tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post8243582560082301747..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Alvin Plantinga Explains Why Naturalistic Evolution Is a Self-Defeating PropositionLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14662500600520741122013-04-12T18:46:08.897-04:002013-04-12T18:46:08.897-04:00@The whole truth
"In other words, you're...@The whole truth<br /><br />"In other words, you're running away from the questions I asked because you know that your religious beliefs can't survive anywhere near the level of scrutiny and proof that you expect from and of science, and especially evolution and evolutionary theory."<br /><br />1.First of all, I'm not a scholar or Bible expert--I never claimed to be--but I know enough to have my beliefs up to date and up to my satisfaction. <br /><br />2. Your arguments are nonsense; they tell me you have never investigated Judeo-Christianity, which is now readily available on line. I'm not going to educate you and others. I have no time. That is why I asked Kevin Brian to do it, since he volunteered. <br /><br />This is an example of your nonsense thinking: <br /><br />"So, how, when, where, and why did 'God' arrive? <br />How valuable is talking about what 'God' (and/or all the other labels) could and couldn't accomplish, if the real foundation of it has not been resolved--the origin and existence of 'God'? <br /><br />Let’s look at how, where and why? <br /><br />How: If the universe, time and space had a beginning ( which is a general consensus among "the gods of science". So whoever/whatever before that had to be what? It had to have no beginning end no end, no past no future. It created the beginning, time, space.It has to be outside of time, space. <br /><br />Scientists believe and have some good equations to support it that there are infinite dimensions. If that is true, what does that tell you about the possibilities of the Unknown?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55056857217832279142013-04-12T11:50:50.955-04:002013-04-12T11:50:50.955-04:00dominic said:
"@Kevin Bryan
You can go ahea...dominic said:<br /><br />"@Kevin Bryan<br /><br />You can go ahead and try to argue the Bible with people who have no knowledge and no clue about it and who think that the existence of evil is a proof for non-existence of God. I hope you have the patience for it. I don't. Sorry."<br /><br />In other words, you're running away from the questions I asked because you know that your religious beliefs can't survive anywhere near the level of scrutiny and proof that you expect from and of science, and especially evolution and evolutionary theory. <br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19569950180288142852013-04-10T23:50:25.559-04:002013-04-10T23:50:25.559-04:00Joe Felsenstein
I don't know about this man bu...Joe Felsenstein<br />I don't know about this man but it would be the teaching of historic Christianity that all our thinking is done with our soul/heart and nothing with our brain.<br />When we die we go to the afterlife, we say, fully thinking and thenceforth. <br />Yet we leave our brain behind.<br />The brain is just a middleman between us and our bodies.<br />Its impossible for mankind therefore to have growth or loss in our thinking abilities.<br /><br />Therefore all problems with our thinking must come from somewhere else.<br />its my observation this is clearly from triggering errors using our memories.<br />This is hinted at mental retardation/autisms which always show the person has above average memory despite below average.<br />In fact famous cases of savants demonstrates the equation.<br />The aberration is the revelation of the true equation of whats wrong.<br /><br />To bring healing , I think, the direction should be about fixing the triggering mechanism for memory. .This is a example of how creationism can do a better job in analysis and medical research based on better presumptions.<br />Science fiction movies are just plain wrong. Bigger brains is unrelated to bigger intelligence.<br />Sorry Star Trek!Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91150109157287158272013-04-10T21:00:41.291-04:002013-04-10T21:00:41.291-04:00All that stupid story Dominic, yet you could not a...All that stupid story Dominic, yet you could not answer one simple question: why evolution "can only have any use whatsoever if life came into existence on its own"?<br /><br />I am reaching the conclusion that, as I thought, you care neither about understanding nor about making yourself clear.<br /><br />By the way, to build a miniature solar system in this planet, that looks like the real solar system and moves like the real solar system, you have to overcome the very same forces that formed and move the real one, none of which is an unnatural one. You would have to build those miniature versions in somewhat proper proportions and then place them them in the same order, none of which was preordained for the real one. Newton's work and argument in the story would have been nothing but equivocating, fallacious, rhetoric. Bullshit of the kind so loved by creationists who can't tell the difference between reality and their imaginations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44416005705612459352013-04-10T20:49:57.362-04:002013-04-10T20:49:57.362-04:00Sir Isaac Newton had a friend who, like himself, w...<i>Sir Isaac Newton had a friend who, like himself, was a great scientist; but he was an infidel, while Newton was a devout Christian.</i><br /><br />Actually it was Isaac Newton who was the infidel, he was a Antitrinitarian monotheist who held that worshipping Christ as God was idolatry.<br /><br />steve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17183718819119466312013-04-10T19:48:09.529-04:002013-04-10T19:48:09.529-04:00Plantinga is now openly associating with the Disco...Plantinga is now openly associating with the Discovery Institute? Or has he been doing this all along?<br /><br />Regardless, endorsing creationism is hardly the way to prove one's credentials as a leading intellectual proponent of Christianity. Or of anything, for that matter. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88681110753993453512013-04-10T16:20:06.447-04:002013-04-10T16:20:06.447-04:00The Discovery Institute just announced an upcoming...The Discovery Institute just announced an upcoming seminar by Plantinga here in Seattle, The announcement in Uncommon Descent showed his photo but mistakenly indeitifed him as "A. C. Grayling" in the text of the announcement, though as "Alvin Plantinga" in the headline. I guess their brains <i>did</i> arise by evolution and thus are fallible ...Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10810961946650050642013-04-10T15:24:14.487-04:002013-04-10T15:24:14.487-04:00Dominic, you're either lying or an ignoramus--...Dominic, you're either lying or an ignoramus-- well, to be fair, ignoramus, but you lie about your knowledge of astrophysics.<br /><br /><i>What killed your believes is the general consensus among the astrophysicists that the universe, time and space had a beginning.</i><br /><br />BULLSHIT. Beyond the Planck energy scale, we can't be sure Einsteinian space-time even EXISTS.<br /><br />I'd ask you for a reference to the scientific literature-- since <b>you falsely portray yourself as being FAMILIAR with astrophysics!</b> But I'd done asking creationists questions they can never answer. <br /><br />You can't provide a reference because creationism is a fraud. Hoaxing motherfucker.<br /><br /><i>So, whatever or whoever is the first cause of the beginning-big bang or big formation, has to be outside of time and space; has no beginning and no end. </i><br /><br />Bullshit, that does not logically follow. "Cause" has no meaning applied to a time-point with no time before it. Anything that "caused" space-time to exist would be part of a bigger universe, of which the space-time we see would be a subset. What created that bigger universe?<br /><br />If the universe had to have a "cause", it could be a metaphysical carrot just as much as a metaphysical man. No properties can be assigned to this invisible cause or causes.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52626995377160541852013-04-10T15:00:39.557-04:002013-04-10T15:00:39.557-04:00Such details simply reveal the general ignorance o...Such details simply reveal the general ignorance of the author of that naive anecdote, as well as yours.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31249055454880765092013-04-10T14:26:59.593-04:002013-04-10T14:26:59.593-04:00Are you sure they did not self-assemble after his ...Are you sure they did not self-assemble after his death? Who really knows? There is no real proof one way of the other...Just theories :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57956824895310165492013-04-10T13:45:40.985-04:002013-04-10T13:45:40.985-04:00A nice little fable, Dominic. Just strike out Uran...A nice little fable, Dominic. Just strike out Uranus and Neptune. They were discovered well after Newton's death.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7471515102622554052013-04-10T13:17:35.399-04:002013-04-10T13:17:35.399-04:00What killed your believes is the general consensus...What killed your believes is the general consensus among the astrophysicists that the universe, time and space had a beginning. So, whatever or whoever is the first cause of the beginning-big bang or big formation, has to be outside of time and space; has no beginning and no end. It's/He's eternal. You won't like this assessment but that is the only logical conclusion. But, who am I talking to? Materialists... What a shame...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10824402764777897282013-04-10T13:07:01.998-04:002013-04-10T13:07:01.998-04:00@Kevin Bryan
You can go ahead and try to argue th...@Kevin Bryan<br /><br />You can go ahead and try to argue the Bible with people who have no knowledge and no clue about it and who think that the existence of evil is a proof for non-existence of God. I hope you have the patience for it. I don't. Sorry. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80358218453446293712013-04-10T13:01:25.054-04:002013-04-10T13:01:25.054-04:00@Negative Entropy
This is one of my favourite sto...@Negative Entropy<br /><br />This is one of my favourite stories. I could not find the short version I like, so I just Googled it and found this. I hope you and alike will enjoy it.<br /><br />"Who made it?<br /><br />Sir Isaac Newton had a friend who, like himself, was a great scientist; but he was an infidel, while Newton was a devout Christian. They often discussed their views concerning God, as their mutual interest in science drew them much together. Newton had a skillful mechanic make him a replica of our solar system in miniature. In the center was a large gilded ball representing the sun, and revolving in proper order around this were small balls fixed on the ends of arms of varying lengths, representing Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. These bails were so geared together by cogs and belts as to move in perfect harmony when turned by a crank.<br /><br />One day, as Newton sat reading in his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, his infidel friend stepped in. Scientist that he was, he recognized at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it, he slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move with their relative speeds in their orbits. Standing off a few feet he exclaimed,<br /><br />"My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?"<br /><br />Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, "Nobody!"<br /><br />Quickly turning to Newton, the infidel said, "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?"<br /><br />Looking up now, Newton solemnly assured him that nobody made it, but that the aggregation of matter so much admired had just happened to assume the form it was in. But the astonished infidel replied with some heat, "You must think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I'd like to know who he is."<br /><br />Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend's shoulder. "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much larger system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a design and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"<br /><br />P.S. Have you found the cause of gravity yet? I heard that future Oscar nominee Lawrence Krauss has come up with some proof? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2442756754981760522013-04-09T19:14:01.711-04:002013-04-09T19:14:01.711-04:00Sorry, but I had to add: Plantinga has no idea how...Sorry, but I had to add: Plantinga has no idea how knowledge is acquired, which means he has no idea about epistemology. Plantinga is just an ass-hole who makes incredibly stupid philosophical mistakes before we even visit biology. Philosophy cannot be done in empty space. The reason philosophy has lost so much prestige is that many philosophers don't realize that uninformed philosophy is untenable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4701218197393479202013-04-09T19:08:16.618-04:002013-04-09T19:08:16.618-04:00Well, for one, Plantinga is assuming that it is pa...Well, for one, Plantinga is assuming that it is particular behaviours and beliefs that are selected for. In other words, there's selection on a per case basis: One for tigers, one for lions, another for wolves, then another for eating, another per .... he has no idea of the tension such a thing would create against the survival of the organisms if things worked out that way. He has no idea about either logic or biology. If he does not understand how behaviours arise evolutionarily speaking, how they work neurologically speaking, long long et cetera, then he has no business even proposing his bullshit. He failed at both, his supposed training: philosophy, and many fields of biology he has no business trying to criticize unless he was willing to learn them properly. Ironically, this is the very same guy who criticized Dawkins for stepping into philosophy without being a philosopher, yet he does not grasp any little biology, and misuses his own field.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62377878642976828442013-04-09T18:19:42.468-04:002013-04-09T18:19:42.468-04:00Dominic,
That was not an example, but an attempt ...Dominic,<br /><br />That was not an example, but an attempt at a metaphor. A bad one at that. It does not refute what I told you. Let me repeat:<br /><br />The origin of life is not a problem for evolutionary theory whatsoever. Whether we were able to know how life started or not does not matter. Evolution is a fact. Our common ancestry with the rest of the apes is a fact. Our common ancestry with a huge bunch of other life forms is a fact. I don't need to know how life started to know that we share such ancestry with the apes and other life forms. Do you understand what I am saying?<br /><br />What you are saying is akin to demand knowledge of how the universe started before we can accept gravitation.<br /><br />Now, if you want to contest this, you have to be able to explain in no obscure terms why you think that "It [evolution] can only have any use whatsoever if life came into existence on its own."<br /><br />I find the statement quite stupid. Nonsense comparable to "gravitation can only have use if the universe came into existence on its own."<br /><br />I suspect that you don't care about understanding or making yourself clear. We will see.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56804560115110705602013-04-09T18:18:19.592-04:002013-04-09T18:18:19.592-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80242683872750916572013-04-09T17:50:20.045-04:002013-04-09T17:50:20.045-04:00Bilbo: First, I would like you to explain what is ...Bilbo: First, I would like you to explain what is the difference between a "conscious belief" as opposed to just a "belief." <br /><br />If babies believe that a fall will hurt them (and they appear to do so), do you believe that NS should produce human infants that want to crawl out windows, believing falls to be good for them? Is that what you think NS does?<br /><br />Or do you think that such a belief doesn't count because it is not "conscious"?<br /><br />Why should NS produce one result for "beliefs" and an opposite result for "conscious beliefs"? What is it about consciousness, as a property of a belief, that REVERSES the effect of NS?<br /><br />And lastly, you have disproven the existence of your God:<br /><br />Bilbo: <i>It is possible for Naturalism + Evolution to produce conscious beliefs that are mostly reliable, but it's highly unlikely for that to happen, if conscious beliefs do not affect behavior, which is what Evolution selects for. Whereas <b>a God who wanted us to be created in His image would insure that we would have mostly true conscious beliefs.</b></i><br /><br />If it is prediction of your model that your God should "insure that we would have mostly true conscious beliefs", then your model is disproven and you disproved the existence of your God.<br /><br />Most human beings do not believe as the minority of Christians believe, that a genocidal Middle Eastern war deity fathered a zombie rabbi. Most human being oppose the belief that a genocidal Middle Eastern war deity fathered a zombie rabbi, so if that belief is true, then your God designed our brains in such a way as to make them horribly, absurdly unreliable.<br /><br />Not to mention tricking us with all the transitional fossils and the 98.7% DNA identity between human and chimp. <br /><br />The Bible clearly describes your God as a deceiver, and Christians believe that the Devil deceives people, so your belief in spooks of all sorts means that you cannot trust your own mental faculties. <br /><br />Thus your immaterialism has "a defeater" and is self-refuting. Belief in immaterialism cannot be rationally affirmed, as Plantinga would say.<br /><br /><br /> Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66340761286136361132013-04-09T07:28:16.348-04:002013-04-09T07:28:16.348-04:00Kevin, feel free to answer my questions, although ...Kevin, feel free to answer my questions, although I'd like to see Dominic answer them too. The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3549024092489165612013-04-08T16:48:15.245-04:002013-04-08T16:48:15.245-04:00Attention Dominic,
I would like to try to answer...Attention Dominic, <br /><br />I would like to try to answer some of the question posed by "The whole truth" and others, if you are not going to. Would you mind? Please let me know. <br /><br />Thanks, Kevin BryanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42541934916045185752013-04-08T15:24:53.486-04:002013-04-08T15:24:53.486-04:00Well, it sounds like he totally ignores the role d...Well, it sounds like he totally ignores the role debate among multiple people can play in making the output of a fallible mind much less fallible.<br /><br />If both his mind and yours are God-created and infallible, he still doesn't have the advantage. Ditto if he doesn't believe in evolution and you do, but both of your minds are evolution-created and thus fallible.<br /><br />Sheesh.Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12346787933504925522013-04-08T12:03:16.592-04:002013-04-08T12:03:16.592-04:00I think Plantinga says a God-created mind could be...I think Plantinga says a God-created mind <i>could</i> be reliable, whereas he says there is no possibility (or very low probability) of this happening thru evolution. <br /><br />Among the apparent flaws of the argument: Just because you cannot know something to be true does not mean it <i>isn't</i> true. It seems to me an analogy to his claim would be this: Suppose there is a box which may or may not contain a cat. However, the box cannot be opened and there is no other means by which we can determine what is inside it. Does this then mean that is impossible for the box to contain a cat? Obviously not. Yet that seems to be analogous to the claim Plantinga is making, that because we cannot know whether evolution is true (under naturalism, he believes) then it <i>cannot</i> be true. That's a non-sequitor.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72825651334845277502013-04-08T11:56:17.168-04:002013-04-08T11:56:17.168-04:00I also love the 50/50 odds of a belief being true ...I also love the 50/50 odds of a belief being true that he just pulls out of nowhere. By the same "reasoning", if I were to run against Usain Bolt in the 100m dash, I have a 50% chance of winning, since there are two possibilities: I win or Bolt wins. <br /><br />Philosophers are supposed to be the ones who <i>specialize</i> in logic. Did Plantinga skip class the day they covered that? Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25796044917529535992013-04-08T11:50:23.850-04:002013-04-08T11:50:23.850-04:00Interesting that the same objections I found to Pl...Interesting that the same objections I found to Plantinga's nonsense, PZ Myers concluded back in 2009 too. <br /><br />Our beliefs are formed by experiences of the world, they're for the most part not some kind of weirdly disconnected random cognition that only happens as a byproduct of heritably determined and adaptive neurophysiology. <br /><br />In point of fact, one of few actually heritable and adaptive cognitive processes we come instilled with, is the instinctive behavior to form our beliefs through experiences of the world from birth and through childhood. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.com