Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Without a compelling properly basic defense, the original... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Premise (2) of the argument for agnosticism stands in the absence of a firmer basis for treating beliefs about God as properly basic.

    Without a compelling properly basic defense, the original premise (2) is not undermined.

    Natural TheologySkepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    SkepticismNatural Theology

    Related

    No alternative firmer basis has been established for judging beliefs about God t...Premise (2) of the argument for agnosticism stands in the absence of a firmer ba...The analogy between the sensus divinitatis and memory is weak.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    Le Poidevin's defense of premise (1) is incomplete77%If a supporting premise is sufficient on its own to establish the conc...74%The premise of the argument is not certain but reasonably thought to b...73%It is a reasonable constraint on such an argument that it not undermin...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: atheism-agnosticism
    View source passageHide passage
    So-called “Reformed epistemologists” (e.g., Plantinga 2000) might challenge the second premise of the argument on the grounds that many beliefs about God, like many beliefs about the past, are “properly basic”—a result of the functioning of a basic cognitive faculty called the “sensus divinitatis”—and so are, in effect, a part of the total evidence with respect to which the probability of any statement depends. The agnostic, however, might reply that this sense of the divine, unlike memory, oper

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective