Plantinga's Dumb Little Pussycat Argument Refuted

[Lpettro]

I am a theist and I think you are correct that the argument from reason is lacking.

There is some truth that the mechanism is untrustworthy but it seems very plausible that developing a framework for understanding truth would be evolutionarily advantageous.

[bushfingers]

You are not as bright as you think you are. Sorry to be so direct but someone better let you know.

Also, I love the way you have something that looks very much like a graduation photo and some sort of degree certificate in the background. Don't forget to return them ...

[caseybcrocker]

I'm surprised you haven't taken this down despite all the comments. You're taking more unreasonable leaps and bounds that Plantinga...

[ObjectiveBob]

It's "Plan-tin-ga."

[stu1002]

around about 7 minutes in you show you have just not grasped the problem. "if they perceived the tiger as a threat, they would build a wall". Really? Why? Only if they are able to follow the logical train of thought which goes "Tigers are dangerous THEREFORE we must protect ourselves"...but that's just presupposing logical thought would exist in these people, which is begging the question.

[smpunditz]

@stu1002 Plantinga claims rests upon the assumption that people who draw false conclusions can still behave in a way that ensures their survival just as well as someone who draws the right conclusions. My analogy clearly shows that this is false. It doesn't presuppose anything since Plantinga is already comparing someone with accurate cognitive faculties to someone who doesn't.

[crewdude87]

This is an interesting response. You have to be careful though. Plantinga's point is that evolution selects for behavior, not belief. This is a basic tenant of natural selection. So, the first question to answer is what sort of behavior's produce survival, not what sort of beliefs, whatever "belief" means to a naturalist. The point is whether "beliefs", as such, would evolve parallel to behavior, and why it would be necessary to have a "belief" if the behavior already saved your ass.

[MrLevel42fan]

I had to watch it twice. You really mischaracterized his point. You don't understand what he is saying, and you make a video knocking over a straw man.  I'm surprised sone atheists haven't urged you to take this down.

[MrLevel42fan]

Wow! You argue against his use of a hypothetical with a hypothetical. Do you even truly understand the argument? Fail!

[smpunditz]

@MrLevel42fan You argue against his use of a hypothetical with a hypothetical.

And the problem with that is what exactly?

[Birdieupon]

Wow, no sound refutation, just a very angry lump o' blubba.

[smpunditz]

@Birdieupon am I supposed to know what that means?

[Akieth0]

Wikipedia is not a credible source. A professor would rip you a new one if you even fucking dare source wiki. This argument is not valid as a result. Wikipedia always gets changed and anyone can alter it.

[smpunditz]

@Akieth0 If you are making the case that my characterization of Plantinga's argument is false then by all means prove it.

[lorenzschuerch]

hmm...you're not understanding what Plantinga (not 'Planta') is saying. Don't rely on Wikipedia for your understanding of Plantinga. There's a very good reason the Ontological argument has been around for hundreds of years. It's a valid argument. If you're really interested in refuting it, look at Kant. But before you do that you should Read Anselm, Gaunilo, and finally an actual text from Plant. "A contemporary modal version of the ontological argument" is a good one. Good luck.

[crewdude87]

This is not an argument, but an assertion along the same lines that you are accusing Plantinga of making, ironically. Your assertion, for example, that it "is obvious" that the population that sees tigers as a threat would survive is not grounded with a reason. Plantinga's whole POINT is that ANY activity that would leave to higher survival rates could have an infinite number of motivating reasons. If tigers are a demon God from hell, I'll do everything I can to avoid and defend against them.

[smpunditz]

@crewdude87 the problem that you and Plantinga fail to see however is that NOT ALL motivating reasons are created equal. An animal that fails to understand the true nature of a tiger will not be able to make a proper judgment regarding what to do in a variety of situations involving said tiger. Motivations based on incorrect conclusions may be helpful in certain situations but rarely will they be helpful in most and certainly not in all.

[smpunditz]

"Your assertion, for example, that it "is obvious" that the population that sees tigers as a threat would survive is not grounded with a reason"

How so? Do you think humans have accomplished as much as we have because of our ability to discern truth or in spite of it?

[crewdude87]

@smpunditz This, I think, is Plantinga's point. Evolution requires small advances that over time build together to make a whole. You don't get an eye instantly, you start with a "light sensitive" region, etc. Plantinga's point is that the PROBABILITY that over time, the assertions made about the world would lead to a complete and coherent picture of the world about EVERYTHING is low. Seeing fire as a demon, causes me to survive now. Seeing fire as the combustion of carbon and oxygen, doesn't.

[smpunditz]

@crewdude87 The average animal either determines to avoid fire instinctively or as a result of experience not false perceptions. After all most animals don' t think much if at all. Demons are a man made construct associated with fire. I doubt any animal could come up with such an Idea or anything similar.

My earlier point still stands by the way. Motivations based on incorrect conclusions are not as beneficial.

[crewdude87]

@smpunditz How does: "Fire is an unappeasable demon god from hell who doesn't listen to prayer and will hurt me" lead to a substantially different set of behavioral outcomes than one that recognizes fire as "the combustion of carbon and oxygen"? In fact, you yourself admitted that humans "invented" God by looking at the sun. What outside and objective source can you rely on that tells you your belief that the sun is a large star is truer than the belief that it is a God?

[smpunditz]

@crewdude87 You clearly didn't give your analogy much thought as was the problem with Plantinga. For one thing if a demon god from hell was out to get me I could imagine myself becoming very paranoid and very religious. If I understand that fire is just a natural occurrence I would have no reason to fear it and can use it to my advantage in ways that someone who believes all fires are demons would not. if anything your analogy is FAR worse then Plantingas'.

[smpunditz]

I honestly don't know what to say to your later question. I would think the answer is obvious. I have seen pictures of the sun for one. It's pretty clear to me that it's a ball of gas and not a god (well I guess that begs the question what would a god look like). But it certainly looks more like a star to me.

[Theology1O1]

in the greatest show on earth, richard dawkins says that animals who run away and are extremely cautious end up dying out because they never manage to get food as easy as the other animals who run at a later point in time so they have more time to get food. So natural selection almost molds the right balance of cautiousness and "bravery" for lack of a better term.

[smpunditz]

@Theology1O1 an interesting analysis. Real world scenarios regarding evolution involve too many variables for such a simple analogy as Plantinga uses to be effective.

[LittlPussi]

I really like the title of this video. Thank you! (Plantinga has been very unfriendly)

[RaubeeTM]

Your argument is unreliable, in order for you to argue for N+E you have to presuppose N+E is the case for your cognitive faculties. However Plantiga's shows the reliability of cognitive faculties given N+E is low in his argument. Thus any argument against his is circular because one have to presuppose N+E are true to argue for N+E, which is incoherent. Thus the probability of reliable beliefs given N+E is low, presupposing N+E, the probability of your beliefs is reliable against his is low. :p

[smpunditz]

@RaubeeTM

So I have to presuppose that his argument is valid in order to argue against it? 

[Prolific85]

@smpunditz I believe RaubeeTM is saying one would have to accept the propositions that N&E are already true in order to argue for it. And as he so candidly points out, that is logically incoherent. You don't have to accept the conclusion (the probability that cognitive faculties are low) though, because that forms the argument. (Please don't attack me. Just clarifying).

[crewdude87]

@RaubeeTM He's contending Platinga's premise that, given naturalism, the probability that his cognitive abilities are reliable is low.

[RaubeeTM]

If God's cognitive faculties are not accurate then we wouldn't call such a being God. God by definition is omniscient, it is more plausible than its negation that God's cognitive faculties are reliable. To add to your hypothetical, which you did to Plantinga's hypothetical, Given Pop. A. view tigers as threat and Pop B. not treat, Pop B less likely to survive. But Given Pop B. not treat + belief that tigers like play hiding go seek with humans, Pop A. and Pop B. survivability is equivalent.

[smpunditz]

@RaubeeTM I do not follow. I never said anything about God's cognitive faculties.

Anyway as I pointed out there are many actions that A would take that B would not take to increase A's chances of survival. Furthermore B's adrenaline would likely not kick in since B does not believe that it's survival is on the line. It is blatantly obvious that A's chances of survival are far greater due to A's ability to properly assess the threat level of the animal.

[moomin468]

not impressed

[richaldeano]

Awesome!  Just subbed!

[Sage80]

Plantinga is shaking in his boots hoping you don't challenge him to a debate. No, seriously.

[Sage80]

hahahaha. Are you serious? The very name of this video is an admission of failure. Complete fail!

[babystinky]

Just one thing to mention. When Plantinga talks about our cognitive faculties being reliable if there is a God--he is saying there is no reason to suppose they aren't reliable.

Someone might say "It could be" that God is deceiving us"

Or "It could be"that all of this around is a dream.

But Plantinga is not saying "It could" that evolution and naturalism don't mix. He is saying that when you do mix the two together there is a major problem philosophically. So he has reason to doubt.

[babystinky]

Just to add; He is not using a "it could be" that such and such is unreliable, but that it is probable given what we know.

[Slabbers]

@babystinky If there is a God, of course there's still reason to doubt our cognitive facilities are reliable - what if God is not what we think he is, whatever the hell that is... There is no reliable way of knowing, even if God exists, that his nature is such that it means our cognitive facilities are reliable. The theist just has to trust that they are, and judge them by their results, just like the atheist; the major difference being the added whopping great assumptions of the theist.

[binkey]

I think Plantinga's error starts before this absurd proposal that people might flee for the wrong reason and still survive. For me, the big flaw in his argument is the linking of belief and action.

I would argue that the reason humans flee predators is nothing more than because our (pre-human) ancestors fled from predators. In fact fleeing from predators is something we see across the animal kingdom in creatures whose mental capacity does not allow for "belief".

[binkey]

We may believe that tigers are dangerous, but that does not mean that this belief is the reason we run. If humans were able to put aside their "fight or flight" instinct and run based on whether or not they believed something was dangerous, they would be a tiger meal before they managed to process the thought.

[pyeclam]

I was wondering about SMPunditz's analogy. If, for the sake of argument, we agree that Plantinga's theory is true, then it would not be more likely that those that fear tigers are more likely to survive. If their cognitive faculties are impaired, then their judgment of what is the best possible solution would also be impaired. I think Plantinga is essentially trying to paint a picture of chaos when their is a lack of guidance/intelligence during the evolutionary process.

[smpunditz]

That's the gist of it.

[MrCFruitfly]

Great video. When you said "based on what?", I said exactly the same thing at exactly the same time!

[patienceking]

One major thing that I was expecting to hear from you was the simple matter of experience. Plantinga's hypothetical is completely inappropriate because it outlines a situation where the belief of harmless tiger and the emotion of wanting to pet it and the reaction of running away as a means to that end all come out of nowhere. The reality of any experience early humans and pre-humans had with tigers would be predominantly of the tigers' predatory or defensive behavior. Therefore: Dangerous.

[DJBerber]

you would think I'm crazy, but that would obviously be hypocritical because you yourselves believe that some guy was told shit by god, how insane does that sound, you're only evidence for god is crazy people who wrote a damn book or two so they could force their moral superiority on populations, belief is nothing but a fear of death and if believing that makes me a meatpuppet whatever the fuck that means then I am but at least im not a religious zealot puppet

[DJBerber]

(I meant believing in things you can't prove as truth)

religion has mainly been a divisive not a uniting cultural phenomena, it creates a terrible hoity toity moral standard for those who believe and can say they are correct just because some guy said god told him something, if I told you god told me that christians are total idiots and that it would insane to believe that christ would have to be involved at all to save humans from a sin of knowledge, knowledge is power religion is poison

[DJBerber]

Fantastic video Smp:)

It's hilarious that rusty2029 says that truth would be uninteresting to us if there was no god, wait a minute isn't religion all about believing things you can prove as truth?? I'm extremely interested in what is factual and what is factual is truth to me and I don't believe in an omni being controling everything outside of our understanding and reality because other than religious texts written by men there is no evidence of this and religion has been mainly...

[rusty2029]

Naturalism is not an intelligent process and thus can not discriminate. What ever survives carries on. What ever adapts carries on. In no way can you say a naturalistic process has intelligence to discriminate truth. Eugenics was an intelligent design effort to produce a master race. Naturalism is not interested in truth and evolution has some evident truths that defeat naturalism as being sufficient to explain our cognitive ability like finding truth interesting.

[ethervagabond]

I would argue that we do NOT know whether or not our cognitive abilities are attuned to truth. I mean, I'd like to think that they are, but who knows, evolution may have programmed us with all sorts of crazy shit that we have no idea is absolutely and utterly false in order to ensure our survival and replication. However, this has no bearing on whether or not we should disregard our perceptions, because the only truth that's knowable is the truth we perceive.

[rusty2029]

And given N&E you have no need to perceive more then the minimum needed to not snuff it amIright? Proper meatpuppets should find truth uninteresting giving the minimal godless standards of N&E. But IF E is a God guided and God directed design process then N is not true but E is true.

Or did you miss that this is an argument against naturalism but not against Evolution.

Naturalism is thus false but not intelligent designed evolution!

Naturalism makes you the meatpuppet not God involved Evo

[ethervagabond]

Um...what? Anyone care to tell me what the fuck this means in proper english?

I think your point is that we would find truth uninteresting if we were evolved by naturalism and not intelligently designed evolution, but my point is that the truth that we are interested in may not be truth at all.

[Katalyzt]

Well said smpunditz...★★★★★

Katalyzt

[wwickeddogg]

If god created us and we believe in evolution, then evolution must be real and we should believe in evolution.

If evolution is real, then our beliefs in evolution must be evolutionarily advantageous so we should believe in evolution.

If god created us and we believe in evolution and evolution is not true, then god tricked us and we should not trust god.

[Sinuev1]

Also, I notice a very simple reason why Veritas is wrong - at least on a side issue underlying his argument. General survivability does not factor into evolution. Evo is merely reproduction with variation acted on by selection. Survival only matters until reproductive age. General survivability is influencing factor, not a major component.

That's part of why "survival of the fittest" is not, nor has never been, a tenant of evo.. despite the common misconception to the contrary.

[rusty2029]

That is the point. Given N&E we propagate many generations that could have had no predators. Given an environment with us as the top of the food chain the birth rate flourishes free of any natural selective process. As long as we Humans where on top there was no need for N&E being responsible for Rationality and higher cognitive functions. We did not experience many predators. No way N&E could build our higher cognitive abilities.

[Sinuev1]

Very little is understood in regards to consciousness, so I don't see how you can make the claim that it "cannot be attributed to N&E". Cognition itself probably didn't evolve specifically - but is a byproduct of multiple highly specialized brain regions working in tandem with each other. A byproduct that proved beneficial by allowing us to adapt an environment, rather than slowly adapting to it.

[Sinuev1]

The regions responsible for the core phenomena of cognition are likely quite old as avians and mammals are the only two clades which seem to exhibit higher cognitive functions.

Ultimately, cognition and intelligence are likely - at least to our level of development - are evolutionary dead ends. We are the LAST hominid species left alive - and we possess the technology to pretty much ensure our own extinction.

[Sinuev1]

If you actually take a casual glance at all the different specialized regions of the brain, what they're responsible for, what species share them, and check out the cranial cavities of animals in the fossil record - you see a clear progression of brain development.

And then of course... you can study victims of stroke or other types of brain damage or developmental defects to see what areas are affected and how they affect cognition for an even wider perspective.

[Sinuev1]

Also, we're not quite at the top of the food chain. We still do have natural predators - ones we're much better sheltered against now than previously, and improving cognitional abilities would have assisted in that progressive sheltering.

It's a bit of a misnomer to say "Food Chain". While we've killed off most of our mega fauna predators/competitors - we haven't really even started addressing the microscopic ones until just the last few centuries.

Bacteria rule this world, not us.

[Sinuev1]

And technically... only about 10% (I think) of the DNA in or on your body is your own. Nearly half your body weight is bacterial, with 5-15lbs on average of it in your intestines alone depending on diet and environment... and you can't survive without them.

Indeed, we're pretty much just microbial swarms - either specialized for our species, symbiotic to the prior microbes, or predatory to both microbes.

And they can affect your cognitional abilities and intelligence as well.

[rusty2029]

And all this complex interdependant symbiosis is what you think is proof of a godless process of N&E with no intelligent design allowed.

As meatpuppets you forget that the truth is uninteresting and not needed.

built from the ground up your maker is N&E thus plankton has more value to this planets ecosystem then you do. We don't have reliable truth if N&E are your maker and that is the power of Plaintinga's argument and Darwin's doubt but I guess you don't see this truth....amIright

[Sinuev1]

No... I'm merely pointing out an interesting bit of information, which also helps illustrate that "conventional wisdom" does not equate to reality (indeed, it's quite often wrong) - and there really are no simple answers.

Proof of a godless process? Well, I'm pretty much a Deist so I do believe in a god and a creator god at that. So... you're wrong on that point.

[Sinuev1]

And this seems to be another point of misconception you hold. Naturalism doesn't just apply to just those forces within our universe - but is limited those forces we observe within our universe. For instance, some cosmologists and physicists have hypothesized that vast empty regions of our universe may be the effect where our universe borders another. If their hypothesis are proven true - naturalism will extend beyond our universe to also encompass what we can learn about the new found universe.

[Sinuev1]

It will encompass the validated multiverse.

So in essence... if there was any objective or emperical evidence of a designer or a god outside of our universe - naturalism would encompass such a being as we seek to understand him as an active force within and outside our universe.

But.... there is no evidence. Without evidence, there is no way to objectively KNOW god... it's just taken on faith. Normally this isn't a problem, until those who hold beliefs without evidence attempt to push those

[Sinuev1]

unfounded beliefs onto others at the detriment of things we actually DO observe around us.

Naturalism doesn't deny the existence of god - but rather the issue of god is simply not substantiated enough to consider. So a Scientist can believe whatever it is they want - and many of them are quite religious - so long as their hypothesis, their claims, and their research is built upon verifiable objective evidence.

[rusty2029]

Then Evolution is a proper argument to defeat godless naturalism and act as confirmation that evolution has a Deistic first cause for the fine tuning of the universe chemical affinities and other well ordered and tuned evidence for God. You personally may not be interested in any particular deity but can never the less see the power of Pantinga's argument as evidence for intelligence in the process rather then no intelligence at all. Wisdom is wisdom and stands the test of time or it's not W..

[Sinuev1]

No... Deism is just a belief system. It's not a basis on which to argue against established scientific findings. Indeed, Deists tend to embrace science - because they find the unalterable creation (naturalism) a more unbias source for knowing god - rather than scripture, supposed miracles, or revelations.

To paraphrase Paine: Divine Revelation is only revelation to those who given it by the divine. To all others, it is hearsay.

[Sinuev1]

And it's not that I'm "uninterested" in any one particular god. I'm interested in the truth, and the truth is - god doesn't appear to exist.

This doesn't shake my faith - but it does prevent me from making up or believing mythologies about god which contradict what we objectively observe in physical reality.

[Wolfau5]

Not necessarily, as there may be some benefit to not fearing the tigers (ie domesticating them or working together in a symbiotic relationship), while those afraid may slaughter them, causing several negative outcomes. Also even if they thought they were harmless to humans they may hurt them to reduce competition for food etc.

[DancingInChains]

You didn't listen to what Plantingas argument includes. The person not fearing the tigers (in his argument) would still run away, just for other reasons than fear. That would make it quite hard to domesticate or work with them. And even if they would somehow try that while still ignoring the danger, they would simply get eaten.

[Wolfau5]

I know tigers are near impossible to domesticate, but I meant for the purposes of argument that if we say... feared dogs instinctively the same way we may fear tigers, then we would've just slaughtered them all and not have the incredibly beneficial symbiotic relationship we've had with them in many areas for alot of human history.

Anyway, I haven't listended to the original comments now do I think I fully appreciate the distinction you're trying to raise, I'm just clarifying my position.

[PhilosophicMermaid]

Right On. One would have to prove that knowledge of truth doesn't benefit survival and your examples of additional implications of that knowledge make Plantinga's highly unlikely. Also if we are to assume that cognitive abilities evolved they must have included a modicum of rational capacity (even if we only rely on individual experience) which must cause a person to learn to move close to a tiger in order to pet it or be eaten by it. Survival of the fittest anyone?

[rusty2029]

Why? Instinct is enough. You should need no rational cognitive ability. Look at all of nature and tell me who else has cognitive ability given N&E?

If N&E is such a good programmer of rational cognitive abilities then we should be able to selectively breed some dogs to have rational cognitive abilities. I know that we would be cheating the natural processes but I would not mind having a few good dogs around who are rational and cognitive enough to not slobber on me or hump my leg.

[PhilosophicMermaid]

So in the 2nd half of my comment I was responding directly to the wiki link and the example provided by P. Many animals along with humans possess rational abilities in varying degrees (especially dogs). The development of cogntion (process of thought) MUST include at least a minimal degree of rationality. In P's examples instinct isn't mentioned only some cockeyed rationales. Does this address your concerns?

[rusty2029]

--cockeyed rationales-- That is the point!

If the cockeyed rationales produce the needed survival than that is what gets passed on under N&E. The cockeyed rationales keeping you from a Darwin award get passed on. cockeyed rationales would reinforce natural selection as much as anything else.

What ever works would be minimal and not maximal. Minimal needed to not snuff it is what would get passed on. Remember no intelligence is allowed as far as a design process or emergent force.

[PhilosophicMermaid]

Rusty 1Reread the first half of my original message. P. would have to demonstrate that knowing the truth wouldn't benefit survival and he never accomplishes this in order to disprove N&E. 2Given that humans and animals (H&A) possess rationality (in varying degrees) the examples P provides would never do the work that he wants them to simply because (H&A) could easily figure out the solutions to their predicament through trial and error. When my cat wants to cuddle, he has to move closer to me.

[PhilosophicMermaid]

Also, you are somewhat right about a minimal amount of rationality getting passed on (not exactly but there is no need to get technical) but don't forget that Darwin's theory addressed natural selection (those best equipped WITHIN a species would be favored to pass on traits) which entails competition for mates etc. not just staying away from predators.

[PhilosophicMermaid]

Competition between members of the same species (who is the smartest) pushes species to continually maximize their traits. smp describes the myriad benefits of knowledge of truth to survival

[rusty2029]

Yes and so Evolution is correct but not naturalism. Maximizing something takes a maximizer intelligence. Evolution works if there is a Maximal God maximizing the evolutionary process.

Otherwise the godless process requires minimal standards. Minimal meatpuppet intelligence. Breeding minimal meatpuppet qualities for future meatpuppets.

Godless naturalism is defeated if Evolution is true. And only Evolution can work if there is intelligence in the process otherwise truth is uninteresting

[PhilosophicMermaid]

Rusty,

My very last entry explains why no external "maximizer intelligence" comes close to being necessary. Competition for resources and mating partners is part of Darwin's natural selection if you'll remember. Evolution involves natural selection which involves competition. In nature, animals rarely settle for an 'okay' mating partner. They want the best that they can attract, the one with the best attributes---hence the force which propels species to maximize their survival (God-free).

[rusty2029]

I have a defeater for your argument. We are a planet of six billion and in our lifetime will be 12 billion. Absent an extinction event the meatpuppets will exhaust the planets fragile resources and ecosystem. Our survival is not maximized. In fact our survival is on a collision course with a mass extinction event. We no longer breed under any kind of maximizing competitive best breeder status. This is a defeater of evolution as godless naturalism is already defeated.

[PhilosophicMermaid]

This is getting away from the subject matter. I'm not entirely sure about which part of my argument your "defeater" addresses but you seem to be operating under the assumption that our existence is either minimized or maximized in someway and I haven't made that argument. The lack of perfection in our species is yet another detractor from the theory of intelligent design. Besides we no longer live in nature, subsistence is easier and we've removed ourselves from predators. Any pop. would balloon

[rusty2029]

The lack of perfection is an indication of the fall of mankind into sin and death. Death does not act as defeater to intelligent design. And yes given that we can not but cause the mass extinction event to come than a proper Atheist should embrace Bertrand Russell when he talks of living a life of unmitigated despair.

Without God life is absurd and all meaning is absurd and uninteresting.

Meatpuppets can give any meaning to life they like.

But meatpuppets are going to go extinct.

[PhilosophicMermaid]

Okay Rusty, we were initially talking about Plantinga's flawed logic. Some of this other stuff comes from a source with no more authority on morality and existence than a magpie. Stick to Plantinga. You've not posed anything remotely resembling a "defeater" to my own argument or smp's. If you've got nothing of substance on this topic I'll gently whisper this in your ear:

Even with a God, life and it's meaning is extremely absurd.

Good Day!

[rusty2029]

And I will gently whisper in your ear that Plantinga's logic is not flawed but if it's comforting that you are a meatpuppet. Comforting that only you give yourself meaning in a godless and unmitigatinly bankrupt and feral world of absurdity then God whispers in your ear that you have the freedom to have that bankrupt comfort if it's what you want. I am sticking to Plantinga. Evolution is true if God is true. Naturalism is true if truth is uninteresting and cognition untruthful.

[PhilosophicMermaid]

No need to name call (Would God do this?). I don't give myself or anything else meaning. Maybe Plantiga is correct, I have an open mind...but you haven't been able to defend his position sufficiently.

Peace Out

[rusty2029]

I have defended his position sufficiently that I am defending it as objectively true and that we have truth as a defeater for N&E. If this is not powerful enough to convince one who needs to reject God then I question if your mind is open enough. Regardless you need not accept or be convinced of anything. Even God holds sacred your free will choice to reject God. Otherwise we would all be robots who could not reject God and again truth would be uninteresting.

Peace be upon you.

[shanoxilt]

Are you some sort of Gnostic heretic?!

[rusty2029]

You don't seem to grasp that truth has nothing to do with survival. You want to believe you are built from the bottom up. No designer or intelligence allowed. So truth is uninteresting. Truth is not needed. Your cat could be piloting to kill you and thus rubs on your legs in order to trip you. H&A don't have or need truth given N&E. Meatpuppets don't need truth or correct thinking to survive in a godless unintelligent chaotic process that leaves you will little more value than cattle.

[PhilosophicMermaid]

Your very first sentence is the most important and is where Plantinga went wrong. He decided that knowledge of truth and skills survival are two separate evolutionary traits. Try your best to imagine this Rusty: We have evolved senses and cognitive abilities which allow us to ascertain the truth in our surroundings. This knowledge enables us to adjust our behavior so that we are better able to survive (search out food, evade predators).

[PhilosophicMermaid]

*above I meant skills for survival

If this seems like too much for you try to imagine two populations of human popA has no idea about the truth of the world popB understand the world clearly. All other things equal whom do you honestly believe would have a better chance for survival? Any advantage would be welcomed on an evolutionary scale.

[rusty2029]

And Plantinga is giving proof that Evolution is an agrument against N or rather godless N. No God in nature means no truth is needed and truth is uninteresting. Remember godless means meatpuppet. So given that E is true and an intelligent guided process we have a defeater for N. We thus have a powerful argument for Evolution and for an intelligent guided process of an Intelligent being that wants you to know the truth. God says that He has given sufficient evidence given E as defeater for N

[RyuDarragh]

Too many tautalogical and weak ontological arguments, Rusty.

[rusty2029]

--Too many tautalogical and weak ontological arguments

Sayeth the meatpuppet product of godless naturalism?

Or the product of evolution under a maximally perfect Designer + the fall of sin thus the contaimination of death.

Are you contaminated and will you die?

Naturalism is defeated but to prove naturalism is true then truth is uninteresting as the economy of dumb/ignorant naturalism has no truth standard we can rely on.

Meatpuppets can believe/non-believe what they like and are valueless.

[RyuDarragh]

Rusty, your argument that we are meatpuppets makes no sense. You are coining terms from personal opinion. I have no refferent to what *you* mean by "godless naturalism" and wonder if you understand fact one about the terms. How can "naturalism" be "defeated" when it is proven by your very existance, QED.

[rusty2029]

And God is the proof of our existence, and thus naturalism is a God built process and God knew you before the creation of the world. If you wish to deny God and go against God then you are free to do that but that means your truth is uninteresting and would serve to rob you of any value and transcendent meaning. I take it that you desire this.

You are a meatpuppet and have no value unless there is a God to value you. God does not need you but you may need God. But you don't want God amiright

[Sinuev1]

"And God is the proof of our existence, and thus naturalism is a God built process and God knew you before the creation of the world."

No, because while I believe God is a "first cause" - I can't verify it. We know the Big Bang happened - but not what came before that. I could interject god here, but there's no evidence to support that claim.

Further, your supposition relies on an omnipotent/omniscient being. I ascribe neither intrinsic quality to God.

[Sinuev1]

It's quite possible that if God set things in motion at the Big Bang - he/she/it didn't know the outcome. It would be quite possible that such a god made several mistakes in the creation of the universe - or it's an experiment in complexity to which he doesn't already know the outcome. This universe may well exist for wholly separate purposes than human development - and god may not even be aware of our existence.

That doesn't make me any less appreciative for my existence though.

[rusty2029]

You need not ascribe any quality to God other then the minimum to cause the universe and it's fine tunning for life.

That does not really mean much when you think about how NONE of us can hope to understand God. But God can understand you. If you need to reject God then God understands why even if you have no need to understand God. We all see through the glass darkly so have inference but not solid confirmation. The Atheists has this as well for there needed confirmation of no god/s

[Sinuev1]

I don't see how the universe is "fine tuned" for live - considering the vast majority of it is uninhabitable. Most of what people generally considers life and ecology is centered around multi-cellular organisms... which survive only on the thinnest layer of this tiny spec of dust in an unimaginably vast cosmos.

Out of the enormous plethora of life's building blocks in our solar system - on 8 planets, dozens of dwarf planets, and thousands of thousands of asteroids... Earth alone has thus far

[Sinuev1]

shown to have any substantial life. A few prospects on various moons.. perhaps microbial life...

Considering all the matter and energy in the universe, matter arranged in what we consider life forms are only a trace constituent of a trace constituent.

Further, it's impossible to tell at this time if our universe is unique or a product of a common phenomena. If we live in a multiverse - there could be dozens or billions of failed universes sequential to and after or parallel to our own.

[Sinuev1]

No matter the number, intelligent life capable of supposing fine tuning could only possibly form in those which happen to meet specific criteria - as they wouldn't have collapsed immediately upon forming or scattering into a homogeneous expanse of energy or sub-atomic particles or simple hydrogen atoms or whatever.

[rusty2029]

P(R/N&E)

N is metaphysical naturalism. (Crucial to metaphysical naturalism, of course, is the view that there is no such person as the God of traditional theism.) E: human cognitive faculties have arisen by way of evolution (as conceived by contemporary evolutionary science). R: the claim that our cognitive faculties are reliable

And the question is: What is the probability of R, given N&E?--If your cognitive faculties are reliable then N&E are NOT true.

So is your cognition reliable?

[araless]

How does it necessarily follow that if our cognitive faculties are reliable, then naturalism and evolution are not true? This doesn't make sense to me.

[rusty2029]

But you see that Darwin had the same doubt. Naturalism is a godless chaotic force. Why do we not have the fear response of a lemur? Why are we not more instinct then intellect? Darwin doubted that our cognitive faculties would be reliable given such a chaotic and godless natural process. Do our females go into season when they ovulate? Why? Given naturalism why not? How could naturalism make us social more than pack animals are social? Naturalism does not program or design.

[smpunditz]

"Naturalism is a godless chaotic force."

Does God have any of the properties that he has for any particular reason or did God just happen to randomly be the one and only being in existence and then created the universe?

[rusty2029]

Given that you need to prove N&E is sufficient for your abilities then the nature of God should be unimportant to you. If it is important then we will get to personally interact with God some day. I suggest that on judgement day all will be revealed sufficient to answer all questions that your personal acceptance and study of God's word has not already covered for you.

N&E should have given us pure instinct not rationality.

[smpunditz]

Why can't you people just admit that you don't know something?

[rusty2029]

Let's say that N&E is a highly discriminatory process to impart intelligence upon successive generations. Then such Darwin inspired movements as eugenics and the Nazis could then indeed breed a master race. Darwin inspired some to see certain races as inferior. Given N&E these races would need to be eliminated in order to advance the evolution process. I am sure you remember this recent History. I know God intervened against this racial genocide. God provides sufficient evidence for belief

[Sinuev1]

"Then such Darwin inspired movements as eugenics and the Nazis could then indeed breed a master race."

You're a fucking idiot. Evolution was around well before Darwin - and the idea of a "perfect" or "Master" race come from pre-Darwinian ideas of Evolution. His implementation of Natural Selection removed humanity from the "Top" of the tree of life and made us a branch. Made us understand we're just differently adapted - not "more perfect" or "better" by some fucking arbitrary measure.

[rusty2029]

Someone has not studied history or the eugenics/Nazi movements have they?

Top of the tree had nothing to do with Darwinist's desires to not allow certain races to survive. To weed out the weaklings and strengthen the strain.

But then I have learned that a lot of atheists do not have a grasp of history Darwin and the growth of atheism. But then what do I know about Darwin publishing Origins 150 years ago and eugenics 50 years after Darwin's book.

Do you intend to procreate?? Learn History

[Sinuev1]

Speaking of learning history, I think you need to get a bit broader education regarding history, and stay away from one-sided simple-minded propagandists..

Protip: Watching Alex Jones's "End Game" does not constitute an education in history.

[Sinuev1]

And it's important to note that many of these pre-Darwinian ideas about evolution were religiously rooted - as it was thought that live was changing or being modified closers to god's perfection, or god's idea of perfection.

But the idea of Evolution itself.... yeah, it's been around since before the ancient Greeks. Back when we figured out we could create new types of animals through selective breeding.

[justintempler]

rusty2029 "Given that you need to prove N&E is sufficient for your abilities then the NATURE of God should be unimportant to you."

I love it when theists babble on about the NATURE of God. If god has a NATURE then it must interact with the material world and would be testable.

[rusty2029]

Here is a test for you. You where made in the image of God. An intelligent designer did design you intelligently and thus you have evidence sufficient for you to believe. You also are fallen and are thus predisposed to reject God. The test here is to chose your master. One loves you and offers grace. The other already possess you and needs do nothing but encourage your rejection of God. Simple binary choice. But God promises to not reveal Himself in such a way as to rob you of your choice.

[justintempler]

rusty2029 "Here is a test for you. You where made in the image of God."

Here is a test for you. Do you have any understanding of what the word IMAGE means?

You assert that a material being is made in the supernatural image of God.

O RLY?

Intelligent design?

We eat, breath, and drink through the same hole. Our reproduction organs are connected to our sewage system. Intelligent design my ass.

[rusty2029]

The word IMAGE can mean more than your physical makeup. The IMAGE could be that you are creative, sing, artistically gifted, a quantum physicist or a host of ineffable qualities that make up the gestalt that is humanity. The creative and procreative quality is the best expression of that image God gave all of us.

Creative ability as image of the Creator.

This is the promise of heaven for God's children who will creatively augment Gods creation.

[justintempler]

rusty2029 "The IMAGE could be.."

Could be? I'll help you with the original Hebrew.

in our image

tselem (tseh'-lem)

a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence, a representative figure, especially an idol -- image, vain shew.

after our likeness

dmuwth (dem-ooth')

resemblance; concretely, model, shape; adverbially, like -- fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.

[rusty2029]

God's children do tend to be creative regardless of if they desire eternity with the Creator or wish to deny the Creator.

[smpunditz]

Rusty you so just admitted defeat with that non-sequitur response.

[rusty2029]

You can think what you like. The subject of the nature of God is not defeated much less the idea that the Creator has left marks of His handy work in the process of evolution.

The creative ability of God's children.

The evidence of God's presence that atheists are so invested in denying.

The cognitive dissonance of the atheist is a powerful thing but rigorous honesty can overcome this for those who can look at evolution and see that it is an argument against naturalism/atheism.

[smpunditz]

You might want to look up the word cognitive dissonance as you are the one demonstrating such.

When your interpretation was proven false you gave a nonsensical response and when called on your BS you gave yet another nonsensical response.

Your intellectual dishonesty is so blatant it's a wonder why you even bothered to come back and post more nonsense.

If anyone has evolved inaccurate cognitive faculties it would be you.

[rusty2029]

My interpretation? You can grasp at straws in order to shore up what is clearly an atheist train of thought regarding Plantinga then you claim you are a deist of some kind. Who has the intellectual dishonesty? Why do you try to sustain that Plantingas argument is false then dance around the idea that you are some kind of deist.

Your cognitive dissonance seems to express a need to not believe in a loving Creator that knows you personally.

[smpunditz]

What!? When did I claim I was a deist? lol.

I actually have a video on my channel explaining why I'm not a deist.

Nice try, but your attempts to shift the matter to me fail. You still haven't made a rebuttal to justintempler regarding what the bible actually means when it uses the word image.

Every time you make a post ignoring that fact you demonstrate your dishonesty more and more.

[rusty2029]

I stand corrected as I was thinking of Sinuev1

I have answered justintempler sufficiently regardless of your attempt to skew what I said. As I said if you wish to continue to reject God then God has provided a means to do this. I demonstrate no dishonesty as what I have said is black and white.

It is you who wish to try to muddy and clowd your rejection of God as some kind of honest effort when supporting your own atheism. But again you have no power to your refutation of Plantinga.

[justintempler]

rusty,

You still haven't cleared up what God's nature is, or how we are created in his image and about his unintelligent design.

[rusty2029]

I have cleared it up sufficient for my current understanding given that we all gaze through the glass darkly. But your desire is to be a meatpuppet of a naturalist/materialist world view. As a meatpuppet you are free to do as you like. We all have within our fallen nature a desire to deny God or hate God. I can't hope to get in the way of someone obsessed with rejecting God.

But the abundant evidence for God is all around you. You just need to keep up your firewall against God.

[justintempler]

rusty2029 "I? have cleared it up sufficient for my current understanding...."

Keep working on that understanding part.

There is no evidence, that's why the bible talks about faith (or did you skip that part ?)

It's a shame you can't be honest enough with yourself to admit it.

[rusty2029]

I feel sadness for atheists who like me know that God has gifted you with creative ability and a thirst for knowledge. Atheists just wish to put up a firewall against the truth so as to not face this truth. God is an infinite being who knows you all personally. So all our understandings are subject to the Dunning-Kruger effect. I once wanted to deny God given our fallen natures predispose us to this struggle within us. Sin predisposes us all to deny God's creation design and its Creator.

[rusty2029]

Faith is a word atheists wish to define as blindness. Faith is trust. Do you have trust/faith in your parents? Do you have trust/faith in our government? Only a dishonest person conflates faith with blindness. If you place faith in your own understanding do you then wish to conflate that with blindness? So I did not skip the part about my trust in the bible. My trust in a Creator who gifted you with creative ability. Faith in only your own ability is blindness. Faith means trust.

[justintempler]

rusty2029 "Faith is a word atheists wish to define as blindness. Faith is trust. Do you have trust/faith? in your parents?"

Rusty stop with the dishonest strawman.

I can test governments/parents

I can not test God.

Having trust in parents/governments is based on experience.

[justintempler]

rusty2029 "I feel sadness for atheists who like me KNOW THAT GOD has gifted you"

You're babbling again making nonsensical arguments.

If an atheist knows that God did something, he's not an atheist.

[RPFS2008]

"the abundant evidence for God is all around you"

Please enlighten us.

[DancingInChains]

"Why are we not more instinct then intellect?"

I challange you to go out on a friday night, stay sober and watch a group of drunk males. Then come back and tell me again that we are "more intellect than instinct".

Cognitive abilities need only evolve so far, until they are able to create new stimuli for themselves. From here, developement will take off completely on its own.

[rusty2029]

Chemicals that rob us of our inhibitions are a perfect example of what we should be if N&E is the dumb chaotic process. Robed of our higher functions the instincts do come to the surface. If cognition can evolve from the chaos then why are we the only ones?

God is a properly basic belief and an important part of group cohesion. One thing is true be it design or chaos we all have a moral compass and properly basic belief in God. But we all have the ability to rage against God as well.

[Sinuev1]

I don't think belief in god is a important for group cohesion - but we do often group together in "tribes" of those with similar ideas, politics, and religion.

I do think religion can be an important generator of culture - which can shape a wide view of people's outlook on the world. For instance, look at the cultural difference between America and Japan when it comes to interacting with robotics. This is largely due to religion. Abrahamic vs. Shintoist religions view of what can have a spirit

[rusty2029]

While you prove you have no knowledge of history I take it you are not aware of recent FMRI studies that show we use the same parts of our brain for social cohesion and religious worship and prayer. FMRI studies show that there is no God spot but rather a web of brain activations that give us a proclivity to sense God in the same areas as social function. 

Sam Harris wanted a God spot and there is none. Belief in God is properly basic.

[Sinuev1]

Actually, those FMRI scans aren't that recent - and there is no evidence in the slightest that it has anything to do with god, even if it does influence religious experiences. Also, temporal lobe epilepsy can trigger religious visions.

It's been suggested that this evolved sense of "something watching" is a survival trait passed down from our more feral ancestors as a way to stay attentive and watchful of hidden stalking predators.

[araless]

We are just as much instinct as intellect I believe. We are pack animals. Natural selection allows what works the best in an environment to survive. Obviously, cognitive thinking skills would survive better than mere instinct; we are at the top of the chain.

[rusty2029]

Ah so you are saying that cognition can not be trusted. Darwin had the same doubt. Under this view we can not trust intellect so contaminated by instinct. In other words we are little more then meatpuppets pulled on our instinctual chains and of little more value then cattle. Thus given N&E your intellect is equal to instinct and you are just a meatpuppet built from the bottom up under minimal survival and reproductive standards.

[araless]

"we are just as much instinct as intellect" and "cognitive thinking skills would survive better than mere instinct" does not equal "cognition can not be trusted." The rest of your argument is invalid.

[araless]

To add, your cognition couldn't be completely trusted to answer a question about the universe. That's why we have tools like the scientific process and mathematics.

[XiaoGui17]

You took on Plantinga. Huzzah. I fucking love you.

[smpunditz]

haha thanks

[HailCthulhu]

Wouldn't it just be easier to say that if the creationists want to assert we can't know anything for sure, that they can't either and they've shot themselves in the foot?

[smpunditz]

Actually I'm not so sure if Alvin is a creationist although he is clearly against naturalism.

He makes clear however in his argument that he believes that humans DO have accurate cognitive faculties because God made it such.

Obvious this is absurd, but that is what he beliefs.

[HailCthulhu]

I was just talking about creationists in general who use the argument.

[ElroyHarvey]

07:45 Ok i get you, what you are saying is that men are able to take on a tiger but women can't, seems pretty sexist to me...

lol only joking :) you kinda did leave yourself open to that, in fact i think you realised what you said as soon as you did lol

[smpunditz]

While I never stated it explicitly I did imply that we were dealing with a primitive people in my hypothetical. Generally speaking women don't do the hunting.

[AbbeyNormal]

Somehow I suspect if Paul thinks the best way to pet the tiger is to run from it, he probably treats his food the same way and wouldn't live very long.

[musicgeniusno1]

You explained the points very well here :)

[smpunditz]

The fact that it's been bumping back and forth in my head for months probably helped.

[musicgeniusno1]

Even so,the results are always well thought out & articulated with sound logic.

Someone mentioned "petting tigers" hmm..much the same idea that the creationist museum holds,except very large dinosaurs! ha! ;)

[WizardJim]

Wow, that's a really retarded argument. Why would an organism evolve some kind of 'neural filter' that would cause them to only sense things which directly impact their survivability when it'd be much simpler to just evolve the sense and be able to percieve everything within it's range? They must be getting desperate, I thought the ontological argument was rolling-on-the-floor funny, but that one takes the cake.