Where is the Metajustification? aka,
... a really big mess.
I originally brought this point up on Theologyweb, and the discussion grew... well, ornery and confused:
"I've been having some serious difficulties getting across a few problems I have found with some apologetic 'tricks' as practiced by many on this board. The shifting of burdens tends to rear it's head too often for it just to be coincidence; many theists assume the 'default' setting of inquiry to the the presupposition of either their god's existance, the validity of their metaphysical schema, and/or their justificational methodology pertaining to what counts as 'evidence' for their claims (and they ARE claims) and how that applies to matters of the absolute. How could someone use empirical events (or anything else worldly) to verify the existence of specific metaphyscial entities?
Example: Someone claims Jesus rose from the dead, and says that is proof that the Christian metaphyscial schema is 'True'. Ok... suppose I ignore the uncertainties/provisionalities of thier empirical verification problems, and all the natural possibilities that could account for such an event... and just GRANT that something 'non-natural' occurred. All right then, they're validated, right?
Wrong. How does a particular non-natural event manifested in the physical world indicate a particular metaphyscial schema rather than another? By what methodology does one verify empirical-to-metaphyscial correspondances, and how what that methodology justified itself???"
I brought up this point to illustrate how christians are still grasping at straws even provided that the extrordinary biblical 'events' occurred... the reaction was unproductive at times; what do all of you think about my analysis?