Plantinga's argument for Design.

[shunyadragon]

Shunya knows something about geology. Therefore Plantinga is wrong.

See reference cited. Plantinga is obvious misrepresenting evolution and clueless without citations as to what evolution is capable or not capable of. Please respond intelligently to my post citing Plantinga.

[shunyadragon]

It's sad when your own quote defeats you.

It is doubly sad that you are not responding to the context of the citation. Shell games and obfuscation do not work Plantinga is specifically clear. There are NO plausible options other than theism and the necessity of design to support 'proper function 'presented 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.

THER ARE NO PLAUSIBLE OPTIONS ALLOWED IN THIS CITATION. If you feel he does consider other plausible options (other then Scientology Alien Ninja Turtles all the way down) please cite Plantinga. Please make that citation from a recent work of Plantinga, say 2009 to 2014. Your highlighting only justifies that Plantinga has problems your not addressing.

As 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.

It is amusing, even laughable that Plantinga describes Creation as a corporate heaven of God and angels.

[shunyadragon]

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

You failed to respond to the Plantinga reference cited. Your self imposed ignorance is amusing. You apparently have not read Plantinga's works, nor are you willing to post coherently nor intelligently.

[OingoBoingo]

It is doubly sad that you are not responding to the context of the citation. Shell games and obfuscation do not work Plantinga is specifically clear. There are not plausible options other than theism and the necessity of design to support 'proper function.'






THER ARE NO PLAUSIBLE OPTIONS ALLOWED IN THIS CITATION. If you feel he does consider other plausible options (other then Alien Ninja Turtles all the way down) please cite Plantinga. Please make that citation from a recent work of Plantinga, say 2009 to 2014.

As 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.

It is amusing, even laughable that Plantinga describes Creation as a corporate heaven of God and angels.

Serious question, is English your first language?

[OingoBoingo]

You failed to respond to the Plantinga reference cited. Your self imposed ignorance is amusing. You apparently have not read Plantinga's works, nor are you willing to post coherently nor intelligently.

Pot meet kettle.

[shunyadragon]

Serious question, is English your first language?

Yes, with accurate citations from Plantinga. Again please support your argument with good citations in English. If you do not your posts will be on ignore from here on.

[shunyadragon]

Pot meet kettle.

Officially on ignore!

[OingoBoingo]

woe is me.

[Carrikature]

It is doubly sad that you are not responding to the context of the citation. Shell games and obfuscation do not work Plantinga is specifically clear. There are NO plausible options other than theism and the necessity of design to support 'proper function 'presented by Plantinga.

So...you dismiss extraterrestrials as 'plausible', therefore Plantinga is not presenting other plausible options. Doesn't work that way. Shell games? Obfuscation? Do you know what these words mean? I've done nothing of the sort. What would be the point? I don't even agree with Plantinga...

THER ARE NO PLAUSIBLE OPTIONS ALLOWED IN THIS CITATION. If you feel he does consider other plausible options (other then Scientology Alien Ninja Turtles all the way down) please cite Plantinga. Please make that citation from a recent work of Plantinga, say 2009 to 2014. Your highlighting only justifies that Plantinga has problems your not addressing.

"No plausible options other than" still counts as plausible options. You're self-refuting.

As 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.

As 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.

He hasn't actually misrepresented evolution, especially not in the bits you've quoted. What he hasn't done is shown that low probability, inscrutability, and prone to error are actually defeaters for the human intelligence. The first two are irrelevant in the face of Deep Time, and the last is inherent in our mental faculties as is. You'd do better to show how he's misrepresenting natural evolution. I can't see that he has.

[shunyadragon]

So...you dismiss extraterrestrials as 'plausible', therefore Plantinga is not presenting other plausible options. Doesn't work that way. Shell games? Obfuscation? Do you know what these words mean? I've done nothing of the sort. What would be the point? I don't even agree with Plantinga...

It is obvious that Plantinga does not consider the extraterrestrials a 'plausible' option, because he dismisses it, as cited in the text. No serious scientific academians consider extraterrestrials as 'plausible' options as to the origin of either life on earth nor the origins of humans. Still waiting for Plantinga's 'plausible' options other then proper function with design justifying theism

"No plausible options other than" still counts as plausible options. You're self-refuting.

Alien Ninja turtles all the way down is not a plausible option neither as described by Plantinga, nor by Naturalist Evolutionary academics.

As 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.

Not 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.

He hasn't actually misrepresented evolution, especially not in the bits you've quoted. What he hasn't done is shown that low probability, inscrutability, and prone to error are actually defeaters for the human intelligence. The first two are irrelevant in the face of Deep Time, and the last is inherent in our mental faculties as is. You'd do better to show how he's misrepresenting natural evolution. I can't see that he has.

Read the citation again, and I will cite more.

"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.)." Plantinga

This classically misrepresents the Theory of Evolution' by trying to limit the capability of the Theory of Evolution as to what evolution can describe as the natural evolution of the physical and mental nature of humans, as well as other species. It is clearly a misuse of science to require tweaking and nuance by God to make evolution work..

First, the diversity of proper function and improper function is a natural product of the genetic variation of species, including humans, this results in evolution. His objections misrepresent Methodological Naturalism's explanatory power concerning the potential of evolution.

[Carrikature]

It is obvious that Plantinga does not consider the extraterrestrials a 'plausible' option, because he dismisses it, as cited in the text. No serious scientific academians consider extraterrestrials as 'plausible' options as to the origin of either life on earth nor the origins of humans. Still waiting for Plantinga's 'plausible' options other then proper function with design justifying theism

He answers the scenario. That's not the same as dismissal. In point of fact, he says that the same questions apply to ETs as to humans, but that we don't necessarily know the answers.

Alien Ninja turtles all the way down is not a plausible option neither as described by Plantinga, nor by Naturalist Evolutionary academics.

The origin of life on this planet is as yet unknown, and hypotheses abound.

Not 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.

Again, quit saying that you're going to cite it and just cite it. To quote Anna Valerious, "I think if you're going to kill somebody, kill them! Don't stand around talking about it!"

Read the citation again, and I will cite more.

I'll believe it when I see it.

"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.)." Plantinga

This classically misrepresents the Theory of Evolution' by trying to limit the capability of the Theory of Evolution as to what evolution can describe as the natural evolution of the physical and mental nature of humans, as well as other species. It is clearly a misuse of science to require tweaking and nuance by God to make evolution work..

First, the diversity of proper function and improper function is a natural product of the genetic variation of species, including humans, this results in evolution. His objections misrepresent Methodological Naturalism's explanatory power concerning the potential of evolution.

You are way off base. Of course they wouldn't function properly because, by definition, proper function requires a designer. He hasn't limited the capability of ToE but pointed out the (somewhat obvious) fact that undesigned entities cannot have proper function. Again, that's by definition.

This last sentence, if we're to be gracious, is complete misuse of 'proper function'. You're using a different definition and then showing the rest of us why your different definition doesn't apply. Well done.

In addition, you need to establish what 'proper function' any entity possesses within naturalistic evolution. It quite simply can't because 'proper' requires there be an ideal purpose, which is definitely not the case in evolution given its context-specific nature.

[OingoBoingo]

This last sentence, if we're to be gracious, is complete misuse of 'proper function'. You're using a different definition and then showing the rest of us why your different definition doesn't apply. Well done.

In addition, you need to establish what 'proper function' any entity possesses within naturalistic evolution. It quite simply can't because 'proper' requires there be an ideal purpose, which is definitely not the case in evolution given its context-specific nature.

Yep. shunyadragon still thinks Plantinga is arguing against evolution in these citations. He doesn't realize that Plantinga is actually arguing against the adjective "PROPER" (as it deals with function), from a metaphysical naturalist's perspective.

[shunyadragon]

He answers the scenario. That's not the same as dismissal. In point of fact, he says that the same questions apply to ETs as to humans, but that we don't necessarily know the answers.

In your assertion that Plantinga presented options that may be plausible. He said, "Proper functioning requires design; but the only plausible designer for us human beings is God "

It is a dismissal based on this assertion by Plantinga. Still waiting for where Plantinga cites another viable option other then Theism. The above quote says there are none.

The origin of life on this planet is as yet unknown, and hypotheses abound.

Not an adequate response. Please do not change the subject. Plantinga's argument clearly and specifically discusses the problem he sees with 'Naturalist Evolution. Please respond with a better explanation. No serious academic scientists consider any viable hypothesis for intelligent extraterrestrials being responsible for the origins of life nor the outcome of evolution. The only viable hypothesis for the origins of life for extraterrestrial origins is for basic amino acids form meteorites from our own solar system.

No, outlandish intelligent extraterrestrial origins are viable according to Plantinga nor Methodological Naturalism. Can you actually justify the above statement in the light of this.

Again, quit saying that you're going to cite it and just cite it. To quote Anna Valerious, "I think if you're going to kill somebody, kill them! Don't stand around talking about it!"

I will at present more, but first you have not adequately responded to what I have cited. At present your DOA unless you can come up with more coherent relative responses.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Please respond coherently to the above, and the citation as provided.

You are way off base. Of course they wouldn't function properly because, by definition, proper function requires a designer. He hasn't limited the capability of ToE but pointed out the (somewhat obvious) fact that undesigned entities cannot have proper function. Again, that's by definition.

By Plantinga's definition and Plantinga's definition ONLY, but his misuse of the science of evolution does not justify his assertion of 'proper function,' which as he defines as dependent on design and justifies theism as the 'only plausible option.'

This last sentence, if we're to be gracious, is complete misuse of 'proper function'. You're using a different definition and then showing the rest of us why your different definition doesn't apply. Well done.

No misuse of 'proper function' as Plantinga defines it, but the refutation of the 'explanatory power' of reality as we know it through the Methodological Naturalism of the nature of evolution and our existence by scientific methodology is not with any reasonable merit, and totally fails to objectively describe 'proper function' based on any measure of objective methodology.

. . . you need to establish what 'proper function' any entity possesses within naturalistic evolution. It quite simply can't because 'proper' requires there be an ideal purpose, which is definitely not the case in evolution given its context-specific nature.

Not when the science of evolution and Methodological Naturalism is misrepresented by Plantinga in justification of proper function. . The ideal purpose that Plantinga requires that the 'only possible option' as theistic is 'proper function' justified by his rejection of the possibility of the explanatory power of the 'Theory of Evolution' for describing the Natural origin of nature of humanity. Which is in direct contradiction of Methodological Naturalism's explanatory power of evolution.

Again and again, Plantinga dismisses all other options, and considers theism as the 'only plausible option' in contradiction to your assertion that there are other possible options!!!!!!!

"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.)." Plantinga

Again and again, this misrepresents the evidence of Methodological Naturalism.

One thing that Planinga fails to comprehend is the only thing that separates 'Methodological Naturalism' from 'Philosophical Naturalism' is that 'Philosophical Naturalism' assumes that Naturalism is true for all possible origins and there is no option of any other explanation other then physical origins for everything, and this assumption is philosophical not scientific. Plantinga's assumptions contradict the explanatory power of Methodological Naturalism.

[OingoBoingo]

No serious academic scientists consider any viable hypothesis for intelligent extraterrestrials being responsible for the origins of life nor the outcome of evolution.

Dawkins is a serious academic scientist, and he finds the idea an "intriguing possibility" (though I'm betting he finds the probability about as low as Plantinga does).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8

Not when the science of evolution and Methodological Naturalism is misrepresented by Plantinga in justification of proper function. . The ideal purpose that Plantinga requires that the 'only possible option' as theistic is 'proper function' justified by his rejection of the possibility of the explanatory power of the 'Theory of Evolution' for describing the Natural origin of nature of humanity. Which is in direct contradiction of Methodological Naturalism's explanatory power of evolution.

Again and again, Plantinga dismisses all other options, and considers theism as the 'only plausible option' in contradiction to your assertion that there are other possible options!!!!!!!

Uh oh. He's having another one of his little break downs where his sentence structure goes from bad to worse, and the exclamation marks start multiplying. This quote is so confused, its hard to know where to start. 1. Plantinga isn't arguing against Methodological Naturalism, he's arguing against Metaphysical Naturalism. 2. Plantinga does not reject the possibility of the explanatory power of the theory of evolution. 3. You still has no idea what Plantinga means by "proper function".

[shunyadragon]

Yep. shunyadragon still thinks Plantinga is arguing against evolution in these citations. He doesn't realize that Plantinga is actually arguing against the adjective "PROPER" (as it deals with function), from a metaphysical naturalist's perspective.

I do not claim Plantinga is arguing against evolution. I claim Plantinga is misrepresenting the Theory of Evolution as based on the explanatory power of 'Methodological Naturalism.

If you make a coherent statement I will respond.