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
-
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.
-
Originally posted by OingoBoingo View PostI addressed Plantinga's stance in post #114. I already told you I'm not interested in discussing ID or the Discovery Institute.
Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post[Plantinga] mentions that IDers don't believe in YEC (which they don't).
That being said, two YECs caused the trial, and both groups advocate teaching design and skepticism of evolution's findings.
Originally posted by OingoBoingo View PostThat they believe in evolution (which they do)
You should stay silent on this matter, I agree.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostReally, where? I listed the eight points concerning my argument against Plantinga. Which if any represents a misinterpretation?
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostIhave read his works. The reviewers I will cite are well qualified, and better qualified then I, to express their objections. My objections are specific to my knowledge of geology and evolution. Plantinga is clueless about the science of evolution.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by whag View PostI apologize for saying you misrepresented Plantinga. I was wrong to say that. What I meant is that you approached the argument sloppily by relying on secondary sources, making you vulnerable to those who have actually read the books. Also, this bugs me:
Plantinga's whole argument can be summed up as: The belief in God is a foundational proper basic belief innately known by all and in need of no argument. (Insert here - All the noise of the quest for evidence and debate are meaningless). Therefore, God exists and atheism is false. This is the root of Calvinist Reformed Epistemology. Non-believers are just dishonest and self deceiving, and they really know inside that God exists. Also another reason everybody are not all happy camper believers in the world is that human thinking is distorted by the Fall and Sin. From the Irish perspective the Devil built the pubs and bars between their home and the church to distort their thinking.
Actually for me the problem in getting it together and connecting the dots in debate. I have read a lot, but come from a scientific background, and the straight line thinking from A to Z is different in philosophy, but I am learning. Most apologists I am confronting at present are more blue smoke and mirror obstructionist then seriously interested in dialogue.
This deference to experts is bad form. Why bring it up in the first place if you don't feel qualified to voice your own objections? And geology is so distantly related to the topic at hand, it makes no sense to bring it up.Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-21-2014, 10:13 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 PostPlantinga's whole argument can be summed up as: The belief in God is a foundational proper basic belief innately known by all and in need of no argument. (Insert here - All the noise of the quest for evidence and debate are meaningless). Therefore, God exists and atheism is false. This is the root of Calvinist Reformed Epistemology. Non-believers are just dishonest and self deceiving, and they really know inside that God exists. Also another reason everybody are not all happy camper believers in the world is that human thinking is distorted by the Fall and Sin. From the Irish perspective the Devil built the pubs and bars between their home and the church to distort their thinking.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostMore poisoning of the well. Please do show how he "obviously didn't read" the decision.
Maybe he read the decision but then somehow forgot the main fact of the textbook -- the book that literally said species arrived abruptly, with distinctive features intact.
Maybe he read it but forgot two YEC school board members started the whole mess, then lied about how the textbooks were purchased.
Maybe he read it but forgot that the tiktaalik fossil and chimp DNA were entered as evidence in the trial, which would be weird if DI/DI agreed that mammals came from the ocean and human beings decended from apes.
Here's the link to it in case you change your mind. ;) Then we can hear your informed opinion rather than random indignance signifying nothing.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dove..._decision.html
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe secondary sources were only an introduction with quotes by Plantinga. I have read some books of Plantinga and actually typed in a reference from one of my books. I do find it more 'bugging,' is the word games concerning concepts like 'proper function,' as if Plantinga owns these words and their meaning. Many different religions, philosophies, science, law and non-belief in anything have no problem with what is 'proper function' in the function of human organs and behavior from their perspective.
Plantinga's whole argument can be summed up as: The belief in God is a foundational proper basic belief innately known by all and in need of no argument. (Insert here - All the noise of the quest for evidence and debate are meaningless). Therefore, God exists and atheism is false. This is the root of Calvinist Reformed Epistemology. Non-believers are just dishonest and self deceiving, and they really know inside that God exists. Also another reason everybody are not all happy camper believers in the world is that human thinking is distorted by the Fall and Sin. From the Irish perspective the Devil built the pubs and bars between their home and the church to distort their thinking.
Actually for me the problem in getting it together and connecting the dots in debate. I have read a lot, but come from a scientific background, and the straight line thinking from A to Z is different in philosophy, but I am learning. Most apologists I am confronting at present are more blue smoke and mirror obstructionist then seriously interested in dialogue.
It may be poor wording, but the science of Geology is important hand in hand with the science of Biology to develop the Theory of Evolution. One of the origins of evolution was finding the bones of ancient animals not living today in the layers of rocks. This combined with Darwin's journey and others before him who also found more fossils that were similar to animals living today. They did connected the dots of Geology and Biology with these observations of animals and plants living today, the result is the Theory of Evolution.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostAs far as I know there is not any scientist believes that the brain and all the organs of the human body do not have a functional purpose for the survival of the human species, except maybe the appendix, but that is up to future research. I accept the scientific view that the human brain functions normally as it evolved for the survival of the human species.
You have been playing a word game with me concerning the use of 'proper function,' actually through this whole thread, as defined by Plantinga, and. I do not consider the behavior, intellect, beliefs, emotions, and other human behaviors as subject to the necessity of design to make it function properly. Your playing 'gottcha' and it is meaningless nonsense.
I believe that humans and all life on earth function normally in adaptation to life on earth through evolution. I believe the Theory of Evolution as the knowledge of evolution developed through Methodological Naturalism.
For this thread it is about how Plantinga describes 'proper function.'
Not all theologians and philosophers who believe in the Calvinist Reformed Epistemology believe 'proper function' require 'design.'
Baha'i doctrine teaches proper function. Its up to you to not accept these doctrines, but if you do not, I dear say, you are not a Baha'i believer, since they are cornerstones of Baha'i belief.
Believe it or not, these quotes are precisely what Plantinga was talking about when discussing 'proper function'. Metaphysical Naturalists do not believe in a designer, in a creator, or anything of the like. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha'i believers, and even many many agnostics and atheists do believe in 'proper function'. Plantinga's Reformed beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with his evolutionary argument against naturalism. He takes into consideration any belief system that believes that organs and organisms have purpose. That organs have proper function.
If you continue to hold that you do not believe in proper function of organs or organisms, We're left with the following conclusions.
1. You are a liar.
2. You are not a Baha'i believer, but rather a metaphysical naturalist.
3. You are as thick as a brick, and still do not understand Plantinga's argument.Last edited by OingoBoingo; 03-22-2014, 01:45 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostSource, please.
This is straight and simple Calvinist Reformed Epistemology which Plantinga endorses. If your going to understand Plantinga you will need to read and understand his foundation beliefs.
I have cited this several times, and apparently you have not been willing to read it, It has a number of citations by Plantanga in the text that describe this in detail.
Noetic Effects of Sin by Stephen K. Moromey. 2000
Chapter 4 - Plantinga's and Wolterstorff's Reformed Epistemology: particularly section II Reformed Epistemology and John Calvin's Noetic effects of Sin. focus on about pages 77-79, but it would help to read the whole chapter.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 OingoBoingo View Post<snip>
I am the author of this thread, and Plantinga's belief and description of 'proper function' and Warrant is the subject of this thread. Stay on course or your back on ignore.Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-22-2014, 06:19 AM.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 PostI have cited this several times, and apparently you have not been willing to read it, It has a number of citations by Plantanga in the text that describe this in detail.
Again, I have no interest in reading third-party claims about Plantinga. Quote him and not others to make your case.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
|
39 responses
159 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Today, 03:32 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
129 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
426 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
303 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM |
Comment