- Question 2
Abe’s statement has been edited.
- Question 3
Small edits made to the question. Ok, some of you seem to be getting lost in the story. I’ll put the below down to help you.
- Scenario in Abe’s Statements
- Lena is religious, privy to religious experiences, her experiences count as evidence for the existence of God, believes that God exists;
- Will and Gene are not religious, not privy to religious experiences; Will believes that God doesn’t exist (while Gene believes that God exist);
- Evaluate: Given the above, and the concepts taught, is it correct that–Epistemic Uniqueness is true in the disagreement between Lena vs Will over whether God exists, because the scenario shows that both Lena and Will can never have the same evidence, and if they can never have the same evidence, their opposite but equally justified beliefs can never be rationally based on the same evidence?
- Scenario in Dave’s Statements:
- The Scenario in Abe’s Statements, plus:
- Lena’s testimony also count as good evidence for God’s existence; she told both Will and Gene about her experiences;
- Will and Gene are equally smart and have thought equally hard about God’s existence;
- Evaluate: Given the above, and the concepts taught, is it correct that–the Epistemic Permissivist who says that Will and Gene are equally justified in their own beliefs (on the same evidence) would be begging the question against both of them.
- Scenario in Tess’ Statements:
- Same set up as in Dave’s Statements.
- Evaluate: Given the above, and the concepts taught, is it correct that–If someone agrees that the disagreement between Gene and Will (based on the same evidence) can never be resolved in such a way that both Gene and Will are equally justified, then this person cannot also consistently subscribe to Epistemic Permissivism?
