance, the content of their work, in other words is it rational? Meaningful? And so on. The Bible for all its atrocious dogmatic content, absurd ethnics and continuity contradictions is also widely cited as an important "flawless work" of art, so what?

Where did he simply assert that? And what argument are you referring to? His arguments for belief in God being similar to belief in other minds was flawed, but anything but an assertion, like always he builds a comprehensive case for his beliefs.

Also, He has had multiple attempts at a justification for theism and I'm not aware of a single one that was just asserted. You don't write a trilogy of books for an assertion.

You want substance there is a hell of a lot of it, he hasn't managed as far as I know to build a case that was immune from refutation but he's had some fucking impressive attempts - You do realise that mostly everything suggested by Philosophers has been wrong no? Why should Plantinga be so criminalised for trying just like everyone else to build a comprehensive argument for his positions? Hate him all you like but you could never justifiably say he didn't give it a fucking decent attempt.

He didn't redefine epistemology

He redefined or rather 'bastardised' epistemology into something where he could defend his faith as rational. Have you also read criticisms of his work?

Yeah I've read more criticism than his actual work and at no point during his work or any refutation did I come across the accusation that he changed the meaning of epistemology from "A theory of knowledge and justification". Do you have the passage where he does so?

[Welsh cake]

It was just your statement that he was "nothing more than a bankrupt apologist" that set off a red flag because it's plainly not the case. I never said reading all his works was required either, It just seems to me like such a statement would only come from someone who hasn't read his work or has read very little - A lot of people including his critics admire him at least for his effort and sincerity and he's done a heap to challenge naturalists.

Didn't I already admit retrospectively I was being overly-abrasive and dramatic in my second post? Treading old ground is tedious so let's stop.

Where does Plantinga say that naturalism is incoherent because it doesn't acknowledge God? Go find that for me please, I must have missed it...

His work on the evolutionary argument against naturalism? Naturalism Defeated? An argument so malformed and chalked full of errors he had to re-formulate it, and still other creationists and even proponents of intelligent design such as Michael Ruse have criticised its shortcomings.

And like you need your whole life to read enough to get a realistic opinion, your melodrama is another red flag.

Now was that really necessary void? You've smart enough to know I was speaking metaphorically, i.e. a rhetoric figure of speech.

What argument are you referring to?

What are you addressing? I'm not responding to any argument I'm merely begging the question as to whether or not Plantinga used his reasoning skills to come to the conclusion of the premise that Christianity is true.

Rowe's argument intended to show that an omnibenevolent God probably did not exist, Plantinga presented a case where it was logically possible for God and Rowe's E's to coexist - That is all that is required.

And how does Plantinga not contradict himself by making the proposition that god is unable to create a universe without cause and effect or consequences (evil) if he is by nature and definition all-powerful?

Omnipotence is one of the characteristics attributed to God in Christianity orthodoxy is it not? That does not resolve the paradox either; it merely changes the definition of an omnibenevolent God into something else that the argument's premise does not contain. I recall a long time ago reading someone's response (a theologians’ I believe, but please don't ask because I can't remember) that the only tempting answers that could one arrive at was either God does not care, does not know, or simply lacks the power to stop evil in the world, all three are addressing a being that is not recognized as 'God' and therefore are unacceptable non-answers. That's why when I used to be a theist I argued that God had a unknown plan for evil and natural evil from the beginning of time, not this free-will nonsense, both are bullshit though I must confess.

Where did he simply assert that? And what argument are you referring to? His arguments for belief in God being similar to belief in other minds was flawed, but anything but an assertion, like always he builds a comprehensive case for his beliefs.

Umm, the nature of necessity? The work we are (or were) currently talking about am I right?

Why should Plantinga be so criminalised for trying just like everyone else to build a comprehensive argument for his positions? Hate him all you like but you could never justifiably say he didn't give it a fucking decent attempt.

I don’t hate him. I just don't think he's contributed anything worthwhile to philosophy. My informed opinion is all.

Yeah I've read more criticism than his actual work and at no point during his work or any refutation did I come across the accusation that he changed the meaning of epistemology from "A theory of knowledge and justification".

Then why seek to reform it in the first instance void? You've done this several times now, its getting so tiresome to the point where I feel like I've hit one big berserk button with you and Plantinga. Would you also like me to provide citations that some theists substitute the label "universe" for "god" also?

[Stempy]

This post is a refutation and thoughts of Alvin Plantinga's idea of 'properly basic belief' concept, which basically states that a belief that is 'properly basic' is one that is at the foundation of one's application of reason and logic and thus the belief cannot be tested.

Hi theVOID,

Hope you don't mind if I saunter in. I think if you're really going to "refute" Plantinga's concept of proper basicality, you will have to actually argue using the terms as Plantinga defines them. Plantinga does not define a properly basic belief as "one that is at the foundation of one's application of reason and logic". You are wading into the deep waters of analytic philosophy, where semantics is king. As a fan of Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology (though not necessarily an advocate) I would love to see you engage with his view as he defines it.

Stempy.