Thanks for taking the time to write this rebuttal. However, from the looks of things, Josh hasn’t adjusted his views based on your refutation. He’s still cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

His last post regarding Las Vegas attack “How many atrocities will it take until people realize the gospel is the only fix?” Wouldn’t that be a false dichotomy? Isn’t there many great atrocities committed because of the gospel/Bible? Oh right “those aren’t REAL Christians”. That’s the No True Scotsman fallacy but Theists especially Presuppositionalist rely on their fallacies.The only way to perfect morality is of course the book with genocide (flood),slavery (Exodus 21), immoral verses, misogynistic views among others. How do they defend this?

Back to Plantinga’s Tiger and Josh.

If Josh says our faculties are flawed and we can’t reason honestly without god. His own statement is flawed since his faculties are also flawed prior to him learning about Christianity, right? How can Presups claim they have the knowledge because god revealed it to them, but everyone else our epistemology is flawed therefore our arguments are invalid? They are not enlightened, if they assume the cart before the horse. They have never proven god, yet they start with god.

Our flawed minds evolve over time and get a better understanding each generation. Hence our technological advances over millennia.

Presuppositionalism is defeated right off the bat. You can’t rely on circular reasoning and other fallacious premises and claim to be logical.

Can’t we just reply to them “The universe is created by Pixies, you can’t see them, but they are there, you know they exist you’re just denying them. Your knowledge on the Biblical god is flawed and only revelation of the magical Pixies are true”.

Isn’t that what they do regarding god and the Bible? If we can basically reverse their argument against them, isn’t that proof that it’s fallacious from the beginning?

Thanks,

Justin

Notice how he never understands the argument:

Plantinga argues that naturalistic evolution won’t probably give us the ability to acquire scientific knowledge because naturalistic evolution entails animals (and thus humans) evolve faculties in the form of belief-desire pairs. Since they don’t, his argument is unsound. That’s my entire case. What Plantinga says about evolution theory is false. It’s a pseudoscientific theory of cognitive evolution he just made up. And then attributes to naturalism.

Sommer never addresses this. He never even seems to be aware that this is the problem. He seems to think I’m claiming Plantinga says this is how God evolves our faculties! That’s a bizarre failure to grasp my entire point.

Sommer likewise seems not at all to understand any of my points about how poor faculties still accumulate reliable access to reality (by compounding probability in a way that increasingly reduces the probability of remaining incorrect), thereby contradicting Plantinga’s claim that poor faculties won’t do that; how evolution only needed to give us the ability to build tools to increase their reliability (algorithms for analyzing reality like logic, math, and science; he once again completely ignores my explanation, even though I wrote a whole other article on it and linked to it, again, that quantities and concepts are not math and logic; math and logic are the tools we use to computationally analyze quantities and concepts; we invented the tools; we were not born with them; they did not evolve by natural selection into our DNA); how the evolved faculties we do have can verify that those tools work (science allows us to do things that would be impossible if we were getting factually false information about the world; thus we directly verify, even with our poor faculties, that the scientific method works better than our natural faculties do; etc.); and so on.

I explained this stuff repeatedly, across several articles now. He still doesn’t get it. I’ve tried my best. If he doesn’t get it by now, he may never do.