Plantinga's argument for Design.

[OingoBoingo]

I have 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.

What does geology have to do with Plantinga?

[Paprika]

Have you read Plantinga? I will provide a source, but first are you aware of his explanation of Reformed Epistemology and the explanation why some people do not believe when they should believe.

I have read some of Plantinga's works, not all. Stop stalling and give the source.

[OingoBoingo]

According to Plantinga, 'properly basic beliefs' justify only theism not different people holding different beliefs.

No, he doesn't say this.

[shunyadragon]

What does geology have to do with Plantinga?

Plantinga is making an extensive argument against Naturalism based on what he describes Evolution can and cannot cause concerning belief and human behavior. This is Geology and Biology, Specialty Paleontology and evolution. Plantinga is out of his field and clueless.

[Carrikature]

I have cited Plantinga, and I will cite him more. The reviewers I WILL CITE are very qualified.

Pro-tip: Cite qualified sources on all sides of an argument. DO NOT rely on philosophers to understand evolution unless they provide appropriate academic sources.

You've cited bits and pieces at best. You have this habit of saying you're going to cite something without ever actually doing it. Stop saying you're going to do it and just do it...

Plantinga is making an extensive argument against Naturalism based on what he describes Evolution can and cannot cause concerning belief and human behavior. This is Geology and Biology, Specialty Paleontology and evolution. Plantinga is out of his field and clueless.

This is false. He is not claiming what evolution can or cannot cause. Rather, he is claiming that there are alternative explanations for survival benefit which do not guarantee true beliefs.

[OingoBoingo]

I have cited Plantinga, and I will cite him more. The reviewers I WILL CITE are very qualified.

Pro-tip: Cite qualified sources on all sides of an argument. DO NOT rely on philosophers to understand evolution unless they provide appropriate academic sources.

LOL. You really suck at this, you know that?

Pro-tip: When you have no legs to stand on, on a subject that's clearly over your head, it looks ridiculous when you're giving others pro-tips. Especially one's that you're not even abiding by.

[shunyadragon]

I have read some of Plantinga's works, not all. Stop stalling and give the source.

The Noetic Effects of Sin: A Historical and Contemporary Exploration of how ... By Stephen K. Moroney, pp 77 - 79 - Reformed Epistemology and John Calvin on the Noetic Effects of Sin.

This goes into considerable detail concerning how Plantinga and Wolterstorff views Reformed Epistomology.

[Paprika]

The Noetic Effects of Sin: A Historical and Contemporary Exploration of how ... By Stephen K. Moroney, pp 77 - 79 - Reformed Epistemology and John Calvin on the Noetic Effects of Sin.

This goes into considerable detail concerning how Plantinga and Wolterstorff views Reformed Epistomology.

Show us the quote. Also, why aren't you quoting Plantinga directly?

[OingoBoingo]

Plantinga is making an extensive argument against Naturalism based on what he describes Evolution can and cannot cause concerning belief and human behavior. This is Geology and Biology, Specialty Paleontology and evolution. Plantinga is out of his field and clueless.

His argument is specifically against metaphysical naturalism. And, no, his argument has absolutely nothing to do with geology or paleontology. As a philosopher who is philosophizing, not against evolution (which he embraces), but against a particular philosophical view (naturalism), he could not be more within his field.

As an evolutionist and a Baha'i, you should be embracing his theory. Abdu'l-Bahá would be championing Plantinga.

[MaxVel]

I note that above (post#2, IIRC) you cited a review of a book Plantinga wrote as a source for his argument. Yet when I cited that review to show that Plantinga rejects ID, you answered:

The record is provoking one to buy his book, and not really Plantinga's argument.

{post #58 Gettier thread on the Philosophy board}

I have read this, and find it terribly wanting, terribly simplistic selfish logic, and lacking in any reasonably knowledge of the science of evolution and human behavior.

I look forward to you showing this rather than asserting it. (But I'm not holding my breath....)

It's odd that Plantinga would make this argument against Naturalism in this way when he is apparently clueless concerning the science of evolution.

I know what 'inscrutable means, and the best argument is that it is 'inscrutable' to determine the probability for any possible case in an attempt to justify any possible belief system considering Methodological Naturalism which has a reasonable explanation for the evolution of human behavior. If Plantinga's proposing that, because science does not the complete answer, therefore 'design' is justified, he is in trouble.

The underlined shows you have no idea what Plantinga actually is proposing.

I will cite other philosophers and scientist who ask the same question I am asking.

The bottom line is I am still waiting for an adequate 'objective' explanation that will pass muster in science concerning Plantinga's argument for 'design'

Quote us Plantinga's "argument for Design". Bet you can't... ...because he doesn't make one. It's a strawman of your own imagining.

I gave you a source for Plantinga's argument that answered your question:

Serious question here; How does Plantinga objectively determine that the probability is 'Inscrutable?'

You made no attempt at all to address anything Plantinga said, just hand-waved it away and now say you are "still waiting" - for someone to do your homework and address the goalpost you've moved.

I'm not taking you at all seriously, Shunya. You're funny because you're so daft.

Pro Tip #1: Don't trash the very idea of 'properly basic beliefs' when your own stated basis for belief in God is entirely supported by basic beliefs.

Pro Tip #2: Don't start a second thread on a topic you've already shown yourself (despite confident assertions that the recognised experts are 'wrong') to be ignorant on without reading and understanding what the experts actually say.

Thanks for the entertainment, Shunya:

[MaxVel]

His argument is specifically against metaphysical naturalism. And, no, his argument has absolutely nothing to do with geology or paleontology. As a philosopher who is philosophizing, not against evolution (which he embraces), but against a particular philosophical view (naturalism), he could not be more within his field.

As an evolutionist and a Baha'i, you should be embracing his theory. Abdu'l-Bahá would be championing Plantinga.

This.


Shunya is TWeb's Don Quixote - tilting against imaginary windmills, boldly declaring victory over a non-existent opponent.

[MaxVel]

What does geology have to do with Plantinga?

Shunya knows something about geology. Therefore Plantinga is wrong.

[shunyadragon]

LOL. You really suck at this, you know that?

Pro-tip: When you have no legs to stand on, on a subject that's clearly over your head, it looks ridiculous when you're giving others pro-tips. Especially one's that you're not even abiding by.

The following citation clearly demonstrates Plantinga's intent that proper function only applies to theism, the necessity of design in his argument, and the bizzaro view of the science of evolution, which he is totally incompetent, and does not cite any scientific references to support his assertions as to what natural evolution is capable of producing, or the nature of Methodological vs. Philosophical Naturalism..

It is sad that he reverts to a bizzaro rant on extraterrestrials, which sounds like the scientologists, which he apparently considers possible if infinite alien Ninja Turtles creators all the way down, or maybe the LDS church option of if infinite Gods all the way down.

I received challenges of citing Plantinga from many, but they have apparently have not read his books, not willing to take the effort to cite Plantinga, nor understand the implications of Reformed Epistemology. Most of Plantinga's works are not available on line to include citations. I have to type them in and then cite them. Plantinga is high winded and very wordy. It is not easy.

Pro suggestion - Know the material, and do not resort to name calling and mindless challenges and obfuscation without references.

From - Naturalism vs. Knowledge of God by Alvin Plantinga, Michael Tooley 2009, pp 20 - 21

A. Naturalism vs. Proper function

First, then, if naturalism were true (so I argue), neither human beings nor their component organs and systems would function properly (or, for that matter improperly.). Fundamentally, that is because the notion of proper function really applies only to things that have been designed by conscious, purposeful intelligent agents; basic notions of proper function is that of working in a way the designer(s) intended. Of course this requires modifications and huance. My refrigerator was designed to keep things cool; it starts malfunctioning, it’s interior temperature a constant 150 degrees F. I give it to you, and you use it for a warming oven. It is malfunctioning or not? My gril rusts out and can no longer be used for the purpose for which it was designed (ie grilling); my grandchildren paint designs on it, and now it is a very nicw planter, is it malfunctioning? In these and other cases qualification and nuance is required. But the basic idea is still proper function requires intelligent design.

It is this that gives the trouble for the naturalist bent on explaining the notion of proper function in naturalist terms. Proper functioning requires design; but the only plausible designer for us human beings is God (Conceivably God himself didn’t design human beings, but delegated the task to higher ranking angel.). Of course a naturalist might maintain that we have been designed and brought into existence by extraterrestrial beings of great intellectual accomplishments. Perhaps these extraterrestrials brought us into being by taking a hand in the course of terrestrial evolution, causing the right times, adjusting the environment, so the right organisms survived, and the like. This is a bit farfetched, perhaps, but not clearly impossible. But it won’t help the naturalist. For the same sort of questions arise about these talented extraterrestrials, presumable the notion of proper function will apply to them, but they weren’t designed. (Or, if they were, the question will arise with respect to their designers, or to the designers of their designers . . . .)

copyright by Plantinga.

I will work more from this reference, because it is more recent then others.

[OingoBoingo]

This.


Shunya is TWeb's Don Quixote - tilting against imaginary windmills, boldly declaring victory over a non-existent opponent.

So I've noticed. The maxim "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" was created just for him.

[Carrikature]

The following citation clearly demonstrates Plantinga's intent that proper function only applies to theism, the necessity of design in his argument, and the bizzaro view of the science of evolution, which he is totally incompetent, and does not cite any scientific references to support his assertions as to what natural evolution is capable of producing.

It's sad when your own quote defeats you.

From - Naturalism vs. Knowledge of God by Alvin Plantinga, Michael Tooley 2009, pp 20 - 21

A. Naturalism vs. Proper function

First, then, if naturalism were true (so I argue), neither human beings nor their component organs and systems would function properly (or, for that matter improperly.). Fundamentally, that is because the notion of proper function really applies only to things that have been designed by conscious, purposeful intelligent agents; basic notions of proper function is that of working in a way the designer(s) intended. Of course this requires modifications and huance. My refrigerator was designed to keep things cool; it starts malfunctioning, it’s interior temperature a constant 150 degrees F. I give it to you, and you use it for a warming oven. It is malfunctioning or not? My gril rusts out and can no longer be used for the purpose for which it was designed (ie grilling); my grandchildren paint designs on it, and now it is a very nicw planter, is it malfunctioning? In these and other cases qualification and nuance is required. But the basic idea is still proper function requires intelligent design.

It is this that gives the trouble for the naturalist bent on explaining the notion of proper function in naturalist terms. Proper functioning requires design; but the only plausible designer for us human beings is God (Conceivably God himself didn’t design human beings, but delegated the task to higher ranking angel.). Of course a naturalist might maintain that we have been designed and brought into existence by extraterrestrial beings of great intellectual accomplishments. Perhaps these extraterrestrials brought us into being by taking a hand in the course of terrestrial evolution, causing the right times, adjusting the environment, so the right organisms survived, and the like. This is a bit farfetched, perhaps, but not clearly impossible. But it won’t help the naturalist. For the same sort of questions arise about these talented extraterrestrials, presumable the notion of proper function will apply to them, but they weren’t designed. (Or, if they were, the question will arise with respect to their designers, or to the designers of their designers . . . .) copyright by Plantinga.

Proper function requires a designer. That's it. Proper function relates to design. It exists at all levels of design. I, as an engineer, can determine proper function of drawings I create. It's not solely applied to theism. Where theism comes into play is when we look at proper function for humans. If humans have a proper function (which I deny), they would require a designer. That designer, according to Plantina, is God. Of course, he already recognizes that other options are available, and he specifically mentions them in the excerpt you've quoted.