J P Moreland : Skepticism and Epistemology 8 of 8 apologetics

[rubberbaby00]

Moreland would be correct if there were no correlation between understanding the world as it actually is and survival.

Unfortunately for him, the more we understand the world, the more we are likely to take actions that would ensure our survival.

[SomeUser9753]

Fuck you !

Brain washed psychopath.

[grandconjunct]

This is your Brain on Dawkins.

Any Questions ?

[whitadow]

Everyone's brainwashed one way or another.

[grandconjunct]

Everyone should get there brain washed!

[grandconjunct]

Does anyone know how I could get an Invite to

Talbots mind and culture page ?

[thenewapologists]

Much like the Cardinals in Galileos day, atheists are afraid to look through the telescope of design for fear of what they might find and the uncomfortable implications this may have for their lives, and the questioning of the power and authority of "science" to be the sole distributor of knowledge and to explain all, which they fear people may start to question and think for themselves

[gondorking86]

Thanks for posting this. Do you know where a person could download the full version or get a DVD?

[grandconjunct]

Check out the links to the right of this video

[gondorking86]

Ok, thanks.

[Entropy56]

So the contradiction of man's moral responsibility vs God's sovereign will and foreknowledge is not a deal breaker? Okie dokie. Wake me up when this debate is resolved among yourselves and then you can go pick on the Atheist.

[grandconjunct]

I'm not a deterministic Calvinist nor is Moreland.Man is genuinely Free therefore genuinely responsible,this does not contradict foreknowledge since it is not causative, only actions are causative not knowledge.

The only people who have a tension free set of beliefs are overly simplistic people who are not grappling with the real world, So stay awake, think and don't wait for everyone to agree , have no doubts before committing otherwise you will never do anything, get married or experience God

[Entropy56]

I somehow didn't get an email alerting me of your reply. You might as well refer to my comments in part one.

But to be sure, this debate is among Christians and highlights the fact that men smarter than I have run into this sovereignty problem and will continue to do so. What you call "tension" is a polite way of saying "contradiction" by others. It seems to me a double standard.

[grandconjunct]

Entropy>>. What you call "tension" is a polite way of saying "contradiction" by others. It seems to me a double standard.

Alvin plantinga is kinda smart and he says he doesn't get why anyone would think Free agnecy

and Gods soveriegnty would contradict, I agree but then im not a brilliant or bright or whatever they call it.

No tension or anamolies are something that exist in every worldview except for the super simple who think atheism has everyhting wired and explained usually on youtube

[elroy2112]

Even trusting Reason requires Faith, especially if your an atheist.

[broj8s8n79]

I love this guy, makes you think.

[UbiquitousChe]

Me too. He's interesting.

Is it weird that I can disagree with his critique of evolution AND like his critique of evolution at the same time?

[broj8s8n79]

Not at all, I know exactly what you are saying.

[grandconjunct]

NO this is an argument against Naturslism or atheism,not against evolution. the only time evolution comes up is to show Atheism's best candidate for a creator or designer "Natural selection" at best gives you survival Not truth, this argument was invented by an atheist Darwinist, J.B.S. Haldane and was next heavily adopted by the Theistic Evolution community that still loves this argument today, but it was perfected by C.S.Lewis then Mastered by Alvin Plantinga and Moreland added much also.

[UbiquitousChe]

I understand that evolution just happened to be a subject that he was using to illustrate the method of critique he was using. I get that.

What I meant was that I somehow managed to enjoy his his method of critique despite the fact that I disagreed that his method was useful. It was all the more thought-provoking precisely *because* I disagreed with it.

Which pretty much sums up my entire response to this lecture as a whole, I suppose. I stand in highly interested disagreement. :P

[grandconjunct]

Great Che, I hope you consider theism and christianity one day!

I just wanted everyone to be clear that this is clearly a critique of naturalism/Atheism not Evolution at all. Thanks for comments che

[UbiquitousChe]

No problem. Thanks for posting!

[grandconjunct]

Note , I just put a link to His defense audio and Video apologetics in the Grey ,ABOUT THIS VIDEO , box to the right of the video , just click the blue MORE , then click link , I also put a link to Veritas org which has a lot of moreland Audio and hundreds of other christian proffesors and thinkers you can listen to for free.

[efctony]

1. How do we know that we perceive the outside world accurately? What is the difference between reacting correctly (selectable) and reacting correctly because you perceive something correctly?

2. Other people ARE black boxes. We have no access to internal workings - we just know the outputs are 'right'.

[grandconjunct]

#1 thats the diffrence between evolution selecting for truth which isnt neccesarry for survival , verses selecting just those falsehoods that would be helpfull for survival , an amoeba probably doesnt hold a lot of "truths" about its environement , but it does react consistently which keeps it alive , consistency neccessary for survival not truth .

[grandconjunct]

but in a Naturalistic universe Darwins Black box brain would only have the correct output of survival , not discovering truth in the universe since no one designed his brain to find truth , but we do have direct access to our own minds which we intuitively know we can trust to find truth , and if we deny this we become the worst kind of Epistemological Nihlist , then you cant know Nihlism is even true yet you will still hold to nihlism.

[efctony]

Turing test. If you say 'blue' when shown blue we say that you are correct, you speak the truth. You may SEE red and just get it consitently wrong. But in what way do you see it as red? And how would we ever know?

We might call 'poison', 'food', but the appropriate behaviour for 'poison' is to eat it. We will never know.

[grandconjunct]

Yes thats possible maybe we all see diffrent colors when looking at a blue object but we all call it blue , and in acutallity all humans have the same favorite color but we point to " diffrent colored" objects , but if Naturalism is true we cant even trust our own thoughts on anything let alone perceive others correctly , maybe turing meant his test as a poem but you mistook it as a test for intelligence ? we must be radically skeptical in a nondesigned universe.

[CAndiron]

IMHO, he states the problem with naturalism much more clearly and forcefully than C.S. Lewis did.

[grandconjunct]

Yes if your interested in the modern defenses

of CS Lewis argument from reason and like to think deeply be sure to visit Victor Reperts cs lewis DANGEROUS IDEA BLOG, I put a link in the about this video grey box to the right of the video.