Professor Victor Reppert on Natural Theology

Reppert is a good guy, but as a defender of Natural Theology he just doesn't get it.

If the line of thought I introduced against Natural Theology is rigorously pursued then it destroys any hope Reppert, or William Lane Craig, or other natural theologians have to argue for the existence of their trinue Christian God.

Here's Reppert:
It is an argument for generic theism. The idea of God can be defined independently of any particular religion, believe it or not.

Consider two propositions.

1)There exist an omnipotent being.

and

2) There exists no omnipotent being.

If a case for 1 as opposed to 2 is made, then the following claims are entailed.

3) There is a being in existence with the power to raise Jesus from the dead.

4) There is a being in existence with the power and authority to dictate the Qu'ran to Muhammad.

5) There is a being in existence who sent the Angel Moroni to to give the Gold Plates to Mitt Romney. Oops, I mean Joseph Smith.

All of these propositions are more probable if theism is true, then if theism is false. Link
Let me make just one comment in response:

Vic said: "All of these propositions are more probable if theism is true, then if theism is false."

Uhmm, nope, they are not. That was my point. You just need to connect the dots. They cannot all be more probable than not if theism is true. That's the non-sequitur. The reason has to so with simple logic. 3-5 are mutually exclusive propositions to almost all practitioners of these faiths. So even if there is a God it gives you no reason to treat your own particular culturally adopted faith as being any more probable than others.

0 comments: