What is your answer?
How would Plantinga criticize this logical positivist argument? "All beliefs that aren't empirically testable are meaningless. Belief in God isn't empirically testable. Therefore, belief in God is meaningless."
{ 1 } - It seems impossible to give a clear definition of "empirically testable" that accepts science and common sense while rejecting metaphysics and belief in God.
{ 2 } - It's highly doubtful that all beliefs that aren't empirically testable are meaningless.
{ 3 } - He gives both objections.
{ 4 } - He accepts the argument and thus rejects belief in God.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 4.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
How would Plantinga criticize this logical positivist argument? "All beliefs that aren't empirically testable are meaningless. Belief in God isn't empirically testable. Therefore, belief in God is meaningless."
{ 1 } - It seems impossible to give a clear definition of "empirically testable" that accepts science and common sense while rejecting metaphysics and belief in God.
{ 2 } - It's highly doubtful that all beliefs that aren't empirically testable are meaningless.
{ 3 } - He gives both objections.
{ 4 } - He accepts the argument and thus rejects belief in God.
He'd also give the other objection.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is wrong. Please try again.
How would Plantinga criticize this logical positivist argument? "All beliefs that aren't empirically testable are meaningless. Belief in God isn't empirically testable. Therefore, belief in God is meaningless."
{ 1 } - It seems impossible to give a clear definition of "empirically testable" that accepts science and common sense while rejecting metaphysics and belief in God.
{ 2 } - It's highly doubtful that all beliefs that aren't empirically testable are meaningless.
{ 3 } - He gives both objections.
{ 4 } - He accepts the argument and thus rejects belief in God.
He'd also give the other objection.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is correct!
How would Plantinga criticize this logical positivist argument? "All beliefs that aren't empirically testable are meaningless. Belief in God isn't empirically testable. Therefore, belief in God is meaningless."
{ 1 } - It seems impossible to give a clear definition of "empirically testable" that accepts science and common sense while rejecting metaphysics and belief in God.
{ 2 } - It's highly doubtful that all beliefs that aren't empirically testable are meaningless.
{ 3 } - He gives both objections.
{ 4 } - He accepts the argument and thus rejects belief in God.
Plantinga doesn't think much of this logical positivist argument. He gave the argument a more thorough refutation in his earlier book, which was written before the philosophical community so thoroughly gave up logical positivism.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
4 is wrong. Please try again.
How would Plantinga criticize this logical positivist argument? "All beliefs that aren't empirically testable are meaningless. Belief in God isn't empirically testable. Therefore, belief in God is meaningless."
{ 1 } - It seems impossible to give a clear definition of "empirically testable" that accepts science and common sense while rejecting metaphysics and belief in God.
{ 2 } - It's highly doubtful that all beliefs that aren't empirically testable are meaningless.
{ 3 } - He gives both objections.
{ 4 } - He accepts the argument and thus rejects belief in God.
You sure didn't read very carefully!
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end