1. State the four logically possible ways in which evidentialism could travel about warranting its beliefs? Briefly evaluate each of the options. [ 20 ] Evidentialism holds four logical possibilities in an effort to warrant their beliefs. There is historical grounds. negative apologetics. minimum grounds. and the Holy Spirit. The first measure is Historical Evidence. Evidentialists tend to fall back to historical grounds as a really of import method ( i. e. the Resurrection ) . The ground historical groundss are so of import is because. every bit long as minimum facts ( those agreed upon by all ) are used. the audience can non deny the decision of the premiss.
Historical grounds allows for a one-step procedure for change overing one to Christianity. Historical groundss have a batch of credibleness. A 2nd measure is negative apologetics. This signifier attempts to expose those statements said against Christianity. Negative apologetics defends the religion against foreigner claims to Christianities false beliefs. A 3rd measure is minimum groundss. This is used chiefly in mention to the Resurrection. In an effort to turn out the legitimacy of the Resurrection. an evidentialist would utilize facts and constructs which all people agree on ( i. e. the grave was empty. eye-witnesses. etc.
) and lead the person into the decision that the Resurrection took topographic point. If one accepts these minimum groundss. so the decision of the Resurrection has to follow. It is of import for evidentialists to happen common land with the people whom they are talking with to turn out their point. A 4th measure is the acknowledgment of the power of the Holy Spirit. The bible is perfectly clear that it is merely through Him that one can be regenerated ; it is non by the will of the flesh. Due to this construct. evidentialists understand the importance and dependability they have on the Holy Spirit.
It is merely Him who can utilize to groundss to light the bosom. These are the four stairss of an evidentialist. 2. What is foundationalism? What makes foundationalism in general something which Plantinga calls “classic foundationalism” ? How would Plantinga review such a position? [ 25 ] Foundationalism is a belief which is based on another belief. It is the construct that one belief ever has to hold a ground to be believed ; for it is based off of a old belief. Evidentialists hold to this method of concluding. asseverating the great importance of ever holding a defence for one’s beliefs.
Plantinga explains this method of concluding get downing from the Enlightenment. and was promoted by Plato. Aristotle. etc. It is referenced as classical because it is old and has been the method of concluding for a really long clip. Plantinga separates himself from this position. believing it to be fallible. While it is of import for certain beliefs to be based on rational idea. Plantinga does non hold that all should be. He would claim that at that place has to be at least one idea or one set of beliefs which are basic.
Plantinga explains basic beliefs as those which are non based on a old belief. but instead accepted through experience or memory ( i. e. eating breakfast ) . Plantinga critics Foundationalism by saying that there has to be at least a certain sum of beliefs which are basic ( non based on a old belief ) because all people need a starting topographic point for rationalisation. Despite those who hold to Foundationalism. it is of import for all to understand that there are ever certain beliefs which we take for granted ; merely because person told us so. We will non hold a ground for every belief.
3. Explain Frame’s construct of reason ( the additive patterned advance. narrow versus wide disk shape ) . Explain each construct to the full. [ 10 ] Frame’s construct of reason is interesting. The round accounts of his ideas are explained as followers: My religion is based on my reason. and my reason is based on the reason of God. The ground this is round is because. if our religion were based on our reason. and our reason was based on the reason of God. one could link the points and say that God’s reason enables our religion.
This is the round logical thinking which Frame explains. The additive patterned advance provinces that. due to God’s reason. we have faith. As our religion is based on God’s reason. our reason is based on our Faith. Hence. our reason is based on the reason of God. This additive patterned advance was stated in Frame’s chapter as followers: God’s reason Our Faith our reason. This is the additive account of Frame. 4. How does Bahnsen measure Stein’s epistemic standard – “one can warrant a belief merely by the usage of logic or reason” ?
[ 10 ] As Stein claims that one needs logic or ground to hold a justified belief. Bahnsen accuses Stein of borrowing this construct from the Christian world-view. Before prosecuting on the evidences of logic and statement. Bahnsen clearly states that the unbelieving worldview can non be based on ground for there is no room for that within the theory of development. Due to the fact that one accepts that universe position. they can non get down warranting it based on logic and ground which are basicss within the Christian world-view. Bahnsen accuses Stein of borrowing from the Christian universe position. doing him epistemologically self-aware of his paradox.
5. State three differences between compatibilist and libertarian positions of freedom ; explain each of the differences. [ 15 ] 6. State four grounds why we accept familial information as being structured or specified. Briefly explain each ground. [ 20 ] Genetic information is stated as being structured due to the procedure of riddance. The first inquiry would be to detect whether it was formed by Law. Due to the fact that it is non contingent. the inquiry of design would fall to the following degree which is that of opportunity.
When one inquiries whether it was done by opportunity. the huge complexness within the cell eliminates this possibility and brings it to the construct of design. When looking at DNA ( A=T. C=D ) or proteins ( aminic acids ) . and seeing what is required for human life. the huge complexness within the cell would extinguish the possibility of jurisprudence or opportunity. It must be structured. Besides. the construct of clip and dodos do non let for the huge sum of clip demanded by evolutionists for the procedure of life to hold evolved. The more complex we understand the cell to be ; the less likely it is that it wasn’t structured or specified.