Belief in God is Properly Basic.

[Lev Muishkin]

http://joveiaphilosopher.blogspot.co.uk ... basic.html


Summary: Most people would say that evidence for a view is a pretty critical part of any justification for it. Alvin Plantinga would disagree when it comes to belief in God, and would say that it's perfectly acceptable to believe in God with potentially no evidence. Why? According to his argument to properly basic theistic belief, if God created our cognitive faculties with (partly) the specific purpose of believing in the spiritual realm - if that was completely true, and we could all know that - then belief in God would be completely justified. He then says that the chance of this God existing is the chance belief in God is totally justified, and that this chance survives Occam's razor as long as there are no really good arguments against this kind of God. Therefore, belief in God is probably reasonable, commensurate with this chance.


Discuss?

[HexHammer]

Silly circular logic.

[Lev Muishkin]

Silly circular logic.

Whilst this might be true, you are not saying how or why.

[thedoc]

http://joveiaphilosopher.blogspot.co.uk ... basic.html

Summary: Most people would say that evidence for a view is a pretty critical part of any justification for it. Alvin Plantinga would disagree when it comes to belief in God, and would say that it's perfectly acceptable to believe in God with potentially no evidence. Why? According to his argument to properly basic theistic belief, if God created our cognitive faculties with (partly) the specific purpose of believing in the spiritual realm - if that was completely true, and we could all know that - then belief in God would be completely justified. He then says that the chance of this God existing is the chance belief in God is totally justified, and that this chance survives Occam's razor as long as there are no really good arguments against this kind of God. Therefore, belief in God is probably reasonable, commensurate with this chance.

Discuss?

Most religions that I am familiar with, are based on the faith that certain things are true, without proof. Flailing against a belief that lacks proof, but is based on faith, is a particularly silly argument, and yet this is the mainstay of most atheist's arguments against the existence of God.

[Lev Muishkin]

http://joveiaphilosopher.blogspot.co.uk ... basic.html

Summary: Most people would say that evidence for a view is a pretty critical part of any justification for it. Alvin Plantinga would disagree when it comes to belief in God, and would say that it's perfectly acceptable to believe in God with potentially no evidence. Why? According to his argument to properly basic theistic belief, if God created our cognitive faculties with (partly) the specific purpose of believing in the spiritual realm - if that was completely true, and we could all know that - then belief in God would be completely justified. He then says that the chance of this God existing is the chance belief in God is totally justified, and that this chance survives Occam's razor as long as there are no really good arguments against this kind of God. Therefore, belief in God is probably reasonable, commensurate with this chance.

Discuss?

Most religions that I am familiar with, are based on the faith that certain things are true, without proof. Flailing against a belief that lacks proof, but is based on faith, is a particularly silly argument, and yet this is the mainstay of most atheist's arguments against the existence of God.

In what way? I'm not sure you can be right. Unless god is proved in some way, any argument against it is not faith based but a refutation on the claim itself. If all you have is faith in an argument, then there is no counter argument required in any sense.
a claim about an existence requires an argument. A claim that such an argument is false only requires to counter that argument.

Atheism is not about faith because it does not involve a belief; it is literally based on nothing.

[thedoc]

http://joveiaphilosopher.blogspot.co.uk ... basic.html

Summary: Most people would say that evidence for a view is a pretty critical part of any justification for it. Alvin Plantinga would disagree when it comes to belief in God, and would say that it's perfectly acceptable to believe in God with potentially no evidence. Why? According to his argument to properly basic theistic belief, if God created our cognitive faculties with (partly) the specific purpose of believing in the spiritual realm - if that was completely true, and we could all know that - then belief in God would be completely justified. He then says that the chance of this God existing is the chance belief in God is totally justified, and that this chance survives Occam's razor as long as there are no really good arguments against this kind of God. Therefore, belief in God is probably reasonable, commensurate with this chance.

Discuss?

Most religions that I am familiar with, are based on the faith that certain things are true, without proof. Flailing against a belief that lacks proof, but is based on faith, is a particularly silly argument, and yet this is the mainstay of most atheist's arguments against the existence of God.

In what way? I'm not sure you can be right. Unless god is proved in some way, any argument against it is not faith based but a refutation on the claim itself. If all you have is faith in an argument, then there is no counter argument required in any sense.
a claim about an existence requires an argument. A claim that such an argument is false only requires to counter that argument.

Atheism is not about faith because it does not involve a belief; it is literally based on nothing.

I think you are wrong here, atheism is a belief that there is no God and faith that the arguments and the lack of evidence prove it.

The thing is that for those who really believe, proof is irrelevant, and proving or disproving are meaningless. Only for those who are looking for proof one way or the other, is proof an important factor.

[HexHammer]

Silly circular logic.

Whilst this might be true, you are not saying how or why.

He didn't create our cognitive abilities, apparently we only gained our cognitive abilities from eating the apple of wisdom, so in that we should have stayed eternally stupid if not.

[Lev Muishkin]

Silly circular logic.

Whilst this might be true, you are not saying how or why.

He didn't create our cognitive abilities, apparently we only gained our cognitive abilities from eating the apple of wisdom, so in that we should have stayed eternally stupid if not.

Belief in god does not necessarily entail belief in the Eden myth.

[Lev Muishkin]

Most religions that I am familiar with, are based on the faith that certain things are true, without proof. Flailing against a belief that lacks proof, but is based on faith, is a particularly silly argument, and yet this is the mainstay of most atheist's arguments against the existence of God.

In what way? I'm not sure you can be right. Unless god is proved in some way, any argument against it is not faith based but a refutation on the claim itself. If all you have is faith in an argument, then there is no counter argument required in any sense.
a claim about an existence requires an argument. A claim that such an argument is false only requires to counter that argument.

Atheism is not about faith because it does not involve a belief; it is literally based on nothing.

I think you are wrong here, atheism is a belief that there is no God and faith that the arguments and the lack of evidence prove it.

The thing is that for those who really believe, proof is irrelevant, and proving or disproving are meaningless. Only for those who are looking for proof one way or the other, is proof an important factor.

You are talking rubbish. Evidence and reason are the only valuable criteria to avoid believing in lies. Proof is sometimes important; vitally so for asserting what is not obvious. Faith is empty.
Atheism is not about faith or belief in any sense. God is not established by these things and a long list of definitions of god are ridiculous, contradictory and incompatible with reality.
As an atheist I have no need to proof non-existence. That is not how it works.

[HexHammer]

Belief in god does not necessarily entail belief in the Eden myth.

How so?

[Lev Muishkin]

Belief in god does not necessarily entail belief in the Eden myth.

How so?

Duh! I thought you said your were smarter than the average poster here?
Run along and read a book. Start with Homer.

[HexHammer]

Belief in god does not necessarily entail belief in the Eden myth.

How so?

Duh! I thought you said your were smarter than the average poster here?
Run along and read a book. Start with Homer.

So I caught you in a plot hole in your charade..

[Lev Muishkin]

Duh! I thought you said your were smarter than the average poster here?
Run along and read a book. Start with Homer.

So I caught you in a plot hole in your charade..

No, you just added 'ignorant" to the set of adjectives I am using to describe you.

Oh by the way, thank you for the warm welcome you have shown a newbie.

[HexHammer]

No, you just added 'ignorant" to the set of adjectives I am using to describe you.

Oh by the way, thank you for the warm welcome you have shown a newbie.

Of cause I'm ignorant of such things, it isn't exactly common knowledge, I've been living in northern Europe we don't care much for religion, so we are ignorant of such, so please elaborate for your views.

If you can't explain your views, then your not a reasonable person.

[Lev Muishkin]

No, you just added 'ignorant" to the set of adjectives I am using to describe you.

Oh by the way, thank you for the warm welcome you have shown a newbie.

Of cause I'm ignorant of such things, it isn't exactly common knowledge, I've been living in northern Europe we don't care much for religion, so we are ignorant of such, so please elaborate for your views.

If you can't explain your views, then your not a reasonable person.

"We" don't care for gods. Is that the Royal "we"?

The most stupid moron, even one born and living on norther Europe might know that there are a range of different beliefs about god, that do not include Jahovah.
If you had any idea of your own history you might have thought of Wotan, Odin, Thor and.or the Celtic, Roman or Greek gods.