Timeline for Evaluating One of the Premises of Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 20, 2018 at 5:07 | history | edited | Frank Hubeny |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 18, 2018 at 0:21 | comment | added | Rodrigo | Argument against naturalism? Of course this guy only wants more people giving money to his church! If he was a real logician, he would have admitted that his belief is just one mythology among many. Why won't he do it? | |
| Feb 17, 2018 at 16:55 | vote | accept | Ptheguy | ||
| Feb 17, 2018 at 16:27 | answer | added | Frank Hubeny | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 17, 2018 at 13:57 | comment | added | user3017 | I don't understand your second objection. If the reliability is low or inscrutable, isn't that the same as unreliable? I also don't understand why you're speaking of "that piece of information" when Plantinga is speaking about cognition in general. His argument applies to information in general as opposed to any particular piece of it. Concerning your example, that would mean you would have no means to reliably judge anything at all about the deck of cards, so there would be no grounds for assuming it to be fair. | |
| Feb 17, 2018 at 7:53 | history | edited | Ptheguy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 356 characters in body
|
| Feb 17, 2018 at 7:21 | history | edited | Ptheguy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 26 characters in body
|
| Feb 17, 2018 at 4:39 | history | asked | Ptheguy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |