Originally posted by OingoBoingo
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Plantinga's argument for Design.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by OingoBoingoHe mentioned it once before, but it was in a hilarious attempt to rebuff correction that Carrikature was offering.
Now that the discussion has turned to teleology, we can now discuss Plantinga's belief that teleological design concepts are robust enough to qualify as "science," which Plantinga, as recently as 2006, thinks is true. Surely you know how specious that view is and how thoroughly it's been refuted.
Any subsequent writings of Plantinga's indicating a change of heart would be relevant. Until then, I can only assume he holds to the belief that design, being science, can be taught.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by OingoBoingo View PostHe mentioned it once before, but it was in a hilarious attempt to rebuff correction that Carrikature was offering.
Originally posted by Plantinga"Proper functioning requires design; but the only plausible designer for us human beings is God."Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-21-2014, 01:49 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View PostOk, did he ever show where in the Dover trial Plantinga did this great evil?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by whag View PostDon't make the same mistake as Shuny.
PLease explain where I misrepresented or misquoted Plantinga, with citations. I have not seen anyone else quote Plantinga more then I.Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-21-2014, 01:50 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYes, and now Shuny is referencing the Dover case. I'm not sure if he did before since I have him on ignore. Sad really...
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostAs cited 'proper function' allows only theism, and design is necessary. His misrepresentation of Natural Evolution as understood by science to justify the necessity of design remains the elephant in the room you are ignoring.
Mundane examples of 'engineering' are bogus and not applicable to either the theory of evolution, nor Creation by God. Plantinga asserts this as it applies to the necessity of God being an engineer and designer.Originally posted by Carrikature View PostAs cited, 'proper function' entails design. That's it. For humans to have proper function requires them to have a designer. Plantinga calls that designer 'God'. You would call that designer "a Source some call god(s)". Naturalists, according to Plantinga, would call that designer 'extraterrestrials'. Examples of engineering are actually extremely applicable to creation a la ID. Designer=engineer. They're more or less synonymous.Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNot applicable, nor is it objectively falsifiable as far as the scientific academics in the Theory of Evolution. I will cite the Dover trial results to document this.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by whag View PostSurely, everyone has the right to grow their views. When a philosopher expresses tired skepticism of evolution to a Christian audience but then changes his mind, he's obligated to explain what convinced him otherwise for the benefit or those he misled. That's common courtesy and an expression of humility. I haven't seen that is all I'm saying. If you can link to that, I'll read it.
Incorrect. See title of thread and subsequent discussion of teleology between Carrikature and OB. This is entirely on topic and not ad hom.
And yes it would behoove you to read the context of that essay before we have meaningful discussion of it. If you don't want to know the facts of the Dover trial, that's okay, but there can be no coherent discussion between us without you understanding the basis of the tension between ID and ToE. That would be as exasperating as OB sparring with Shuny who clearly did not understand the context of the argument he criticized. Don't make the same mistake as Shuny.
Leave a comment:
-
let's get back to Plantinga. Plantinga has demonstrated his hostility toward the scientific Theory of Evolution here, and has previously cited his negative view of Methodological Naturalism, and then he claims to use evolution to justify 'design.' There is a contradiction here.
The problem with the Dover trail is that those who proposed teaching ID, did the same thing. No, I have not been able to find any retraction or change by Plantinga concerning his essay on the Dover trial result. He most definitely has used strong Creationist language in the past.
Originally posted by http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/methodological_naturalism_part_1.pdf
The Grand Evolutionary Myth
Since I have dealt with this example elsewhere (in the essays referred to in footnote 3) I can be brief here. Consider the Grand Evolutionary Myth (GEM). According to this story, organic life somehow arose from non-living matter by way of purely natural means and by virtue of the workings of the fundamental regularities of physics and chemistry. Once life began, all the vast profusion of contemporary flora and fauna arose from those early ancestors by way of common descent. The enormous contemporary variety of life arose, basically, through natural selection operating on such sources of genetic variability as random genetic mutation, genetic drift and the like. I call this story a myth not because I do not believe it (although I do not believe it) but because it plays a certain kind of quasireligious role in contemporary culture. It is a shared way of understanding ourselves at the deep level of religion, a deep interpretation of ourselves to ourselves, a way of telling us why we are here, where we come from, and where we are going.Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-21-2014, 01:34 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by OingoBoingo View PostOf course he did. He does this sort of thing a lot around here. When you call him on it he does a sort of big-eyed, "oh no, did I do that?" Then when that doesn't work he points out that he's allowed to do anything he can to win a debate because of the forums guidelines. Did you see the obvious bait he posted above? I respect that. Plantinga's views are difficult to defend in light of what went down in Dover. LOL. How can anyone post drivel like that with a serious face.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View PostGood, but the fact is I don't know anyone whose views don't change over time as he gets more info. Do you? That should be held against Plantingar anyone else.
Ok, so you come into this thread questioning Plantinga's understanding or truthfulness but we can't discuss it until I read the entire Dover opinion? Really whag? OingoBoingo was correct - you just wanted to poison the well. Bad form old man...
And yes it would behoove you to read the context of that essay before we have meaningful discussion of it. If you don't want to know the facts of the Dover trial, that's okay, but there can be no coherent discussion between us without you understanding the basis of the tension between ID and ToE. That would be as exasperating as OB sparring with Shuny who clearly did not understand the context of the argument he criticized. Don't make the same mistake as Shuny.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostIt does. because Plantinga, "Proper functioning requires design; but the only plausible designer for us human beings is God." Plantinga tries to misuse science in his papers to justify 'design,' which is the same problem in the Dover case. Science cannot be used to justify ID.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View PostDid you read Plantinga's response? What was so out of bounds? The fact is whag, you had no reason to attack Plantinga's character. And none of this changes the fact that Shuny is once again clueless...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View PostOk, so you come into this thread questioning Plantinga's understanding or truthfulness but we can't discuss it until I read the entire Dover opinion? Really whag? OingoBoingo was correct - you just wanted to poison the well. Bad form old man...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by OingoBoingo View PostI'm not sure what any of this has to do with the discussion taking place here. Nothing in your Discovery link has anything to do with Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism or 'proper function', or even his theory of warrant.
Leave a comment:
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 08:31 AM
|
12 responses
46 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Today, 03:19 PM
|
||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
144 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
Today, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
101 responses
536 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 01:57 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
251 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
154 responses
1,016 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
04-12-2024, 12:39 PM
|
Leave a comment: