For a good refutation of God's existence from a logical-probabilistic angle, I recommend Colin Howson's new book "Objecting to God", where he also criticises some of Plantinga's arguments.
If even conservative Republican Christian Dinesh D'Souza can believe in evolution, it's time to adopt theistic evolution! Francis Collins and Ken Miller are other examples of theistic evolutionists that are devout Christians.
@RomaZeal Summary: he thinks that belief in truth does not hold survival value thus cannot be explained with natural selection, and that would mean its existence depends on the supernatural.
@pedroamaralcouto There's no evidence that truth value depends on the supernatural. You have to have a case for your position, not an either-or fallacy. There might be other options that no one is smart enough to think of. True beliefs help us navigate the world, surviving, having sex, and doing things that allow us to achieve these goals of our genes. Usually people find the purpose in their lives in what allows them to get survival and sex, like money, sports, music, friends.
@pedroamaralcouto Even if it were true that truth didn't have survival value, we could still develop an interest in it. Truth-seeking cognitive technology can be developed from brain structures that were evolved for other purposes.
@RomaZeal "why Plantinga thinks that Naturalism and Evolution are incompatible?"
He thinks that evolution necessarily implies, if our brains evolved and mind is only what brain does then, our beliefs can not be reliable. If our beliefs are not reliable how can we trust them? And naturalism is a belief.
@zarkoff45 This just means that we need to work hard at finding the truth. Plantinga wants the easy way out, but it's a mirage. Philosophy and science were designed to overcome our perceptual limitations, they are cognitive tools that have worked extraordinarily well and should continue to be used. Naturalism is the most reasonable worldview because science and philosophy work and supernaturalism has zero evidence supporting it. Supernaturalism is just a dream -- wake up.
@Thoughtitorium Naturalism and materialism don't work, they place artificial constraints upon the search for truth. The Laws of Nature did not exist until the universe existed. So, it follows that the cause of the universe was outside of nature, hence super-natural. Naturalists and materialists say we should find truth, but to them truth is only truth if it is found within their constraints.
@Thoughtitorium Of course the universe had a cause, this is based on scientific evidence. We know from cosmology that the universe came into being around 13B years ago. I'm only assuming what science has proven.
@zarkoff45 Also, Naturalism purports to explain everything according to Natural Laws, but no where has Naturalism been able to explain how evolution began. Darwin's book that began the theory of evolution was entitled "The Origin of Life", but it should've more accurately been named "The Progression of Life" because it does not say the origin of life, only how life forms adapt over time. No where have evolution-based theories ever explained how life began in terms of nature.
@benjaminfair1 Scientists are working on explaining the origin of life. What are creationists doing? They go out trying to control society as usual, not even bothering to do any real science. Creationists should be trying to figure out how God created, but all they do is say that he created.
@Thoughtitorium Well, you seem to know the intentions of every creationist alive. I would not make such wide assertions. As I said concerning naturalism, certain scientists only consider it "real science" if they agree with it. Also, who says creationists need to determine how God created the universe? I don't see a need to explain the explanation. That you would resort to that is proof that your logic is flawed and you are grasping at straws.
@benjaminfair1 Nope. For example, saying that evolution explains life isn't enough. Explaining how evolution works is what is needed, and that is what Darwin did with the mechanism of natural selection.
@Thoughtitorium Also, if you truly believe naturalism please explain to me the meaning of these letters and words I am typing in terms of the electronics used to display them to you. You can describe to me how the electrical circuitry powers the pixels of your display and forms the letters, but that does nothing to explain how these shapes possess meaning as you comprehend them. There is an intelligence behind them that is apart from their physical components.
@benjaminfair1 The meaning of your words are agreed upon by society, we don't need to explain it in terms of the mechanics of engineering. We could explain meaning in terms of cognitive neuroscience, but the social construction explanation is sufficient.
@Thoughtitorium You're missing my point. The meaning of the words is because I put something that you understand, it has meaning. The physical representation wouldn't mean anything without an intelligence behind it. That's exactly the point, you cannot explain things that have an intelligence behind them just by their physical components. This is why naturalism and materialism don't work.
@BronyEditor Oh, my bad; should've Googled the title. But my point still stands. Did it explain the origin of species (aka life)? No, I think not. It explains the mechanism for how life forms change over time. Meaning it makes an assumption that there are lifeforms in the first place. Try to squirm out of it on a technicality all you want but it will not fill the gap in his theory.
Proven missing link hoaxes: Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) Cro-Magnon Man Pithecanthropus (Java man) Orce man Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) Neanderthal man Eoanthropus dawsonii Darwinius masillae Archaeoraptor Ramapithecus Australopithecus africanus Sinanthropus (Peking man) Homo habilis Zero dinosaur to bird evidense Zero fish to reptile evidense All of these hoaxes were taught in school as scientific facts but now known to be mistakes/hoaxes.
@Moving2U Among the fossils that you listed there were only 2 hoaxes (Piltdown man & Archaeoraptor), 2 corrected mistakes (Nebraska man & Orce man), and 2 fossils that took a longer time to classify correctly (Java man & Ramapithecus). There are no problems with the other ones you've listed.
Some scams were attempted, some mistakes were made, yes... But none of them ever threatened the theory in general (in the slightest). Notice, they are not a part of the theory today.
@ninanotturna & dareartes: (Going back far enough) If you really believe that life in general began by the right combination of events and introduction of the right combination of chemicals to form the first living cell (fast forward now) and ultimately resulted in the massively diverse lifeforms that we know of today then you have expotentially more faith than I do as a God fearing human being.
Two words - Intelligent design.
God created man, we did not evolve from a puddle of mud.
@Moving2U "Right combination of events"? "Puddle of mud"? You must be referring to *abiogenesis*. We were talking about evolution. We could open this other complex subject, fine by me, I'd just like to remind you it's another matter altogether.
Believing that evolution occurs doesn't require faith - just a closer look at the facts. What I can gather from what you've said so far, you aren't familiar with it at all... Like your only sources are the opponents of the theory (generally non-experts).
@Moving2U I agree 100% with what ninanotturna says.
- Intelligent design theory?
I.D. theory is vastly different from creationism you seam to support. I.D. claims that evolution *did* happen! That all life (including us) evolved from common ancestors (says God guided it, but offers no proof for it).
& Why are you jumping to assertions?
I answered all the questions you had for me. Would you be polite enough to answer mine?
- Look at my previous post: How would you know where to draw that line?
@Moving2U "Dinosaur - bird evidence"? You have a limited preconception about what "dinosaur" means. Birds *are* dinosaurs. I'd like to know where you get your facts on evolution.
"Fish - reptile evidence"? Have you even looked what the mainstream science says on the topic? Amphibians are the link that you're looking for. If you are searching for something between the fish and an amphibian, look up Lungfish.
0:34:35 "Would it be just to teach in public schools positions that go contrary to religious beliefs of most of those who pay for those schools? (...) That would not be just."
- IS THIS CLOWN SERIOUS !?!?!?
Great Alvin, let's not teach science, scientific theories (not hypotheses but accepted theories!), or FACTS in public schools. Let's also censor the history lessons if the truth offends somebody.
Alvin subscribes to the intelligent design hypothesis (divine guidance of evolution) which is incompatible with the scientific view, so he does 3 things:
1)Tries to undermine the scientific theory by ridiculing "as we now know" (the contemporary understanding) as something untrustworthy.
2)Misrepresents the contemporary theory of evolution (only mentions "random mutations").
3)Claims that the "irreducible complexity" hypothesis has not been successfully refuted (the eye example) whet it has.
Excuse me Einstein, please tell me how it is unscientific to question that all life emerged from one single ancestor...!?
Evolutionary changes within species are a FACT, but that doesn´t at all mean that this process of evolution gives birth to entire niew species, and thus all of life would have emerged from one single ancestor. That´s the whole controversy...
Please show me any hard evidence that all of life emerged from one single ancestor...
@tjobv The evidence is overwhelming. You don't know about it because you haven't invested any time in educating yourself about the details of the ACTUAL theory of evolution (not a hypothesis) before you decided not to except it... and have listened to people (like Alvin) who are not experts in the field and/or have decided -a priory- that unguided evolution has to be wrong because it conflicts with their existing belief.
You're not interested in science, you're interested in keeping your faith.
@tjobv Maybe I misunderstood where you're coming from, but if I've read into your question correctly, you're negating the entire theory of evolution (common ancestry), and Alvin here doesn't put that into question at all!
He's arguing for "intelligent design" (magic guidance of evolution), you - magic creationism.
So let's go to AronRa's "Phylogeny Challenge" video where he talks about the evidence.
Replay to my recent comment there, and tell me what you don't agree with in the video. Cheers!
Theory: A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something.
Hypothesis: A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
Fact is: "evolution" was called a theory by Darwin when in fact it was merely a hypothesis. Either way it has not been proven to be anything more than a creative attempt at explaining how God did what He did. Leave God out of the equation and you have only a theory.
@Moving2U The word *theory* as you define it (and which we indeed use like that in casual speech) is not to be mistaken with the term *scientific theory*.
No scientific theory can EVER be conclusively proven by it's very nature.
It can only be accepted and used until a more accurate iteration is available.
The theory of evolution, general relativity, electromagnetism, gravity... are all like that.
You can dismiss them all "as only a theory" if it makes you feel nice.
@ninanotturna You missed my point. The theory of evolution has been proven to be invalid by many secular scientists. There is ZERO supporting evidense for evolution. The "evidense" that is available has caused many atheist scientists to come to believe that there is a higher power that designed the universe. Believe what you want but don't spout it as reliable. We were fearfully and wonderfully and intelligently created, wait 50 years and you wil believe it too, or whenever you die and see God.
I researched the subject, but didn't come across any such proofs.
Please, tell me more about it.
"Zero supporting evidenCe"?
Modern phylogenetic taxonomy is supported and (more importantly) used (!) every day in all fields of biology and biochemistry. From microbiology & genetic engineering to zoology & medical research... so what do you mean by "unreliable"?
...And until 2 of us die and actually see your God (or not), I'll go with the evidence.
@ninanotturna Micro evolution i.e. minor changes and adaptations are apparent throughout "nature".
Site just one instance of "macro evolution", i.e. one family/genus morphing into another entirely. There is none. Most of the "missing link" examples have all been proven to be mistakes or out right hoaxes. Ultimately you believe that if you trace your lineage back far enough then you share ancestry with a turnip or a snail or a germ. Darwin theorised that but there is no proof to that fantasy.
@Moving2U You haven't answered my question - please point me to the proofs.
I'll be happy to answer yours:
Felidae (family of cats) evolved from Miacids that lived 60 - 55 million years ago. The whole family has this (now extinct) species as a common ancestor. First species descended from Miacids to be classified as a felid (a true cat) was Proailurnus (also extinct, lived 25 million years ago).
@Moving2U Who says? The scientific community apparently.
It's a joint effort of thousands of dedicated people working in different fields across the world over the last 100 years. Archeologists, zoologist, biologists, geologists, chemists, geneticists... you know - real scientists doing the practical work.
You're asking specifically about the age? Look up "radiometric dating". Several different methods are used in mutually independent labs to avoid any bias.
@dareartes they are the same creature. canus lupis familiaris aka dog is a domesticated grey wolf. All canines share the same dna, they have been breed (micro evolution) to retain desired traights. Macro evolution would involve one dna mutating into another resulting in a new species. There is zero evidense of that ever happening. Outside of the theory of evolution, science maintains that information is lost, never gained. Randomness breeds chaos, never order.
@Moving2U So your definition of "macro evolution" has 2 parts:
1)"one DNA mutating into another" & 2)"resulting in a new species"?
One DNA mutates into another every time a new offspring is conceived. DNA even changes over a life-span of one individual, so that part is pretty useless... Therefore, you're left with the second statement. Clarify the term *species* please:
Are a poodle, a Buffalo wolf, a coyote and a Fennec fox the same species as the raccoon dog?
@dareartes You're right, you are too smart for me. Darn and i thought i was going to fool you. I guess evolution wins.
If you really believe that the human genome of an individual changes over his life time, then we are wasting each others time conversing. We are not on equal footing and will get nowhere. Go in peace.
@Moving2U Human DNA has up to 30 mutations in a lifetime = Not a theory, but an observed testable fact:
wwwDOThhmiDOTorg/genetictrail/d100DOThtml
...Why the sarcasm? I'm not insulting you, I'm not shouting at you or over you.
I'm paying attention to what you're saying, responding as best as I can, asking you relevant questions, really trying to understand where you stand. Hey, I may even find out I'm wrong on something. Why would you blow me off?
@Moving2U You still haven't answered my question. What is this "proof that invalidates evolution" you were talking about yesterday? I want to investigate it. Please?
And I'd like to hear your answer to DAREARTES's questions too. I'm honestly curios how someone who denies evolution views the evolutionary taxonomy... or how would you call it - taxonomy of the animal (& floral) kingdom. I too may learn something.
@ninanotturna We must be talking apples and oranges. There is one specific DNA sequence that belongs to:
Animalia
Chordata
Mammalia
Primates
Hominidae
Homo
Sapien
I.E. "man" or "human".
I'm not talking the gene that makes one's eyes blue vs brown, I'm talking the DNA sequence that makes us human. All dogs from yorkie to mastiff to grey wolf have the same dna (canis lupis familiaris). Diversity within species does not equate to a new species. Adaptation is not macro evolution.
@Moving2U I assume you wrote that for DAREARTES, but...
Identical twins is the only time when DNA is the same in 2 different individuals or animals - and even then, it will slightly mutate over the years as DAREARTES pointed out.
Your DNA is more similar to the ones that are more closely related to you: close family>distant family>ethnicity>race>subspecies>species>...
@tjobv I apologize. It was rude of me to assume you're not open to questioning your beliefs. You asked me for evidence & that's fair, but I don't have the will or the time to forcibly educate you through debate... & I don't think something like that is possible - you only learn if you wanna learn.
So if you're really interested, I can point you to some books, but maybe the easiest place to start is AronRa's "Foundational Falsehood of Creationism" series. Start with No.6 - Google it. Good luck
For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Richard Carrier, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
Good to know: There are 21 major religions in the world. Alvin grew up in a christian family in a christian country (USA). His father was an immigrant from a then christian country (Netherlands) and earned a Ph.D. in philosophy from a christian university (Duke). Alvin studied at Jamestown college (christian) and Calvin college (christian) and is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame (christian). Biola university is also christian.
@acceptjesusorburn Hello. Alvin has had a lot of time to think about christianity. It's a massive field. Consider that scholars spend a lifetime studying The Bible. Apart from the book you need to study history, archeology, theology, philosophy, science and so forth. There's no practical chanse to study the alternatives, such as islam, hinduism or buddhism, within the same timeframe. Therefor you can only hope that the first religion you learned to follow was the right religion.
I don't see any reasons to think this to be true at all. All people in the world are faced with the same challenge of understanding the phenomena of existence and developing a worldview. Just as any honest Christian would wonder "is what a believe about the world true?" so should an honest atheist or muslim. And i think we can solve that more easily than aquiring equal and total knowledge of the various named fields for all religions.
@acceptjesusorburn The objective way, if your religion is not ingrained from the start, is to line up all the belief systems and conclude which source is backed up by evidence. If there is no evidence there's no reason to follow that particular track further. There is no evidence for miracles in any religion. If you have evidence, take it to the lab. Ancient books are convincing to people brought up to believe in it. For the rest of us it's another ancient book.
We allready know that scientific verificationism fails to answer many important existential questions. Claims like ,"There is no evidence for miracles in any religion.", or " They're all just ancient stories". Are not fair or particularly honest intellectual positions. Credible professionals such as "Dr. William Lane Craig" and "Gary Herbamas" adopted thiesm and Christianity later in life. I don't see why it should be true that people are convinced "only" because they are told so.
@acceptjesusorburn "scientific fails answer important questions" > I can't see your point. Just because there are questions science can't answer (yet?) doesn't make your God more or less real.
"not honest intellectual positions". > Well, intellectual or not, it's a fact. What can I say?
"adopted Christianity later in life" > Yes, there are a few cases like that. But look at the big picture. Religion correlates with geography and culture. Hard to deny.
"questions science can't answer (yet?)" > it's not a question of "yet", existential values, ethical and aesthetic values, metaphysical thruths, all as important to our condition as the 5 senses, are not scientifically accessible.
Since science only studies the natural world, science cannot be used to prove that the natural world is all that exists, therefore the person that says only the natural world exists cannot prove it scientifically. "having your cake and eating it".
@acceptjesusorburn I get the feeling you assume we have reached the peak of knowledge. What did we know 100 years ago about quantum mechanics, dna, the subconscious, the big bang etc? Things we couldn't imagine. 100 years from now we will know things we can't imagine today. How about some humility?
But that's besides the point. Your scepticism towards science doesn't prove your God over any other God or abstract idea.
@acceptjesusorburn "I don't see why it should be true that people are convinced "only" because they are told so"
Eh, why not? It's known as influence of environment. Most people are brought up to fall in line with the majority. It's convenient and your worldview gets confirmed over and over. 100 years ago it was understood that negroes were inferior. Why? Because people were told so.
You got something I can chew on? Is Jesus guilty for the bloodshed in The Old T if he and Yahweh is the same?
If you thought more critically about what you are saying you would realise that you are commiting a "genetic fallacy", showing the origin of a belief says nothing about it's truth value. In any case i gave two examples of credentials against the idea that a belief is "only" developed from the majority. While it is the case the "religious pluralism" is false, we should not commit the fallacy of "throwing the baby out with the bath water", That would be irrational.
@acceptorburn I think you need to take a second look at "genetic fallacy". It's a fallacy if the origin is false or irrelevant. The fact that P was born in a christian country, brought up in a christian family and educated at christian schools is not irrelevant to the fact that he's christian. Moving on, why is P wearing a shirt and suit jacket in this video and not a galabiyya? Why is he a monogamist and not a polyganist? Why is he speaking english and not iranian? Same answer to all of them.
I think you need to take a third look at what a genetic fallacy is, it is in fact coming to a conclusion that a belief is false based soley on it's origin,.
eg. -"The fact that P was born in a christian country, brought up in a christian family and educated at christian schools "
eg.-" Most people are brought up to fall in line with the majority."
These do not tell us if P's beliefs are more false or more true, unless your "begging the question". which would be irrational.
Why are you giving me examples of how science has studied the natural world?i repeat
-"science only studies the natural world therefore science cannot be used to prove that the natural world is all that exists"
Understanding the philosophy of science does not lead to scientific skepticism, i gave clear and coherant examples of what science cannot account for. Like most athiests, you know of no good evidence against belief in God but you argue with straw men.
@acceptjesusorburn What kind of an argument is this? Science doesn't claim to be able to explain everything, not today, perhaps not ever. How does that help your case? Like I said it doesn't prove your God over any other God or abstract idea.
Unfortunatly many atheists carry the baggage of scientism and naturalism into their argumentation when addressing the proposition of the existence of God. These are proven to be false premise for the existence of God.
A good argument is as follows.
-doesnt need to prove its conclusion with 100% certainty
-obeys the rules of logic
-it's premesis are true.
-premises are more plausible than their oppisites.
""false premise for the existence of God." Says who?
Sigh.. "science only studies the natural world therefore science cannot be used to prove that the natural world is all that exists.", therefore logic says.
The fact is religious pluralism is false, therefore majority of the people on the planet believe in false religions due to logical contradictions. However this says nothing about the truth value of any religion in particular, and neither do useless fallacious arguments.
We do know of properties that God has, that he is personal, immaterial, monstrously powerful, timeless, spaceless, creative, being, these are necessary truths derived from the Kalam cosmological argument, which is a deductive argument, not assumptions..
And thats not even bridging into Christian theology and moral phillosophy.
"What do we know about the "unnatural world"?">
Theres a difference between supernatural and unnatural so smart up please.
"Can you give some concrete examples of such logical contradictions?"
its quite clear that religious pluralism is false.
Hinduism: many gods exist.
Islam: only one god exist.
Are exclusive contradictions. Remember the negative of theism is atheism not agnosticism, making arguments against theism gives atheism the burden of proof. If a burden of proof cannot be defended, the result is a less plausible atheism.. as you have shown to be the case.
@acceptjesusorburn Your atheism towards Barbher failed to deliver arguments. Thus your atheism towards Barbher were made "less plausible". Barbher is also supported by the Kalam cosmological argument. Even more so than Yawheh.
The ontological argument is normally used along with a cumulative case for God's existence, in which both arguments for theism and atheism ( it's oppisite ), have been critiqued and theism has been shown to be more plausible than atheism. Therefore providing good grounds for premise one. Since there are never good arguments for atheism.
Critical argumentation is more than just someones oppinion, and i hope your not confusing the negator for theism as agnostacism.
@acceptjesusorburn You didn't add anything substantial in this comment. You simply pointed to some authority suggesting that you are right because some other people say so.
From where does this "cumulative case" start? It better not start with another set of assumptions.
"Since there are never good arguments for atheism." There are never good arguments for cake either. Or hammers.
I've also noticed that you avoid certain questions. That doesn't help your credibility.
"There are never good arguments for cake either. Or hammers."
The word cake or hammers are true by there referential nature, In fact you could make a brilliant argument for the existence of a cake or hammer. Although we dont hear of A-cakers or A-hammers. Atheism is NOT true to some refference of nature, self referential arguments for things like atheism, naturalism and scientism are blatently fallacious and yet your satisfied in using them.
No.. i assumed you used the ,"never good arguments for cake either. analogy for atheism which needed to be shown as a misrepresentation of atheism.
I have no idea what you even mean by "Barbher" so im agnostic to the proposition, How can i be both atheist and theist simultaneously?
I would love to explain to me how this "Barbher" is not only equally, but even more compatible with the Kalam than Yahweh. Since Yahweh is 100% compatible is Barbher 101% compatible? sigh...
"I'm hoping you could tell me why Allah is not the real god?"
God is not exclusive in his representations of both Yahweh and Allah, since they are incomatible with each other. Definitive historic arguments could be made namely, the role of the historical Jesus in Christianity and Islam, in which oppising views could be debated via reliablitity of their sourced data. Also the moral philosophy and theology of particular claims can be critiqued on logical plausibility.
This is not a question of God's existence, this is a question of why Allah is not the most plausible representation of God. I can point you in a number of directions, however i don't think you would be familiar enough in the relevant topics to really think critically about my arguments to try to formulate plausible objections.
Lol the irony of an atheist trying to use Islam against Christianity to prove atheism. I've already told and shown you why these are not good arguments.
@acceptjesusorburn 1. I'm not an atheist. 2. I've never tried to prove atheism. 3. Atheism can't be proved.
What use are you to Christianity? You put your armour on and crawl into your corner dead set on defense. I'm looking for a compelling argument for Christianity. Something challenging and exciting. You only prove yourself juvenile and arrogant while hiding behind authorities. Probably works for you but to Christianity you're doing more harm than good.
Atheism can be proven to be the case if naturalism is true. If you defend naturalism you defend Atheism. Maybe you prefer to call yourself a naturalist since you feel it more suitible to be discribed by what you do believe rather than what you don't believe.
Belief in God is connected to the most important existential questions about reality, and provides validity in mataphysical and proper basic beliefs. I don't play the "convince me" game to "compel" ignorant people.
@acceptjesusorburn Kalams seems to rely on the impossibility of infinite regress. The "thinkers" base this on intuition(!). To use this argument you have to disprove infinity. No one has a clue how to do that. Not even in theory.
Kalam is based upon the big bang model, creation ex nihilo. Which is the prevailing cosmological model for the early universe. Infinities are used in mathematics and quantum mechanics, as tools for resolving contradictions, they don't represent actual reality. Actual infinities, such as infinite regresions of "past events", seen in fluctuating models of the universe are obviously problematic and less plausible. Actual infinities always lead to contradictory resolutions.
@acceptjesusorburn The big bang model isn't even pinned down. Few scientists today see it as the actual starting point without a "before". Nothing is really known about big bang being created ex nihilo. To base Kalam's on the BB is to base it on something temporal and unreliable.
"Actual infinities are obviously problematic and less plausible"
"Actual infinities always lead to contradictory resolutions"
The prevailing "Big Bang" model establishes the singularity as the litteral beginning of space AND TIME, quantm theorists, even the great Stephen Hawking develop theorems to explain creation from nothing. A time before time doesn't explain the universe's existence.
Logic shows us that infinities do not resolve in actual reality, for example if someone were to collect infinity baseball cards, and then decide to give away all of the odd ones, they would double infinity. Opinions?
What kind of evidence would that be? What are your evidence showing that the god Barbher doesn't exist? If you can't disprove Barbher I guess both of us have to assume there's a good chance he actually exists?
"What are your evidence showing that the god Barbher doesn't exist?"
I know nothing about the properties of such an entity therefore how can i formulate an argument against it?
However,
If the proposition that the god Barbher is true (a), and God (b) is true ( a + b = r ) and r is false, then either a or b is false. (r) is false due to some logical contraditcion.
Alvin is not suggesting that theists should believe that the mind is infallible. Theists can have false beliefs, of course. The Christian doctrine would be that we are made in the image of God, but that sin has damaged us, broken us to some extent, so that our minds are themselves no longer perfect. This would be the logical Christian position.
On the materialistic side however, Alvin isn't just suggesting that we are sometimes wrong in minor ways. He is eroding reason completely.
@idky1349 I haven't seen the entire lecture yet, but I'm gonna take a stab at this one, anyhow. I'm not sure which portion that you're referring to, but I imagine he is saying that logic, not the mind, is infallible. Your second point would, therefore, follow as a consequence. If you could cite the particular time in the lecture that you're referring to I may be able to offer a better answer. :)
Darwinism should be thrown into the trash can where it belongs. It's completely impotent to explain the high degree of sequence specificity in DNA, which is essential to get functioning proteins, and you need dozens of proteins for a functioning cell, and all this comes causally prior to the action of natural selection.
A philosopher need not have to treat this sorry excuse of a "theory" with any kind of respect.
@137P0359997 Plantinga is a poor example of a contemporary philosopher. The Plantinga/Craig breed are essentially just glorified apologists, and I really don't see them as contributing to the total of human knowledge at all (to put it mildly). There are many reputable philosophers who take science very seriously (to Craig/Plantinga it's little more than an amusing distraction) and integrate it into the heart of their worldviews. These are the much-reviled naturalists.
@archon88 I don't think Craig is in the same league as Plantinga, frankly. I find him much more persuasive, irenic, subtle and fair-minded, even if I don't agree with him on absolutely everything.
the ignorance and sophistry involved in the "arguments" of pastor Plantinga is quite revealing of the sorry state Christian apologetics.
Darwinism IS a theory that describes a naturalistic process, you moron. If God guided it, it's not Darwinism. If you don't like it, propose one of your own and subject it to peer review!
PZ Mayers was right: this "pretentious clow" does "give philosophy a bad name"
@XForceBowhunter unlike you, I actually tried to point out Plantinga's fallacy.
as for the "sophist" part, I was reffering to his insistence that a Christian comes to the table of an argument (whether it's evolition or not) ALREADY accepting that God has a hand in it, and s/he doesn't have to justify (says pastor Plantinga) such a presuppostion any more than one has to justify a belief there's an external world..
now you see why few (apart from his fellow fideists) take him seriously
Yes, but calling someone a sophist isn't pointing out a fallacy. And, if you want further "sophistry", the process of evolution IS guided, at the very least by the laws of physics. So perhaps you'd better think of a better definition of "unguided" to describe Darwinian evolution.
It could also be said that atheists come to the table with the presupposition that something can truly be "unguided" and random, when this typically signifies a hole in all other theories.
The arguments are plausible. I would like to aks prof. Plantinga how then he imagines this cognitive handicap works in our reasoning. For instance, Euclidean geometry - are the axioms wrong? Is the pitagorean theorem wrong? Or are the laws of logic that we consider to be correct in fact incorrect? And how about our senses? Is what I consider to be a book in fact a stone or sth? I can't imagine how it could be possible.
@themanofearth Now you have argued the fallacy of consequences and ad hominem. My mention of Plantinga's credentials was actually a valid response to your denigration. You attempt to solely blame religion for the conflict thesis, then dismiss NOMA? Way to perpetuate the conflict.
ok seriously..i know that as a Christian i am supposed to love and accept others, but i just dont understand why athiests waist their lives debating, arguing, and even commenting on youtube over something they dont even believe in...? because there is something deeper inside of them that pursues them to do so...?
@camthejock It's mostly because secular and atheist activists really don't like it when religious people force their beliefs on us and others through politics. Christians (nor any other religious group) is capable of justifying their beliefs without resorting to unfounded, unsupported, and unreasonable claims about the nature of the universe and I really wouldn't care if it didn't affect me or anyone else who didn't want to be affected by it.
@themanofearth Where are you that you are having Christian beliefs forced on you? Are you forced to declare Jesus Lord, go to church, pray, read the Bible, abide by Christian ethics, etc.?
You cry oppression while advocating it against those you disagree with. You say Christianity is forced on you politically, then cheer when govt drives people of faith out of the public square & establishes a forced cultural and governmental atheism on the 90% that don't buy your world view. What a hypocrite.
@Qorlaq "Are you forced to declare Jesus Lord, go to church, pray, read the Bible, abide by Christian ethics, etc.?" Declare, no. Church, no. Pray, no. Read, no. Ethics, yes. Funding for stem cell research (the most promising branch of medical research known to man) is being blocked by "Christian ethics". Abortion is only an issue because of "Christian ethics". The government spending MY money on the national day of prayer is caused by "Christian ethics". Shall I go on? I can for quite some time
@Qorlaq I "cheer" when government remains secular (i.e. inclusive of ALL people not the "ethics" of a specific religion) and that's NOT driving "people of faith" out of the public square. You're more than welcome to take the public square as long as your ethics (which is the foundation of politics) are inclusive and not tribal.
"Christian (or any religious) ethics" are tribalistic by their very nature thus they MUST be excluded in an equality based political arena.
@themanofearth Stem cell research is thriving & coming up with numerous treatments for many horrible diseases & conditions. You are talking about embryonic stem cell research which has produced NOTHING to benefit anyone other than the ones being paid for it.
(This is not referring to women who have had abortions but those that advocate this death cult) Abortion is an issue because a demented portion of the populace revel in child sacrifice & hold it as a sacred & lucrative sacrament.
@themanofearth In addition to your desire to continue to force child sacrifice on us, you then say that we are welcome in the public square only if we abandon our ethics for your debauched version. Otherwise, we must be kept out of government and kept from voting?
What a vile bigot of a tyrant you would be. You need serious help because you are a twisted individual.
@Qorlaq Why am I a twisted individual? I would never deprive anyone of their religious beliefs even if I could. Nor would I force my position on anyone unless they were either harming others with their position or forcing their position on me and even then I would only do so to keep it from effecting other people and NOT if it were only effecting the person who held that position. i.e. Anyone's right to swing their fist (impose their beliefs) ends where my (or anyone els's) nose begins.
@themanofearth No, you wouldn't deny them their beliefs so long as they keep them locked away from public view and act contrary to them when involved in culture or politics.
Let me amend what I posted, your thinking is twisted. I just assume, by extension that your thinking is reflective of who you are.
@Qorlaq You're as free to express your beliefs as I am, to have them effect culture and convert anyone they wish to your religion if you can. I will defend your right to preach in a public square with my life if necessary. In politics however, if you cannot justify your beliefs to everyone - which in the case of religion, by definition, you cannot and this includes non-believers & believers of different faiths - how can you justly apply them to politics (i.e. everyone) while insuring equality?
@Qorlaq But I can see that I'm going to have to continue on with the "Christian ethics" thing. I'm an atheist and according to article 6 of the Constitution I should be able to run for office but because I'm an atheist it would be comical to think I can win an election due to "Christian ethics". My friend was fired from his job for being an atheist because of "Christian ethics". The teaching of evolution (and thereby science) in schools is being attacked every single day due to"Christian ethics"
@themanofearth I don't see why a Christian ethic that encourages liberty for individuals making it possible for an atheist to be elected is comical. Maybe it's just too subtle for me.
Your friend, unless he was a pastor of a church or something related, shouldn't have been fired for that, but it has nothing to do with Christian ethics.
Another bit of twisted thinking, equating theories of common descent of all life & science. Atheistic naturalism and it's creation myth are what is attacked.
@Qorlaq The stated reason for my friend being fired was that he was not a Christian and he was a teacher in a public school.
Evolution is the scientific theory the underpins ALL of Biology. Without the theory of evolution, modern biology does not exist. To attack the teaching of the theory of evolution is to attack the teaching of biology as a science, period. Naturalism does not have creation myths & by definition cannot. I suggest you engage in less religious discussions & pick up philosophy.
@Qorlaq " You are talking about embryonic stem cell research which has produced NOTHING to benefit anyone other than the ones being paid for it." Then you're sorely miss informed.
The issue with abortion is not and has never been about the sacrifice of children but about the mitigation of suffering. The "sacrifice of children" tripe is what's piped into the media by opponents of abortion by religiously minded people who claim that humanity begins (through the injection of the soul) at conception
@themanofearth If I'm misinformed, show me the great advancements that ESCR has produced. I can give you a substantial list for ASCR. Go to stemcellresearchfacts(dot)org
Whose suffering is mitigated by the use of abortion as retroactive birth control? Child sacrifice is a perfectly valid description. They are almost entirely (98%) sacrificed for convenience, career, lifestyle, promiscuity, selfishness, etc. You need to examine your own tripe on these issues & stop being a propaganda parrot.
@Qorlaq "Whose suffering is mitigated by the use of abortion as retroactive birth control?" bla bla bla For a more or less complete expression of my position (and a more or less complete refutation of your "child sacrifice" position) go to my video titled:
@Qorlaq On the "ESCR" we still need access to embryonic stem cells because the study of iPS cells is in its infancy, and the reprogramming approach may have serious limitations. The standard technique to create iPS cells uses viruses to transfer the reprogramming genes. The viruses cause genetic defects that predispose the reprogrammed cells to cancer. ASCR only means research will move slower and more deaths & suffering will accrue in the meantime. i.e. You're basically killing/torturing people
@camthejock whoops that's was really sloppy on my part... "Christians (nor any other religious group) is capable..." should have been, "Christians along with other religious groups have so far been incapable..."
@camthejock If Christians were peaceful, stayed out of other people's lives and stopped resisting to ban stem cell research (for instance) I'm sure things would look different.
@DrHowbeit Christians are peaceful (at least they're supposed to be), and stem cell research (aka the murder of newborns) has nothing to do with it. Many atheists are un-peaceful and way too angry, but you dont usually see Christians waisting their time on atheist youtube videos. lol
@camthejock Good one. But I find it much easier to be good and thoughtful of others without Jesus. More people should try a life without the guilt, shame and insufficiency that Christianity breeds.
@DrHowbeit Nice one. But "good" does not exist without God. What you call good is just a bi-product of sociological and biological evolution. Without a transcendent anchor for moral absolutes, there is NO objective right or wrong. Everything becomes socially and culturally relative. Without a moral standard we cannot say that things like rape, murder, abuse, and torture, are really wrong. What we call "love" would just be a random bio-chemical reaction occuring in our brain. So please, try Jesus
@camthejock I don't see how morality can stem from the Bible. Thou shalt not kill it says, but if God orders you to kill then it's just. Good and bad are shifting.
For a good refutation of God's existence from a logical-probabilistic angle, I recommend Colin Howson's new book "Objecting to God", where he also criticises some of Plantinga's arguments.
tty2020 3 days ago
If even conservative Republican Christian Dinesh D'Souza can believe in evolution, it's time to adopt theistic evolution! Francis Collins and Ken Miller are other examples of theistic evolutionists that are devout Christians.
Thoughtitorium 1 week ago
Comment removed
cazopy 2 months ago
Comment removed
cazopy 2 months ago
When he says "thesis" i get the impression of "feces" as in "excrement".
MrVirtualCoder 2 months ago
I've dealt with some of Plantinga's arguments:
watch?v=pZP9zBpkL7w
zarkoff45 2 months ago
can someone please explain to me again why Plantinga thinks that Naturalism and Evolution are incompatible?
RomaZeal 3 months ago
@RomaZeal Summary: he thinks that belief in truth does not hold survival value thus cannot be explained with natural selection, and that would mean its existence depends on the supernatural.
pedroamaralcouto 2 months ago
@pedroamaralcouto There's no evidence that truth value depends on the supernatural. You have to have a case for your position, not an either-or fallacy. There might be other options that no one is smart enough to think of. True beliefs help us navigate the world, surviving, having sex, and doing things that allow us to achieve these goals of our genes. Usually people find the purpose in their lives in what allows them to get survival and sex, like money, sports, music, friends.
Thoughtitorium 1 week ago
@pedroamaralcouto Even if it were true that truth didn't have survival value, we could still develop an interest in it. Truth-seeking cognitive technology can be developed from brain structures that were evolved for other purposes.
Thoughtitorium 1 week ago
@Thoughtitorium And I agree you.
pedroamaralcouto 5 days ago
@RomaZeal "why Plantinga thinks that Naturalism and Evolution are incompatible?"
He thinks that evolution necessarily implies, if our brains evolved and mind is only what brain does then, our beliefs can not be reliable. If our beliefs are not reliable how can we trust them? And naturalism is a belief.
I did a video series on it:
watch?v=eU-wpNOyuas
zarkoff45 2 months ago
@zarkoff45 This just means that we need to work hard at finding the truth. Plantinga wants the easy way out, but it's a mirage. Philosophy and science were designed to overcome our perceptual limitations, they are cognitive tools that have worked extraordinarily well and should continue to be used. Naturalism is the most reasonable worldview because science and philosophy work and supernaturalism has zero evidence supporting it. Supernaturalism is just a dream -- wake up.
Thoughtitorium 1 week ago
@Thoughtitorium Naturalism and materialism don't work, they place artificial constraints upon the search for truth. The Laws of Nature did not exist until the universe existed. So, it follows that the cause of the universe was outside of nature, hence super-natural. Naturalists and materialists say we should find truth, but to them truth is only truth if it is found within their constraints.
benjaminfair1 1 week ago
@benjaminfair1 You can't do methodologically supernaturalistic science; it would be philosophy. And you're assuming the universe had a cause.
Thoughtitorium 6 days ago
@Thoughtitorium Of course the universe had a cause, this is based on scientific evidence. We know from cosmology that the universe came into being around 13B years ago. I'm only assuming what science has proven.
benjaminfair1 6 days ago
@zarkoff45 Also, Naturalism purports to explain everything according to Natural Laws, but no where has Naturalism been able to explain how evolution began. Darwin's book that began the theory of evolution was entitled "The Origin of Life", but it should've more accurately been named "The Progression of Life" because it does not say the origin of life, only how life forms adapt over time. No where have evolution-based theories ever explained how life began in terms of nature.
benjaminfair1 1 week ago
@benjaminfair1 Scientists are working on explaining the origin of life. What are creationists doing? They go out trying to control society as usual, not even bothering to do any real science. Creationists should be trying to figure out how God created, but all they do is say that he created.
Thoughtitorium 6 days ago
@Thoughtitorium Well, you seem to know the intentions of every creationist alive. I would not make such wide assertions. As I said concerning naturalism, certain scientists only consider it "real science" if they agree with it. Also, who says creationists need to determine how God created the universe? I don't see a need to explain the explanation. That you would resort to that is proof that your logic is flawed and you are grasping at straws.
benjaminfair1 6 days ago
@benjaminfair1 Nope. For example, saying that evolution explains life isn't enough. Explaining how evolution works is what is needed, and that is what Darwin did with the mechanism of natural selection.
Thoughtitorium 6 days ago
@Thoughtitorium Also, if you truly believe naturalism please explain to me the meaning of these letters and words I am typing in terms of the electronics used to display them to you. You can describe to me how the electrical circuitry powers the pixels of your display and forms the letters, but that does nothing to explain how these shapes possess meaning as you comprehend them. There is an intelligence behind them that is apart from their physical components.
benjaminfair1 6 days ago
@benjaminfair1 The meaning of your words are agreed upon by society, we don't need to explain it in terms of the mechanics of engineering. We could explain meaning in terms of cognitive neuroscience, but the social construction explanation is sufficient.
Thoughtitorium 6 days ago
@Thoughtitorium You're missing my point. The meaning of the words is because I put something that you understand, it has meaning. The physical representation wouldn't mean anything without an intelligence behind it. That's exactly the point, you cannot explain things that have an intelligence behind them just by their physical components. This is why naturalism and materialism don't work.
benjaminfair1 3 days ago
@benjaminfair1 //Darwin's book that began the theory of evolution was entitled "The Origin of Life"//
No it wasn't. It was entitled "On The Origin of Species". Seriously, you can't even get the damn title right?
BronyEditor 4 days ago
@BronyEditor Oh, my bad; should've Googled the title. But my point still stands. Did it explain the origin of species (aka life)? No, I think not. It explains the mechanism for how life forms change over time. Meaning it makes an assumption that there are lifeforms in the first place. Try to squirm out of it on a technicality all you want but it will not fill the gap in his theory.
benjaminfair1 3 days ago
Moving2U 3 months ago
@Moving2U Among the fossils that you listed there were only 2 hoaxes (Piltdown man & Archaeoraptor), 2 corrected mistakes (Nebraska man & Orce man), and 2 fossils that took a longer time to classify correctly (Java man & Ramapithecus). There are no problems with the other ones you've listed.
Some scams were attempted, some mistakes were made, yes... But none of them ever threatened the theory in general (in the slightest). Notice, they are not a part of the theory today.
ninanotturna 3 months ago 2
@ninanotturna & dareartes: (Going back far enough) If you really believe that life in general began by the right combination of events and introduction of the right combination of chemicals to form the first living cell (fast forward now) and ultimately resulted in the massively diverse lifeforms that we know of today then you have expotentially more faith than I do as a God fearing human being.
Two words - Intelligent design.
God created man, we did not evolve from a puddle of mud.
Moving2U 3 months ago
@Moving2U "Right combination of events"? "Puddle of mud"? You must be referring to *abiogenesis*. We were talking about evolution. We could open this other complex subject, fine by me, I'd just like to remind you it's another matter altogether.
Believing that evolution occurs doesn't require faith - just a closer look at the facts. What I can gather from what you've said so far, you aren't familiar with it at all... Like your only sources are the opponents of the theory (generally non-experts).
ninanotturna 3 months ago
@Moving2U I agree 100% with what ninanotturna says.
- Intelligent design theory?
I.D. theory is vastly different from creationism you seam to support. I.D. claims that evolution *did* happen! That all life (including us) evolved from common ancestors (says God guided it, but offers no proof for it).
& Why are you jumping to assertions?
I answered all the questions you had for me. Would you be polite enough to answer mine?
- Look at my previous post: How would you know where to draw that line?
dareartes 3 months ago
@Moving2U "Dinosaur - bird evidence"? You have a limited preconception about what "dinosaur" means. Birds *are* dinosaurs. I'd like to know where you get your facts on evolution.
"Fish - reptile evidence"? Have you even looked what the mainstream science says on the topic? Amphibians are the link that you're looking for. If you are searching for something between the fish and an amphibian, look up Lungfish.
ninanotturna 3 months ago
Nice strawman, Alvin. None of the New Atheists insists that the reality of evolution somehow proves that theism is impossible.
ClumsyRoot 3 months ago
He is regarded by many as the greatest philosopher of our time.
NewWaysMusic 4 months ago 2
@NewWaysMusic
By whom?
ClumsyRoot 3 months ago
0:34:35 "Would it be just to teach in public schools positions that go contrary to religious beliefs of most of those who pay for those schools? (...) That would not be just."
- IS THIS CLOWN SERIOUS !?!?!?
Great Alvin, let's not teach science, scientific theories (not hypotheses but accepted theories!), or FACTS in public schools. Let's also censor the history lessons if the truth offends somebody.
ninanotturna 5 months ago
Alvin subscribes to the intelligent design hypothesis (divine guidance of evolution) which is incompatible with the scientific view, so he does 3 things:
1)Tries to undermine the scientific theory by ridiculing "as we now know" (the contemporary understanding) as something untrustworthy.
2)Misrepresents the contemporary theory of evolution (only mentions "random mutations").
3)Claims that the "irreducible complexity" hypothesis has not been successfully refuted (the eye example) whet it has.
ninanotturna 5 months ago
@ninanotturna
Excuse me Einstein, please tell me how it is unscientific to question that all life emerged from one single ancestor...!?
Evolutionary changes within species are a FACT, but that doesn´t at all mean that this process of evolution gives birth to entire niew species, and thus all of life would have emerged from one single ancestor. That´s the whole controversy...
Please show me any hard evidence that all of life emerged from one single ancestor...
tjobv 5 months ago
@tjobv The evidence is overwhelming. You don't know about it because you haven't invested any time in educating yourself about the details of the ACTUAL theory of evolution (not a hypothesis) before you decided not to except it... and have listened to people (like Alvin) who are not experts in the field and/or have decided -a priory- that unguided evolution has to be wrong because it conflicts with their existing belief.
You're not interested in science, you're interested in keeping your faith.
ninanotturna 5 months ago
@ninanotturna
Then i let you have the oppurtunity to educate me about the evidence that all life emerged from one ancestor...
Im a layman...
So show me the evidence!
tjobv 5 months ago
@tjobv Didn't you see what i wrote in my previous comment? Go read it again.
ninanotturna 5 months ago
Comment removed
ninanotturna 5 months ago
Comment removed
ninanotturna 5 months ago
@tjobv Maybe I misunderstood where you're coming from, but if I've read into your question correctly, you're negating the entire theory of evolution (common ancestry), and Alvin here doesn't put that into question at all!
He's arguing for "intelligent design" (magic guidance of evolution), you - magic creationism.
So let's go to AronRa's "Phylogeny Challenge" video where he talks about the evidence.
Replay to my recent comment there, and tell me what you don't agree with in the video. Cheers!
ninanotturna 5 months ago
Comment removed
ninanotturna 5 months ago
@ninanotturna
Theory: A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something.
Hypothesis: A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
Fact is: "evolution" was called a theory by Darwin when in fact it was merely a hypothesis. Either way it has not been proven to be anything more than a creative attempt at explaining how God did what He did. Leave God out of the equation and you have only a theory.
Moving2U 3 months ago
@Moving2U The word *theory* as you define it (and which we indeed use like that in casual speech) is not to be mistaken with the term *scientific theory*.
No scientific theory can EVER be conclusively proven by it's very nature.
It can only be accepted and used until a more accurate iteration is available.
The theory of evolution, general relativity, electromagnetism, gravity... are all like that.
You can dismiss them all "as only a theory" if it makes you feel nice.
ninanotturna 3 months ago
@ninanotturna You missed my point. The theory of evolution has been proven to be invalid by many secular scientists. There is ZERO supporting evidense for evolution. The "evidense" that is available has caused many atheist scientists to come to believe that there is a higher power that designed the universe. Believe what you want but don't spout it as reliable. We were fearfully and wonderfully and intelligently created, wait 50 years and you wil believe it too, or whenever you die and see God.
Moving2U 3 months ago
@Moving2U "Proven to be invalid"?
I researched the subject, but didn't come across any such proofs.
Please, tell me more about it.
"Zero supporting evidenCe"?
Modern phylogenetic taxonomy is supported and (more importantly) used (!) every day in all fields of biology and biochemistry. From microbiology & genetic engineering to zoology & medical research... so what do you mean by "unreliable"?
...And until 2 of us die and actually see your God (or not), I'll go with the evidence.
ninanotturna 3 months ago
@ninanotturna Micro evolution i.e. minor changes and adaptations are apparent throughout "nature".
Site just one instance of "macro evolution", i.e. one family/genus morphing into another entirely. There is none. Most of the "missing link" examples have all been proven to be mistakes or out right hoaxes. Ultimately you believe that if you trace your lineage back far enough then you share ancestry with a turnip or a snail or a germ. Darwin theorised that but there is no proof to that fantasy.
Moving2U 3 months ago
@Moving2U You haven't answered my question - please point me to the proofs.
I'll be happy to answer yours:
Felidae (family of cats) evolved from Miacids that lived 60 - 55 million years ago. The whole family has this (now extinct) species as a common ancestor. First species descended from Miacids to be classified as a felid (a true cat) was Proailurnus (also extinct, lived 25 million years ago).
Details, sources, references: wwwDOTmessybeastDOTcom/cat-prehistoryDOThtm
Fact, no controversy.
ninanotturna 3 months ago
@ninanotturna 25 million years ago? lol. macro evolution? who says?
Moving2U 3 months ago
@Moving2U Who says? The scientific community apparently.
It's a joint effort of thousands of dedicated people working in different fields across the world over the last 100 years. Archeologists, zoologist, biologists, geologists, chemists, geneticists... you know - real scientists doing the practical work.
You're asking specifically about the age? Look up "radiometric dating". Several different methods are used in mutually independent labs to avoid any bias.
You didn't answer my question again.
ninanotturna 3 months ago
@Moving2U About this "macro evolution" as you call it (modern science makes no such distinction)...
How far would you trace the linage of dogs such as a poodle, a chiwawa & a pekingese?
You think they have a common ancestor with the Tibetan Mastiff (can weigh up to 280 pounds)?
In your opinion, do dogs (as domesticated animals ) have a wild ancestor and what would that be?
dareartes 3 months ago
@dareartes they are the same creature. canus lupis familiaris aka dog is a domesticated grey wolf. All canines share the same dna, they have been breed (micro evolution) to retain desired traights. Macro evolution would involve one dna mutating into another resulting in a new species. There is zero evidense of that ever happening. Outside of the theory of evolution, science maintains that information is lost, never gained. Randomness breeds chaos, never order.
Moving2U 3 months ago
@Moving2U So your definition of "macro evolution" has 2 parts:
1)"one DNA mutating into another" & 2)"resulting in a new species"?
One DNA mutates into another every time a new offspring is conceived. DNA even changes over a life-span of one individual, so that part is pretty useless... Therefore, you're left with the second statement. Clarify the term *species* please:
Are a poodle, a Buffalo wolf, a coyote and a Fennec fox the same species as the raccoon dog?
And please, define *information*.
dareartes 3 months ago
@dareartes You're right, you are too smart for me. Darn and i thought i was going to fool you. I guess evolution wins.
If you really believe that the human genome of an individual changes over his life time, then we are wasting each others time conversing. We are not on equal footing and will get nowhere. Go in peace.
Moving2U 3 months ago
@Moving2U Human DNA has up to 30 mutations in a lifetime = Not a theory, but an observed testable fact:
wwwDOThhmiDOTorg/genetictrail/d100DOThtml
...Why the sarcasm? I'm not insulting you, I'm not shouting at you or over you.
I'm paying attention to what you're saying, responding as best as I can, asking you relevant questions, really trying to understand where you stand. Hey, I may even find out I'm wrong on something. Why would you blow me off?
dareartes 3 months ago
@Moving2U You still haven't answered my question. What is this "proof that invalidates evolution" you were talking about yesterday? I want to investigate it. Please?
And I'd like to hear your answer to DAREARTES's questions too. I'm honestly curios how someone who denies evolution views the evolutionary taxonomy... or how would you call it - taxonomy of the animal (& floral) kingdom. I too may learn something.
ninanotturna 3 months ago
@ninanotturna We must be talking apples and oranges. There is one specific DNA sequence that belongs to:
Animalia
Chordata
Mammalia
Primates
Hominidae
Homo
Sapien
I.E. "man" or "human".
I'm not talking the gene that makes one's eyes blue vs brown, I'm talking the DNA sequence that makes us human. All dogs from yorkie to mastiff to grey wolf have the same dna (canis lupis familiaris). Diversity within species does not equate to a new species. Adaptation is not macro evolution.
Moving2U 3 months ago
@Moving2U I assume you wrote that for DAREARTES, but...
Identical twins is the only time when DNA is the same in 2 different individuals or animals - and even then, it will slightly mutate over the years as DAREARTES pointed out.
Your DNA is more similar to the ones that are more closely related to you: close family>distant family>ethnicity>race>subspecies>species>...
Same with dogs.
ninanotturna 3 months ago
@Moving2U That wasn't my question, I was very specific:
Poodle / Buffalo wolf / coyote / Fennec fox / racoon dog... =same species?
You seam to think that they are, and that the whole Canidae family is simply one species.
Do you think that of all the biological families?
Are all the Anatidae simply just one "species"?
Are the Anseriformes one "species"?
How about the Galloanserae? Aves? Avialae? Paraves? Aviremigia? Maniraptora?
Where do you draw the line? & far more importantly: Why there?
dareartes 3 months ago
@tjobv I apologize. It was rude of me to assume you're not open to questioning your beliefs. You asked me for evidence & that's fair, but I don't have the will or the time to forcibly educate you through debate... & I don't think something like that is possible - you only learn if you wanna learn.
So if you're really interested, I can point you to some books, but maybe the easiest place to start is AronRa's "Foundational Falsehood of Creationism" series. Start with No.6 - Google it. Good luck
ninanotturna 5 months ago
We are VERY blessed to have Alvin Plantinga with us. Thanks to the Lord Jesus.
mkamoski1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Richard Carrier, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
zytigon 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
Good to know: There are 21 major religions in the world. Alvin grew up in a christian family in a christian country (USA). His father was an immigrant from a then christian country (Netherlands) and earned a Ph.D. in philosophy from a christian university (Duke). Alvin studied at Jamestown college (christian) and Calvin college (christian) and is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame (christian). Biola university is also christian.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit
Alvin must have never had the chance in his life to think about his religion and why he believes in it right?
There are 21 major religions in the world, they cant all be true therefore they're all false right?
acceptjesusorburn 6 months ago
@acceptjesusorburn Hello. Alvin has had a lot of time to think about christianity. It's a massive field. Consider that scholars spend a lifetime studying The Bible. Apart from the book you need to study history, archeology, theology, philosophy, science and so forth. There's no practical chanse to study the alternatives, such as islam, hinduism or buddhism, within the same timeframe. Therefor you can only hope that the first religion you learned to follow was the right religion.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit
I don't see any reasons to think this to be true at all. All people in the world are faced with the same challenge of understanding the phenomena of existence and developing a worldview. Just as any honest Christian would wonder "is what a believe about the world true?" so should an honest atheist or muslim. And i think we can solve that more easily than aquiring equal and total knowledge of the various named fields for all religions.
acceptjesusorburn 6 months ago
@acceptjesusorburn The objective way, if your religion is not ingrained from the start, is to line up all the belief systems and conclude which source is backed up by evidence. If there is no evidence there's no reason to follow that particular track further. There is no evidence for miracles in any religion. If you have evidence, take it to the lab. Ancient books are convincing to people brought up to believe in it. For the rest of us it's another ancient book.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit
We allready know that scientific verificationism fails to answer many important existential questions. Claims like ,"There is no evidence for miracles in any religion.", or " They're all just ancient stories". Are not fair or particularly honest intellectual positions. Credible professionals such as "Dr. William Lane Craig" and "Gary Herbamas" adopted thiesm and Christianity later in life. I don't see why it should be true that people are convinced "only" because they are told so.
acceptjesusorburn 6 months ago
@acceptjesusorburn "scientific fails answer important questions" > I can't see your point. Just because there are questions science can't answer (yet?) doesn't make your God more or less real.
"not honest intellectual positions". > Well, intellectual or not, it's a fact. What can I say?
"adopted Christianity later in life" > Yes, there are a few cases like that. But look at the big picture. Religion correlates with geography and culture. Hard to deny.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit
"questions science can't answer (yet?)" > it's not a question of "yet", existential values, ethical and aesthetic values, metaphysical thruths, all as important to our condition as the 5 senses, are not scientifically accessible.
Since science only studies the natural world, science cannot be used to prove that the natural world is all that exists, therefore the person that says only the natural world exists cannot prove it scientifically. "having your cake and eating it".
acceptjesusorburn 6 months ago
@acceptjesusorburn I get the feeling you assume we have reached the peak of knowledge. What did we know 100 years ago about quantum mechanics, dna, the subconscious, the big bang etc? Things we couldn't imagine. 100 years from now we will know things we can't imagine today. How about some humility?
But that's besides the point. Your scepticism towards science doesn't prove your God over any other God or abstract idea.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@acceptjesusorburn "I don't see why it should be true that people are convinced "only" because they are told so"
Eh, why not? It's known as influence of environment. Most people are brought up to fall in line with the majority. It's convenient and your worldview gets confirmed over and over. 100 years ago it was understood that negroes were inferior. Why? Because people were told so.
You got something I can chew on? Is Jesus guilty for the bloodshed in The Old T if he and Yahweh is the same?
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit
"Eh, why not?"
If you thought more critically about what you are saying you would realise that you are commiting a "genetic fallacy", showing the origin of a belief says nothing about it's truth value. In any case i gave two examples of credentials against the idea that a belief is "only" developed from the majority. While it is the case the "religious pluralism" is false, we should not commit the fallacy of "throwing the baby out with the bath water", That would be irrational.
acceptjesusorburn 6 months ago
@acceptorburn I think you need to take a second look at "genetic fallacy". It's a fallacy if the origin is false or irrelevant. The fact that P was born in a christian country, brought up in a christian family and educated at christian schools is not irrelevant to the fact that he's christian. Moving on, why is P wearing a shirt and suit jacket in this video and not a galabiyya? Why is he a monogamist and not a polyganist? Why is he speaking english and not iranian? Same answer to all of them.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit
I think you need to take a third look at what a genetic fallacy is, it is in fact coming to a conclusion that a belief is false based soley on it's origin,.
eg. -"The fact that P was born in a christian country, brought up in a christian family and educated at christian schools "
eg.-" Most people are brought up to fall in line with the majority."
These do not tell us if P's beliefs are more false or more true, unless your "begging the question". which would be irrational.
acceptjesusorburn 6 months ago
@acceptjesusorburn "based soley on it's origin"
Not my words. I never claimed to have some absolute proof explaining why Plantinga is a christian.
I'm curious to know how you would explain that 99% of the citizens of Tehran (capital of Iran) are muslim. Look out for the "genetic fallacy".
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit
Why are you giving me examples of how science has studied the natural world?i repeat
-"science only studies the natural world therefore science cannot be used to prove that the natural world is all that exists"
Understanding the philosophy of science does not lead to scientific skepticism, i gave clear and coherant examples of what science cannot account for. Like most athiests, you know of no good evidence against belief in God but you argue with straw men.
acceptjesusorburn 6 months ago
@acceptjesusorburn What kind of an argument is this? Science doesn't claim to be able to explain everything, not today, perhaps not ever. How does that help your case? Like I said it doesn't prove your God over any other God or abstract idea.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit
"What kind of an argument is this?">
Unfortunatly many atheists carry the baggage of scientism and naturalism into their argumentation when addressing the proposition of the existence of God. These are proven to be false premise for the existence of God.
A good argument is as follows.
-doesnt need to prove its conclusion with 100% certainty
-obeys the rules of logic
-it's premesis are true.
-premises are more plausible than their oppisites.
acceptjesusorburn 6 months ago
@acceptjesusorburn "These are proven to be false premise for the existence of God."
Says who?
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit
""false premise for the existence of God." Says who?
Sigh.. "science only studies the natural world therefore science cannot be used to prove that the natural world is all that exists.", therefore logic says.
The fact is religious pluralism is false, therefore majority of the people on the planet believe in false religions due to logical contradictions. However this says nothing about the truth value of any religion in particular, and neither do useless fallacious arguments.
acceptjesusorburn 6 months ago
@acceptjesusorburn ""science only studies the natural world"
What do we know about the "unnatural world"? Look at your other comment:
""I know nothing about the properties of such an entity therefore how can i formulate an argument against it?"
You seem to realize that we can't disprove that which we have no knowledge about. We're both fumbling around
because you have to provide some evidence supporting your claim before a meaningful discussion can take off.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit
We do know of properties that God has, that he is personal, immaterial, monstrously powerful, timeless, spaceless, creative, being, these are necessary truths derived from the Kalam cosmological argument, which is a deductive argument, not assumptions..
And thats not even bridging into Christian theology and moral phillosophy.
"What do we know about the "unnatural world"?">
Theres a difference between supernatural and unnatural so smart up please.
acceptjesusorburn 6 months ago
@acceptjesusorburn Is there a particular version of the Kalam cosmological argument that you prefer?
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@acceptjesusorburn "false religions due to logical contradictions"
Can you give some concrete examples of such logical contradictions?
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit
"Can you give some concrete examples of such logical contradictions?"
its quite clear that religious pluralism is false.
Hinduism: many gods exist.
Islam: only one god exist.
Are exclusive contradictions. Remember the negative of theism is atheism not agnosticism, making arguments against theism gives atheism the burden of proof. If a burden of proof cannot be defended, the result is a less plausible atheism.. as you have shown to be the case.
acceptjesusorburn 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@acceptjesusorburn Your atheism towards Barbher failed to deliver arguments. Thus your atheism towards Barbher were made "less plausible". Barbher is also supported by the Kalam cosmological argument. Even more so than Yawheh.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@acceptjesusorburn I'm still curious to know how you would explain that 99% of the citizens of Tehran (capital of Iran) are muslim.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@acceptjesusorburn Thanks for the list.
"it's premesis are true."
Take a look at Plantinga's ontological argument.
"1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists."
That's not a true premise. That's an opinion.
"premises are more plausible than their opposites."
Christians are the only ones finding their premises more plausible than their opposites.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit
The ontological argument is normally used along with a cumulative case for God's existence, in which both arguments for theism and atheism ( it's oppisite ), have been critiqued and theism has been shown to be more plausible than atheism. Therefore providing good grounds for premise one. Since there are never good arguments for atheism.
Critical argumentation is more than just someones oppinion, and i hope your not confusing the negator for theism as agnostacism.
acceptjesusorburn 6 months ago
@acceptjesusorburn You didn't add anything substantial in this comment. You simply pointed to some authority suggesting that you are right because some other people say so.
From where does this "cumulative case" start? It better not start with another set of assumptions.
"Since there are never good arguments for atheism." There are never good arguments for cake either. Or hammers.
I've also noticed that you avoid certain questions. That doesn't help your credibility.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit
SIGHHH...
"There are never good arguments for cake either. Or hammers."
The word cake or hammers are true by there referential nature, In fact you could make a brilliant argument for the existence of a cake or hammer. Although we dont hear of A-cakers or A-hammers. Atheism is NOT true to some refference of nature, self referential arguments for things like atheism, naturalism and scientism are blatently fallacious and yet your satisfied in using them.
acceptjesusorburn 6 months ago
@acceptjesusorburn
You manage to misconstrue a perfectly nonsensical statement. I won't even go into that.
Instead I'm hoping you could tell me why Allah is not the real god?
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit
No.. i assumed you used the ,"never good arguments for cake either. analogy for atheism which needed to be shown as a misrepresentation of atheism.
I have no idea what you even mean by "Barbher" so im agnostic to the proposition, How can i be both atheist and theist simultaneously?
I would love to explain to me how this "Barbher" is not only equally, but even more compatible with the Kalam than Yahweh. Since Yahweh is 100% compatible is Barbher 101% compatible? sigh...
acceptjesusorburn 6 months ago
Comment removed
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit
"I'm hoping you could tell me why Allah is not the real god?"
God is not exclusive in his representations of both Yahweh and Allah, since they are incomatible with each other. Definitive historic arguments could be made namely, the role of the historical Jesus in Christianity and Islam, in which oppising views could be debated via reliablitity of their sourced data. Also the moral philosophy and theology of particular claims can be critiqued on logical plausibility.
acceptjesusorburn 6 months ago
@acceptjesusorburn Not a shred of resolute argument in this comment either. Just pointing in any number of directions.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit
This is not a question of God's existence, this is a question of why Allah is not the most plausible representation of God. I can point you in a number of directions, however i don't think you would be familiar enough in the relevant topics to really think critically about my arguments to try to formulate plausible objections.
Lol the irony of an atheist trying to use Islam against Christianity to prove atheism. I've already told and shown you why these are not good arguments.
acceptjesusorburn 6 months ago
@acceptjesusorburn 1. I'm not an atheist. 2. I've never tried to prove atheism. 3. Atheism can't be proved.
What use are you to Christianity? You put your armour on and crawl into your corner dead set on defense. I'm looking for a compelling argument for Christianity. Something challenging and exciting. You only prove yourself juvenile and arrogant while hiding behind authorities. Probably works for you but to Christianity you're doing more harm than good.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit
Atheism can be proven to be the case if naturalism is true. If you defend naturalism you defend Atheism. Maybe you prefer to call yourself a naturalist since you feel it more suitible to be discribed by what you do believe rather than what you don't believe.
Belief in God is connected to the most important existential questions about reality, and provides validity in mataphysical and proper basic beliefs. I don't play the "convince me" game to "compel" ignorant people.
acceptjesusorburn 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@acceptjesusorburn Kalams seems to rely on the impossibility of infinite regress. The "thinkers" base this on intuition(!). To use this argument you have to disprove infinity. No one has a clue how to do that. Not even in theory.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit
Kalam is based upon the big bang model, creation ex nihilo. Which is the prevailing cosmological model for the early universe. Infinities are used in mathematics and quantum mechanics, as tools for resolving contradictions, they don't represent actual reality. Actual infinities, such as infinite regresions of "past events", seen in fluctuating models of the universe are obviously problematic and less plausible. Actual infinities always lead to contradictory resolutions.
acceptjesusorburn 6 months ago
Comment removed
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@acceptjesusorburn The big bang model isn't even pinned down. Few scientists today see it as the actual starting point without a "before". Nothing is really known about big bang being created ex nihilo. To base Kalam's on the BB is to base it on something temporal and unreliable.
"Actual infinities are obviously problematic and less plausible"
"Actual infinities always lead to contradictory resolutions"
This is not even arguments. This is opinions.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit
The prevailing "Big Bang" model establishes the singularity as the litteral beginning of space AND TIME, quantm theorists, even the great Stephen Hawking develop theorems to explain creation from nothing. A time before time doesn't explain the universe's existence.
Logic shows us that infinities do not resolve in actual reality, for example if someone were to collect infinity baseball cards, and then decide to give away all of the odd ones, they would double infinity. Opinions?
acceptjesusorburn 6 months ago
@acceptjesusorburn "evidence against belief in God"
What kind of evidence would that be? What are your evidence showing that the god Barbher doesn't exist? If you can't disprove Barbher I guess both of us have to assume there's a good chance he actually exists?
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
Comment removed
acceptjesusorburn 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit - Rewrite*
"What are your evidence showing that the god Barbher doesn't exist?"
I know nothing about the properties of such an entity therefore how can i formulate an argument against it?
However,
If the proposition that the god Barbher is true (a), and God (b) is true ( a + b = r ) and r is false, then either a or b is false. (r) is false due to some logical contraditcion.
"What kind of evidence would that be?"
-philosophical
-theological
acceptjesusorburn 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@acceptjesusorburn "I know nothing about the properties of such an entity therefore how can i formulate an argument against it?"
Thank you. That's what I've been saying all along. What do you know, actually know, about Yahweh? Can you tell me?
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
I like this guy a lot...he really speaks to the common man, unlike most apologists/atheist scholars.
Grant692 6 months ago
I love this guy!
teahouse100 7 months ago
@ idky1349
Alvin is not suggesting that theists should believe that the mind is infallible. Theists can have false beliefs, of course. The Christian doctrine would be that we are made in the image of God, but that sin has damaged us, broken us to some extent, so that our minds are themselves no longer perfect. This would be the logical Christian position.
On the materialistic side however, Alvin isn't just suggesting that we are sometimes wrong in minor ways. He is eroding reason completely.
SteveChelsea13 7 months ago
Ironically, I think Alvin Plantinga's existence is proof of reincarnation. Lincoln lives again! ;) I kid, I kid....
GeetarAdam 7 months ago
Can someone correct me if I'm wrong...
Plantinga seems to suggest that there's a conflict between naturalism and evotution. The conflict being not being able to "trust ones mind."
(1)Is he suggesting, on the theist view, that the mind is infallible?
(2)Doesn't it make more sense to believe we are fallible and therefore create methods for seeking truth ie science, philosophy etc?
idky1349 8 months ago
@idky1349 I haven't seen the entire lecture yet, but I'm gonna take a stab at this one, anyhow. I'm not sure which portion that you're referring to, but I imagine he is saying that logic, not the mind, is infallible. Your second point would, therefore, follow as a consequence. If you could cite the particular time in the lecture that you're referring to I may be able to offer a better answer. :)
GeetarAdam 7 months ago
@GeetarAdam
im referring specifically to Plantinga's Evolutionary argument against Naturalism. He explains it at about 38:00 and on...
idky1349 7 months ago
@38:50 really states the amazing power of God and his ability to create. Glory be to him amen!
Jmtanner9 8 months ago
At 17:00 Platinga just say his god is lazy or dumb or both.
DemokritosAbdera 8 months ago
two shadows. cool.
luciferschilddddd445 9 months ago in playlist Philosophy of Religion
Is it only me that goes, through the comments and have this terrible feeling to debate and refute the comments ( or trolling ) in youtube ? XD
asusp3v4x 9 months ago
Darwinism should be thrown into the trash can where it belongs. It's completely impotent to explain the high degree of sequence specificity in DNA, which is essential to get functioning proteins, and you need dozens of proteins for a functioning cell, and all this comes causally prior to the action of natural selection.
A philosopher need not have to treat this sorry excuse of a "theory" with any kind of respect.
Jesrael1986M 10 months ago
i'm finally convinced: philosophers are completely useless blabbers.
137P0359997 11 months ago
@137P0359997 Plantinga is a poor example of a contemporary philosopher. The Plantinga/Craig breed are essentially just glorified apologists, and I really don't see them as contributing to the total of human knowledge at all (to put it mildly). There are many reputable philosophers who take science very seriously (to Craig/Plantinga it's little more than an amusing distraction) and integrate it into the heart of their worldviews. These are the much-reviled naturalists.
archon88 10 months ago
@archon88 I don't think Craig is in the same league as Plantinga, frankly. I find him much more persuasive, irenic, subtle and fair-minded, even if I don't agree with him on absolutely everything.
MrDrichards85 10 months ago
the ignorance and sophistry involved in the "arguments" of pastor Plantinga is quite revealing of the sorry state Christian apologetics.
Darwinism IS a theory that describes a naturalistic process, you moron. If God guided it, it's not Darwinism. If you don't like it, propose one of your own and subject it to peer review!
PZ Mayers was right: this "pretentious clow" does "give philosophy a bad name"
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI
Wow, you call him a sophist as you the proceed with your bald assertion fallacies, lol.
Most evangelical atheists like yourself resort to the charge of sophist when you know your opponent has made a valid point.
XForceBowhunter 11 months ago
@XForceBowhunter unlike you, I actually tried to point out Plantinga's fallacy.
as for the "sophist" part, I was reffering to his insistence that a Christian comes to the table of an argument (whether it's evolition or not) ALREADY accepting that God has a hand in it, and s/he doesn't have to justify (says pastor Plantinga) such a presuppostion any more than one has to justify a belief there's an external world..
now you see why few (apart from his fellow fideists) take him seriously
AgeOfReasonXXI 11 months ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI
Yes, but calling someone a sophist isn't pointing out a fallacy. And, if you want further "sophistry", the process of evolution IS guided, at the very least by the laws of physics. So perhaps you'd better think of a better definition of "unguided" to describe Darwinian evolution.
It could also be said that atheists come to the table with the presupposition that something can truly be "unguided" and random, when this typically signifies a hole in all other theories.
XForceBowhunter 11 months ago
The arguments are plausible. I would like to aks prof. Plantinga how then he imagines this cognitive handicap works in our reasoning. For instance, Euclidean geometry - are the axioms wrong? Is the pitagorean theorem wrong? Or are the laws of logic that we consider to be correct in fact incorrect? And how about our senses? Is what I consider to be a book in fact a stone or sth? I can't imagine how it could be possible.
dhfjal 1 year ago
@themanofearth Now you have argued the fallacy of consequences and ad hominem. My mention of Plantinga's credentials was actually a valid response to your denigration. You attempt to solely blame religion for the conflict thesis, then dismiss NOMA? Way to perpetuate the conflict.
frozenjafa 1 year ago
ok seriously..i know that as a Christian i am supposed to love and accept others, but i just dont understand why athiests waist their lives debating, arguing, and even commenting on youtube over something they dont even believe in...? because there is something deeper inside of them that pursues them to do so...?
camthejock 1 year ago 3
@camthejock It's mostly because secular and atheist activists really don't like it when religious people force their beliefs on us and others through politics. Christians (nor any other religious group) is capable of justifying their beliefs without resorting to unfounded, unsupported, and unreasonable claims about the nature of the universe and I really wouldn't care if it didn't affect me or anyone else who didn't want to be affected by it.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth Where are you that you are having Christian beliefs forced on you? Are you forced to declare Jesus Lord, go to church, pray, read the Bible, abide by Christian ethics, etc.?
You cry oppression while advocating it against those you disagree with. You say Christianity is forced on you politically, then cheer when govt drives people of faith out of the public square & establishes a forced cultural and governmental atheism on the 90% that don't buy your world view. What a hypocrite.
Qorlaq 9 months ago
@Qorlaq "Are you forced to declare Jesus Lord, go to church, pray, read the Bible, abide by Christian ethics, etc.?" Declare, no. Church, no. Pray, no. Read, no. Ethics, yes. Funding for stem cell research (the most promising branch of medical research known to man) is being blocked by "Christian ethics". Abortion is only an issue because of "Christian ethics". The government spending MY money on the national day of prayer is caused by "Christian ethics". Shall I go on? I can for quite some time
themanofearth 9 months ago
@Qorlaq I "cheer" when government remains secular (i.e. inclusive of ALL people not the "ethics" of a specific religion) and that's NOT driving "people of faith" out of the public square. You're more than welcome to take the public square as long as your ethics (which is the foundation of politics) are inclusive and not tribal.
"Christian (or any religious) ethics" are tribalistic by their very nature thus they MUST be excluded in an equality based political arena.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth Stem cell research is thriving & coming up with numerous treatments for many horrible diseases & conditions. You are talking about embryonic stem cell research which has produced NOTHING to benefit anyone other than the ones being paid for it.
(This is not referring to women who have had abortions but those that advocate this death cult) Abortion is an issue because a demented portion of the populace revel in child sacrifice & hold it as a sacred & lucrative sacrament.
Cont...
Qorlaq 9 months ago
@themanofearth In addition to your desire to continue to force child sacrifice on us, you then say that we are welcome in the public square only if we abandon our ethics for your debauched version. Otherwise, we must be kept out of government and kept from voting?
What a vile bigot of a tyrant you would be. You need serious help because you are a twisted individual.
Qorlaq 9 months ago
@Qorlaq Why am I a twisted individual? I would never deprive anyone of their religious beliefs even if I could. Nor would I force my position on anyone unless they were either harming others with their position or forcing their position on me and even then I would only do so to keep it from effecting other people and NOT if it were only effecting the person who held that position. i.e. Anyone's right to swing their fist (impose their beliefs) ends where my (or anyone els's) nose begins.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth No, you wouldn't deny them their beliefs so long as they keep them locked away from public view and act contrary to them when involved in culture or politics.
Let me amend what I posted, your thinking is twisted. I just assume, by extension that your thinking is reflective of who you are.
Qorlaq 9 months ago
Comment removed
themanofearth 9 months ago
@Qorlaq You're as free to express your beliefs as I am, to have them effect culture and convert anyone they wish to your religion if you can. I will defend your right to preach in a public square with my life if necessary. In politics however, if you cannot justify your beliefs to everyone - which in the case of religion, by definition, you cannot and this includes non-believers & believers of different faiths - how can you justly apply them to politics (i.e. everyone) while insuring equality?
themanofearth 9 months ago
@Qorlaq But I can see that I'm going to have to continue on with the "Christian ethics" thing. I'm an atheist and according to article 6 of the Constitution I should be able to run for office but because I'm an atheist it would be comical to think I can win an election due to "Christian ethics". My friend was fired from his job for being an atheist because of "Christian ethics". The teaching of evolution (and thereby science) in schools is being attacked every single day due to"Christian ethics"
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth I don't see why a Christian ethic that encourages liberty for individuals making it possible for an atheist to be elected is comical. Maybe it's just too subtle for me.
Your friend, unless he was a pastor of a church or something related, shouldn't have been fired for that, but it has nothing to do with Christian ethics.
Another bit of twisted thinking, equating theories of common descent of all life & science. Atheistic naturalism and it's creation myth are what is attacked.
Qorlaq 9 months ago
@Qorlaq The stated reason for my friend being fired was that he was not a Christian and he was a teacher in a public school.
Evolution is the scientific theory the underpins ALL of Biology. Without the theory of evolution, modern biology does not exist. To attack the teaching of the theory of evolution is to attack the teaching of biology as a science, period. Naturalism does not have creation myths & by definition cannot. I suggest you engage in less religious discussions & pick up philosophy.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@Qorlaq " You are talking about embryonic stem cell research which has produced NOTHING to benefit anyone other than the ones being paid for it." Then you're sorely miss informed.
The issue with abortion is not and has never been about the sacrifice of children but about the mitigation of suffering. The "sacrifice of children" tripe is what's piped into the media by opponents of abortion by religiously minded people who claim that humanity begins (through the injection of the soul) at conception
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth If I'm misinformed, show me the great advancements that ESCR has produced. I can give you a substantial list for ASCR. Go to stemcellresearchfacts(dot)org
Whose suffering is mitigated by the use of abortion as retroactive birth control? Child sacrifice is a perfectly valid description. They are almost entirely (98%) sacrificed for convenience, career, lifestyle, promiscuity, selfishness, etc. You need to examine your own tripe on these issues & stop being a propaganda parrot.
Qorlaq 9 months ago
@Qorlaq "Whose suffering is mitigated by the use of abortion as retroactive birth control?" bla bla bla For a more or less complete expression of my position (and a more or less complete refutation of your "child sacrifice" position) go to my video titled:
Abortion Debate: Opening Arguments
themanofearth 9 months ago
@Qorlaq On the "ESCR" we still need access to embryonic stem cells because the study of iPS cells is in its infancy, and the reprogramming approach may have serious limitations. The standard technique to create iPS cells uses viruses to transfer the reprogramming genes. The viruses cause genetic defects that predispose the reprogrammed cells to cancer. ASCR only means research will move slower and more deaths & suffering will accrue in the meantime. i.e. You're basically killing/torturing people
themanofearth 9 months ago
@camthejock whoops that's was really sloppy on my part... "Christians (nor any other religious group) is capable..." should have been, "Christians along with other religious groups have so far been incapable..."
Sorry about that.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@camthejock If Christians were peaceful, stayed out of other people's lives and stopped resisting to ban stem cell research (for instance) I'm sure things would look different.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit Christians are peaceful (at least they're supposed to be), and stem cell research (aka the murder of newborns) has nothing to do with it. Many atheists are un-peaceful and way too angry, but you dont usually see Christians waisting their time on atheist youtube videos. lol
camthejock 6 months ago
@camthejock Forgot about Evangelism?
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit "Evangelism" saved my former atheist friend from a terrible life of sin. Jesus can save you too
;)
camthejock 6 months ago
@camthejock Good one. But I find it much easier to be good and thoughtful of others without Jesus. More people should try a life without the guilt, shame and insufficiency that Christianity breeds.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit Nice one. But "good" does not exist without God. What you call good is just a bi-product of sociological and biological evolution. Without a transcendent anchor for moral absolutes, there is NO objective right or wrong. Everything becomes socially and culturally relative. Without a moral standard we cannot say that things like rape, murder, abuse, and torture, are really wrong. What we call "love" would just be a random bio-chemical reaction occuring in our brain. So please, try Jesus
camthejock 6 months ago
@camthejock I don't see how morality can stem from the Bible. Thou shalt not kill it says, but if God orders you to kill then it's just. Good and bad are shifting.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago