Can atheists trust their own minds?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org - William Lane Craig shows how the naturalist cannot trust their own thinking. He mentioned Alvin Plantinga who argues that if evolution is true that spells trouble for the atheist. Indeed, can the atheist (who calls himself a "free thinker") be free if his brain is no more than matter and motion dictated by the laws of nature?

Alvin Plantinga's lecture (on the same topic) can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=80CAECC36901BCEE

William Lane Craig on Alvin Plantinga: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK0LpoAf49I

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Atheism
• Mind
• Brain
• Logic
• Reasoning
• Alvin
• Plantinga
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Evolution
• Evolutionary
• Argument
• Against
• Naturalism
• Properly
• Basic
• Belief
• cognitive
• faculties
• Epistemology
• Charles
• Darwin

[shizzleman8]

@drcraigvideos You sure do get a lot of 'crap' for not letting anyone comment on these uploads. I've seen where you block commenting. Kudos. But here you are slapping all your detractors with a big wet fish across their faces.  Hardly keeps 'em quiet for a moment I bet.

[drcraigvideos]

@shizzleman8 Nope. A lot of atheists here are just venting their frustrations and anger.

[bjjolley]

All you have to do is substitute "naturalism" with "religion" and his argument kills religion for the same reasons.

[drcraigvideos]

@bjjolley If you actually understood this argument you'd know that wasn't the case since the theist doesn't accept the same premise as the naturalist. I mean duh!

[IseeRightThrough2you]

Can Christians trust their own minds?

They believe their minds are given by God, and that God is good and would never deceive them. But how do they know God is good? Their minds tell them so. Could it be that God is actually evil, and merely deceiving them into thinking he is good?

The fact that the technology to post this video works supports the truth of naturalistic science. The fact that there exists so much needless suffering points to God being evil.

Who can't trust their own minds?

[jaekim314]

@luis204118 first off, if god is deceiving you then he would be doing it THROUGH his WORD (The Bible as you claim) so your argument doesn't hold up. Moreover, how do you know it's the word of god? Cuz it says so? It seems you're trying to defend your circular reasoning with another circular reasoning.

[luis204118]

@IseeRightThrough2you No, sir, Christians don't believe God is good because their minds tell them so; they believe God is good because the Bible, which is God's Word, tells them that he is. Although their minds are a gift from God, Christians are commanded in the Bible not to trust their hearts, but rather God's Word which is a faithful guide in life. And the fact that suffering exist doesn't make God evil. Why don't you say God is good because their happiness in the world? Both can't be true.

[jimangmay]

@IseeRightThrough2you

No, I see right thru you!  You're using an example of operational science to prove that origins science is accurate and trustworthy. Wrong. Operational science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while in origins science, we make educated GUESSES about the unobservable unrepeatable past. It's not nearly as precise or dependable. Christians do normal science as well as any atheist and we have no problem with it.

[godriczimmerman]

@IseeRightThrough2you Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us. Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father‘?"

[Autumn6]

@shizzleman8 That's because Atheist blowhards like yourself will spam the dislike bar before even watching the video.

[thomasjrbg]

... but whoever claimed that naturalism is rational, it is not, it is rather an implication from feeling (proper sensible) and affection and therefore not logically necessary ... naturalism is a religion for the godless and nothing more

[333derick333]

@shizzleman8 thanks for the link, but surely intentions of a large amount of people to change behavior will if successful change that behavior. if you take the race issue as example, once it was right for me as white man to make jokes about the other races now most of us know it is morally wrong to do so. in the 70s we would relay the jokes on tv in the school yard. now the intentions of the activists have changed our behavior and the way we think. unless it is a case of 'we know no better'

[shizzleman8]

@rhyscw01 Evolution has targets. Means are prepared in advance of ends. Once targets are met evolution ceases. Check out dfpolis #22 The Mind Body Problem

The two subsystem mind controls physical acts by intentional acts. Because the laws of nature are not material, but intentional, they can be modified by human intent. Experimental data on psychokinesis confirms this beyond a rational doubt. [Psychokinesis] [It has everything to do with 'naturalism' because it 'disspells' it]

0 ;8¬*)