Posted: Jul 04, 2010 6:51 pm
archibald wrote:
Well, that was a game attempt, but I'm afraid it only confirmed my opinion that I haven't yet heard a good reason for not being able to interchange the two terms. To me, it's like when we substitute the word 'car' instead of 'being' into the Ontological argument to illustrate that the 'perfect car' does exist because we can conceive of there being such a thing.
Archibald, it's important to understand that when Plantinga proposes that belief in the existence of God is properly basic, he is not presenting an argument that is attempting to in any way prove the existence of God. From what I understand, his only real point is that IF God exists, then belief in the existence of God (even if that belief is not substantiated with evidence or arguments) is properly basic and is therefore not irrational. However, there seem to be a couple of atheists in this forum (not you) who think that if someone can present a theistic viewpoint and agree that at least part of that viewpoint seems to make sense to them, they are trying to "have their cake and eat it too" or to "be a part of the wedding party and the procession." In other words, they seem to think that that person is trying to be both a Christian and an atheist.
For myself, I can only say that I don't think I'm trying to be both a Christian and an atheist. Right now, I consider myself to be an atheist. However, that could, at some point, change. In the meantime, I am interested in continuing to read, explore, and think about both sides of the issue. Hopefully, that's not too offensive to anyone here.
I'm going to be away for the next week or so. To those of you in the United States, have a happy Fourth of July!