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
See more
See less

Plantinga's argument for Design.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    Yep, for for right now. Really whag, how hard is it for you just to tell us all where Plantinga was so off base. There has to be one glaring error we could discuss. BTW - even though I did not read the opinion I did follow the trial, as did many Christians.
    It really looks like your time is precious, seer. In the time it took you to participate here, you could have been 1/2 finished.

    If you followed the trial, you'll be able to tell me the specific claim that "Of Pandas and People" made about speciation. That specific claim contradicts Plantinga's view that the decision was based on a straw man.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      I believe organs like the brain evolved naturally to the present physical and behavioral nature of being human. The mind is naturally a product of our brain
      Fine, brain then. Do you believe that organs (like the brain) have proper function?

      The belief in 'proper function' is Plantinga's view, and a product of his belief in Calvinist Reformed Epistemology.
      No, the belief in proper function is not just Plantinga's view. He may justify his personal belief in proper function on Reformed epistemology, but that has nothing to do with the question.
      Last edited by OingoBoingo; 03-21-2014, 02:31 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Still no direct reference to any mistakes, nor references by Plantinga to justify your claim. I have cited a number of sources directly quoting Plantinga, others have not, and by the way you have not in documenting my mistakes. My critic of Plantinga has never changed.

        Still waiting . . .
        OB and Carrikature documented your mistakes. OB may have an axe to grind, but Carrikature agrees with us that ID isn't science, and thus has no axe to grind. He just hates the way you presented your argument as do I.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by whag View Post
          It really looks like your time is precious, seer. In the time it took you to participate here, you could have been 1/2 finished.
          It doesn't matter, even if I read it I would still not know what Plantinga's sin was.

          If you followed the trial, you'll be able to tell me the specific claim that "Of Pandas and People" made about speciation. That specific claim contradicts Plantinga's view that the decision was based on a straw man.
          You are joking right? How many years ago was that? Just show us or tell us where Plantinga got it wrong.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            It doesn't matter, even if I read it I would still not know what Plantinga's sin was.



            You are joking right? How many years ago was that? Just show us or tell us where Plantinga got it wrong.
            I see. So you're really not familiar with the trial at all, or so many years have elapsed, that you forgot how it transpired. Either way, you need to brush up.

            One of Plantinga's sins was in saying Jones' decision is based on a YEC strawman and didn't acknowledge that DI are evolutionists, too. The big problem with that is that the textbook in question said that species didn't evolve but rather were created with their distinctive features intact.

            Evolutionists not only don't believe that species appeared with their distinctive features intact; they have strong evidence showing this not to be the case.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by whag View Post
              One of Plantinga's sins was in saying Jones' decision is based on a YEC strawman and didn't acknowledge that DI are evolutionists, too. The big problem with that is that the textbook in question said that species didn't evolve but rather were created with their distinctive features intact.

              Evolutionists not only don't believe that species appeared with their distinctive features intact; they have strong evidence showing this not to be the case.
              Ok, do you have actual citations from Plantinga for this?
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by OingoBoingo
                [Plantinga]mentions that IDers don't believe in YEC (which they don't).
                The trial wouldn't have even happened if two YEC board members didn't cause a stink. Sorry, but I believe this is crucial to mention before saying the decision was based on a strawman. Plantinga obviously didn't know that or wanted us to forget that part.


                Originally posted by OingoBoingo
                That they believe in evolution (which they do),
                The textbook in question stated that evolution doesn't occur. I've never met an evolutionist who claimed that evolution doesn't occur, have you?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by whag View Post
                  One of Plantinga's sins was in saying Jones' decision is based on a YEC strawman and didn't acknowledge that DI are evolutionists, too. The big problem with that is that the textbook in question said that species didn't evolve but rather were created with their distinctive features intact.
                  Sure. So from the textbook, some of DIers are creationists. Does that mean that they are all creationists?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    Sure. So from the textbook, some of DIers are creationists. Does that mean that they are all creationists?
                    This is the swindle. Is context important? If the context is a textbook that says all forms were created abruptly, with features completely intact, then whether Behe later says he has no problem with "limited evolution"--an incoherent concept in modern biology, anyway--is immaterial.

                    Plantinga's article is about the trial's outcome, not a general defense of the soft (and I mean really soft, like Downey-soft) evolutionism of SOME DI spokespeople.

                    Perhaps you should, I don't know, read the decision? You recommended shunya read Plantinga, so it's not really too much to ask you and Plantinga's defenders to read the document that Plantinga responded to. You and OB made your case well. Don't screw it up by making the same mistakes as Shuny.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by whag View Post
                      Perhaps you should, I don't know, read the decision?
                      Perhaps I should if I aim to critique the judge's decision, under the principle that I shouldn't critique something I haven't read. But I'm addressing the claims that you are bringing up about Plantinga's "sins"- which I've read.

                      Answer my question: so from the textbook, some of DIers are creationists. Does that mean that they are all creationists?
                      Last edited by Paprika; 03-21-2014, 04:17 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                        Perhaps I should if I aim to critique the judge's decision, under the principle that I shouldn't critique something I haven't read. But I'm addressing the claims that you are bringing up - which I've read.
                        That doesn't make sense. I haven't made any statement about all DIs being creationists, though most definitely are. The material the institute has produced is sufficiently wrong-headed that calling them all creationists wouldn't really serve my point in criticizing Plantinga's response to Jones' decision.

                        The case that the institute made in the trial and Plantinga's hasty response is the context.

                        [quote=Paprika[Answer my question: so from the textbook, some of DIers are creationists. Does that mean that they are all creationists?[/QUOTE]

                        Yes, I would say that all members of the Discovery Institute are creationists, with the exception of Berlinski who is not a theist and maybe some other non-theist contributors. I'm not sure if Berlinski still contributes to DI collateral, BTW.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                          Fine, brain then. Do you believe that organs (like the brain) have proper function?
                          I believe organs like the brain evolved naturally to the present physical and behavioral nature of being human. The mind is naturally a product of our brain.





                          No, the belief in proper function is not just Plantinga's view. He may justify his personal belief in proper function on Reformed epistemology, but that has nothing to do with the question.
                          The debate here is Plantinga's 'proper function,' and not other unnamed anonymous whomever. Let's deal with Plantinga. References from the Calvinist Reformed Epistemology ok, because that is the origin of Plantinga's belief.
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-21-2014, 05:10 PM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by whag View Post
                            That doesn't make sense. I haven't made any statement about all DIs being creationists, though most definitely are. The material the institute has produced is sufficiently wrong-headed that calling them all creationists wouldn't really serve my point in criticizing Plantinga's response to Jones' decision.

                            The case that the institute made in the trial and Plantinga's hasty response is the context.
                            Let's get back to the subject Plantinga. please do not highjack the thread.

                            Out of 10,000 DIer's 9,999 are creationists. It is too broad a title to be meaningful If anyone including myself believe in a Theistic God are creationists.

                            The only purpose of referring to the Dover trial, or maybe the Discovery Institute is to demonstrate that ID is not accepted by academic science.

                            First, you need to respond to the following post:


                            Originally posted by whag

                            It was obvious you did not read Plantinga's books but culled information from 2nd hand sources. This was a costly mistake and stupid because Plantinga's criticism of evolution and support for DI is well established without your needing to quote from books you never read.

                            You made it way harder for yourself than you needed to.
                            Still no direct reference to any mistakes, nor references by Plantinga to justify your claim. I have cited a number of sources directly quoting Plantinga, others have not, and by the way you have not in documenting my mistakes. My critique of Plantinga has never changed.

                            Still waiting . . .
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-21-2014, 04:51 PM.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • I have basically have given my case of the critique of Plantinga's beliefs in 'proper function and Warrant.'

                              (1) Plantinga's 'proper function' requires 'design'

                              (2) Plantinga believes the only viable 'designer is God.

                              (3) Plantinga does not support nor believe in the scientific Theory of Evolution.

                              (4) Plantinga's belief in the Theory of Evolution is not accepted by academic science.

                              (5) Plantinga does not endorse Methodological Naturalism.

                              (6) Plantinga believes in the Intelligent Design advocated by the Dover Board of Education and the Discovery Institute.

                              (7) There is no basis in science for the support of Plantinga's belief in design.'

                              (8) Plantinga's 'proper function,' proper belief,' and Warrant are based on the Cavinist Reformed Epistemology.

                              I will continue to cite sources, and pursue this debate. Good well reasoned rebuttals with references, particularly from Plantinga welcome. Name calling, rants and off topic stuff not welcome.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-21-2014, 05:14 PM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                I believe organs like the brain evolved naturally to the present physical and behavioral nature of being human. The mind is naturally a product of our brain.
                                Yeah, you said that already. That doesn't provide an answer to my question though, because a lot of people believe organs "evolve naturally to the present physical and behavioral nature of being human", and also believe that those organs have functional purpose. A lot of people people believe organs "evolve naturally to the present physical and behavioral nature of being human", and also believe that those organs do not have functional purpose. I'm trying to figure out which type of person you think you are.

                                The debate here is Plantinga's 'proper function,' and not other unnamed anonymous whomever. Let's deal with Plantinga. References from the Calvinist Reformed Epistemology ok, because that is the origin of Plantinga's belief.
                                There is no such thing as "Plantinga's 'proper function'".

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                185 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,517 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X