Skepticism, relativism, and empiricism are self-defeating, therefore they are not true.
Thoughts? Just thinking... *ahem* ...out loud.
seanbutnotheard wrote:For an epistemological framework to be true, it must not be self-defeating.
Skepticism, relativism, and empiricism are self-defeating, therefore they are not true.
Thoughts? Just thinking... *ahem* ...out loud.
seanbutnotheard wrote:Prove it.
seanbutnotheard wrote:But "just because" is the whole argument. What Plantinga is saying, is that believing in God's existence is as basic as believing in your own existence. That is, you don't need to prove God's existence to yourself any more than you have to prove your own existence.
Pride is a whole other issue though. Personally I think pride is the biggest barrier to knowing God's existence.
seanbutnotheard wrote:But does the average person need to think to themselves, "I think, therefore I am" to believe that they exist? No, and likewise, they don't need to understand the Kalaam or Ontological or Moral or any other logical arguments for God's existence, to be justified in believing he exists.
If you want to read some Plantinga, I'd recommend "Warranted Christian Belief", which is kind of the capstone of his current writings. You can whet your appetite by reading the preface on Amazon.com.
I wish epistemology was taught in schools (as well as economics, but that's for a different thread)... I doubt we'd have nearly the postmodern crisis (i.e.: skepticism of everything) we're having in America if it was.
seanbutnotheard wrote:
(You like how I'm plugging a book I've only skimmed so far? Maybe I should stop before I put my foot in Plantinga's mouth...)
Paeter wrote:Hey, what's this on page 198 about God actually being a chunk West African Goat Cheese?
UKSteve wrote:My cat's name is mittens.
Hackmodford wrote:
The other thing I got out of the story is how it keeps talking about in an infinite universe anything is possible. Which logically seems true. But just apply that same logic to God and you get goosebumps
Paeter wrote:God, who is consistent and logical by nature, never violates the law of non-contradiction. For example, it is not possible for God to be both personal and impersonal in the same sense at the same time.
ProfessorAlan wrote:Paeter wrote:God, who is consistent and logical by nature, never violates the law of non-contradiction. For example, it is not possible for God to be both personal and impersonal in the same sense at the same time.
I agree with the concept of this and similar statements, but I don't hold God accountable to our puny understandings of human logic. I just think there is a lot more mystery to it, a lot more we will never understand, and a lot of seeming contradictions that we just have to live with. And I don't mind that one bit.
If I could understand God, Hw wouldn't be much of a god.
|
|