Critical thinking Essay

1. raise the quaternity-spot logic entirelyy possible ways in which evidentialism could go about justifying its mental pictures? Briefly evaluate to each one of the options. 20 Evidentialism tempers four logical possibilities in an attempt to justify their beliefs. There is historical evidence, ostracise apologetics, minimal evidence, and the Holy Spirit. The first metre is Historical Evidence. Evidentialists tend to revive to historical evidence as a genuinely important regularity (i. e. the resurrection). The origin historical evidences be so important is because, as farseeing as minimal facts (those agreed upon by completely) be used, the audience can non cut through the conclusion of the premise.Historical evidence allows for a champion-step serve for converting nonp areil to Christianity. Historical evidences drop a lot of credibility. A second step is negative apologetics. This form attempts to debunk those arguments said against Christianity. Negative apo logetics defends the religion against outsider claims to Christianities fallacies. A third step is minimal evidences. This is used primarily in reference to the resurrection. In an attempt to prove the legitimacy of the resurrection, an evidentialist would use facts and excogitations which all people agree on (i. e. the tomb was empty, eye-witnesses, etc.) and lead the item-by-item into the conclusion that the resurrection took place. If one accepts these minimal evidences, then the conclusion of the resurrection has to follow. It is important for evidentialists to project common ground with the people whom they are speaking with to prove their point. A fourth step is the recognition of the power of the Holy Spirit. The bible is dead clear that it is only through Him that one can be regenerated it is not by the will of the flesh. Due to this concept, evidentialists understand the importance and reliability they shoot on the Holy Spirit.It is only Him who can use to evidences to illuminate the heart. These are the four steps of an evidentialist. 2. What is foundationalism? What makes foundationalism in general something which Plantinga calls classic foundationalism? How would Plantinga critique such a view? 25 Foundationalism is a belief which is ground on another(prenominal) belief. It is the concept that one belief always has to have a reason to be believed for it is establish off of a previous belief. Evidentialists hold to this method acting of reasoning, asserting the great importance of always having a defense for ones beliefs.Plantinga explains this method of reasoning starting from the Enlightenment, and was promoted by Plato, Aristotle, etc. It is cite as classical because it is old and has been the method of reasoning for a very long time. Plantinga separates himself from this view, believing it to be fallible. While it is important for genuine beliefs to be based on rational feeling, Plantinga does not agree that all should be. He would c laim that there has to be at least one thought or one set of beliefs which are basic.Plantinga explains basic beliefs as those which are not based on a previous belief, but sort of accepted through experience or memory (i. e. eating breakfast). Plantinga critics Foundationalism by stating that there has to be at least a certain fare of beliefs which are basic (not based on a previous belief) because all people need a starting place for rationalization. Despite those who hold to Foundationalism, it is important for all to understand that there are always certain beliefs which we take for granted simply because somebody told us so. We will not have a reason for every belief.3. Explain Frames concept of rationality (the bilinear progression, narrow versus broad circularity). Explain each concept fully. 10 Frames concept of rationality is interesting. The circular explanations of his thoughts are explained as following My faith is based on my rationality, and my rationality is based on the rationality of God. The reason this is circular is because, if our faith were based on our rationality, and our rationality was based on the rationality of God, one could connect the dots and formulate that Gods rationality enables our faith.This is the circular reasoning which Frame explains. The linear progression states that, due to Gods rationality, we have faith. As our faith is based on Gods rationality, our rationality is based on our Faith. Hence, our rationality is based on the rationality of God. This linear progression was say in Frames chapter as following Gods rationality Our Faith our rationality. This is the linear explanation of Frame. 4. How does Bahnsen evaluate Steins epistemological criterion one can justify a belief only by the use of logic or reason?10 As Stein claims that one needs logic or reason to have a justified belief, Bahnsen accuses Stein of borrowing this concept from the Christian world-view. in the first place engaging on the grounds of l ogic and argument, Bahnsen clearly states that the atheistic worldview cannot be based on reason for there is no room for that in spite of appearance the theory of evolution. Due to the fact that one accepts that world view, they cannot begin justifying it based on logic and reason which are fundamentals within the Christian world-view. Bahnsen accuses Stein of borrowing from the Christian world view, making him epistemologically self-aware of his paradox.5. State three differences between compatibilist and libertarian views of freedom explain each of the differences. 15 6. State four reasons why we accept genetic information as being unified or specified. Briefly explain each reason. 20 Genetic information is say as being structured due to the process of elimination. The first enquire would be to discover whether it was formed by Law. Due to the fact that it is not contingent, the question of design would fall to the next level which is that of chance.When one questions whether it was through with(p) by chance, the immense complexity within the cell eliminates this disaster and brings it to the concept of design. When looking at DNA (A=T, C=D) or proteins (amino acids), and seeing what is infallible for human life, the immense complexity within the cell would eliminate the possibility of law or chance. It must be structured. Also, the concept of time and fossils do not allow for the immense amount of time demanded by evolutionists for the process of life to have evolved. The more complex we understand the cell to be the less likely it is that it wasnt structured or specified.