Christianity - A respectful dialogue

[Loki_999]

I had the same with my question regarding his proof for all people having a sense divinitatus. No answer, so where's the dialogue or the respect, for that matter?

I'm sure it has been posted many times before on this site, but this image says it all:

[Dr. Kwaltz]

Here's a starter:

- Humans have a sensus divinitatis,

And you just triggered my Sensus Bullshiticus!

[Thinking Aloud]

Ok, so most people here would rather do insults than debate. Sad, but,

Insults? Rare and uncommon here.

This is Rationalia, you know.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Ok, so most people here would rather do insults than debate. Sad, but,

Insults? Rare and uncommon here.

This is Rationalia, you know.

We do cheese rather than debate here.

[PaulWright]

Well, it was those distillers' fault too, I suppose, for either assuming that everyone knew the argument he was alluding to, or thinking that because he was so clever that he did and you didn't, he could do that thing evangelists do where they get you to commit to a series of statements until you've painted yourself into a corner.

Still, know your enemies: Plantinga is one of the top Christian philosophers, and Christians parroting him do actually have some heft behind them, especially if they run into atheists saying plausible but wrong things like "all beliefs must be backed by empirical evidence".

[Oldskeptic]

PaulWright wrote:
Still, know your enemies: Plantinga is one of the top Christian philosophers, and Christians parroting him do actually have some heft behind them, especially if they run into atheists saying plausible but wrong things like "all beliefs must be backed by empirical evidence".

I suppose that you are talking about reliabilism which Plantigna promotes by saying that there need not be empirical evidence as long as the belief was reached via a reliable process, but there is something of a problem here: How do we know that it is a reliable process if we have no evidence that it is? It seems to me that the only reliable way to reach a conclusion is by having both evidence and a reliable process. One without the other is useless. And simply asserting that something such as Sensus divinitatis is a reliable process does not work. You either need to have evidence for this or be able to show that this assertion came about through another reliable process which in turn demands the same sort of answers.

All that Calvin and Plantigna can do is point to an argument based on popularity and claim that this makes Sensus divinitatis a reliable process, but where is there any evidence for this? First of all it presupposes the existence of something that their method is attempting to prove. Secondly, it is not true. In Calvin’s time and place it may have been nearly universal that everyone believed that there was a loving creator god that should be worshipped, but that was because that was what people were told from early childhood. There are cultures all over the world though that have not believed this. Of course superstition is prevalent in almost all cultures to one degree or another, but the details vary wildly.

Worship of gods or spirits is not universal, neither is belief in a creator god. In some cases the spirits are simply dead ancestors that need to be appeased so that they do not cause harm to the living. In other cases the gods or spirits inhabit forests and jungles and need to be appeased or at the very least not offended. Creation stories abound but they do not all include a creator god. Many are only fanciful stories about the first ancestors of that particular culture.

Calvin was a Clergyman and Plantigna is a religious philosopher they both were/are Christian apologists starting from unsupported assertions and working their way backwards trying to defend them in anyway they can.

They and the rest of this crowd of religious “philosophers” would like it to be true that there is no need for empirical evidence because they cannot provide any, so rather than rethink their positions they go off and make pretzels out of logic and call it philosophy.

Cicero wrote:
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it

That goes doubly for religious philosophers.

[Valden]

Still, know your enemies: Plantinga is one of the top Christian philosophers, and Christians parroting him do actually have some heft behind them, especially if they run into atheists saying plausible but wrong things like "all beliefs must be backed by empirical evidence".

I have never even heard of him, nor come across a Christian that parrots him.
Can't help but think he's not all that good.

[Oldskeptic]

Valden wrote:
I have never even heard of him, nor come across a Christian that parrots him. Can't help but think he's not all that good.

He’s not he’s just in the same crowd as Lane, Lennox, Behe, Gish, and all the rest of the creationist crowd that would rather make shit up than face reality.