Originally posted by MaxVel
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
-
Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-17-2014, 04:46 PM.
-
There is intelligent design. Worst case being, nothingness to matter-space-time order, non-life to life, life to intelligences to intelligent design. Even with this, this depicts an order. Nothingness to intelligent design. Unless you are going to argue none of this is intelligent.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostPlantinga's argument is like a table with four legs. A critical leg to give his argument for Warrant and Proper Function' a theistic basis, is his argument for 'Design' against 'Philosophical Naturalism.' Knock this leg out and his argument can be basically used to justify any belief system including Atheism, and Agnosticism. This is important if he is able to justify that other arguments for diverse belief systems, like atheism, may not be justified by the same argument.
He unfortunately persists in the archaic failed argument using examples of necessity of design in nature when compared to the necessity of design for human technology such as a 747.
The following is from his site 'Thoughtful Christianity.'
Please start your argument by citing what Plantinga actually says, rather than secondary sources. You get rather tetchy when people 'mis-quote' you, or don't 'accurately' cite your posts in discussions... ... you should do the same for Plantinga.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NormATive View PostI spent (wasted) way too much time promoting the Intelligent Design model. As I recall, it was initially a reaction to the US Supreme Court decision in Edwards v Aguillard (1987) that disallowed Creationism in Public Schools. Sort of a Scopes Monkey Trial revisited.
Charles Thaxton's Of Pandas and People (I think that's the title) was republished replacing the words creation and creationism with the phrase intelligent design. I think it was a physicist who coined the term, but I don't know who.
Anyway, when you compare the original book (published prior to the 1987 SC case) to its 1989 revision, it is obvious that a word processor was used to simply insert Intelligent Design at every instance where creation / creationism was used in order to subvert the Court's action.
Plantinga's arguments were embraced to make ID appear more "science-y," I think.
He unfortunately persists in the archaic failed argument using examples of necessity of design in nature when compared to the necessity of design for human technology such as a 747.
The following is from his site 'Thoughtful Christianity.' There is a contradiction here in his argument where he states that; Plantinga asserts that the design plan does not require a designer: “it is perhaps possible that evolution (undirected by God or anyone else) has somehow furnished us with our design plans.” The problem remains his view of 'Design Plans.' further on he argues; "Plantinga seeks to defend this view of proper function against alternative views of proper function proposed by other philosophers which he groups together as ‘naturalistic’ including the ‘functional generalization’ view of John Pollock, the evolutionary/etiological account provided by Ruth Millikan, and a dispositional view held by John Bigelow and Robert Pargetter.[38]Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism is also discussed in the later chapters of Warrant and Proper Function."
Originally posted by http://www.thoughtfulchristianity.net/?p=6504In the second book, Warrant and Proper Function, he introduces the notion of warrant as an alternative to justification and discusses topics like self-knowledge, memories, perception, and probability. Plantinga’s proper function account argues that as a necessary condition of having warrant is that one’s “belief-forming and belief-maintaining apparatus of powers” are functioning properly—”working the way it ought to work”.[36] Plantinga explains his argument for proper function with reference to a “design plan”, as well as an environment in which one’s cognitive equipment is optimal for use. Plantinga asserts that the design plan does not require a designer: “it is perhaps possible that evolution (undirected by God or anyone else) has somehow furnished us with our design plans”,[37] but the paradigm case of a design plan is like a technological product designed by a human being (like a radio or a wheel).
Plantinga seeks to defend this view of proper function against alternative views of proper function proposed by other philosophers which he groups together as ‘naturalistic’ including the ‘functional generalization’ view of John Pollock, the evolutionary/etiological account provided by Ruth Millikan, and a dispositional view held by John Bigelow and Robert Pargetter.[38]Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism is also discussed in the later chapters of Warrant and Proper Function.
Personally, I don't have an argument with those who wish to view the world as the product of Intelligent Design - so long as we don't try to preach it as a valid scientific theory in public schools. Besides, if you are a Theist, what is wrong with the old, mystical, magical version of creation? And, why would you want to meet Constitutional muster? The Constitution is a very intentionally secular document meant for a population of citizens that includes theists and non-theists alike.
'God is a Creator not an engineer nor designer.'Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-17-2014, 07:13 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
I spent (wasted) way too much time promoting the Intelligent Design model. As I recall, it was initially a reaction to the US Supreme Court decision in Edwards v Aguillard (1987) that disallowed Creationism in Public Schools. Sort of a Scopes Monkey Trial revisited.
Charles Thaxton's Of Pandas and People (I think that's the title) was republished replacing the words creation and creationism with the phrase intelligent design. I think it was a physicist who coined the term, but I don't know who.
Anyway, when you compare the original book (published prior to the 1987 SC case) to its 1989 revision, it is obvious that a word processor was used to simply insert Intelligent Design at every instance where creation / creationism was used in order to subvert the Court's action.
Plantinga's arguments were embraced to make ID appear more "science-y," I think.
Personally, I don't have an argument with those who wish to view the world as the product of Intelligent Design - so long as we don't try to preach it as a valid scientific theory in public schools. Besides, if you are a Theist, what is wrong with the old, mystical, magical version of creation? And, why would you want to meet Constitutional muster? The Constitution is a very intentionally secular document meant for a population of citizens that includes theists and non-theists alike.
NORM
Leave a comment:
-
This assertion by Plantinga: "There’s No Good Argument For Design, But Who Needs One?" put the final screws with lock washers in the coffin for any possible argument for design, and results in an extreme circular argument that only Plantinga's belief is the justification for his argument.
Originally posted by http://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2011/11/plantinga-theres-no-good-argument-for-design-but-who-needs-one/
That argument swings both ways, of course. If Plantinga is right, and if there is no good argument for God in nature’s design, there is also no good argument against God in nature. Plantinga mentions that in this context but he does not dwell much on it.
Probably he thought it was unnecessary. He had already shown that Dawkins’s argument against God is “unsound in excelsis.” For a top philosopher, he can be most entertaining at times, and never more so than when he has the opportunity to take down Richard Dawkins. He’s not unkind about it, I assure you. He only dishes out what Dawkins (Dennett, too) is asking for.
Anyway if there is no design argument, does that mean no design, and no designer? No. For Plantinga it’s much simpler than an argument. Design is just apparent in the world. We can see it, as we can see that the world wasn’t created intact in its current form just five minutes ago, that our memories are at least somewhat trustworthy, that there are other people (other minds) in the world besides ourselves. No argument that could prove these things true, yet we know them with trustworthy knowledge regardless. These are “basic beliefs:” things we know without having to call upon a string of inferences to support that knowledge.
We can see design just as clearly, says Plantinga.
"The same goes if you are on a voyage of space exploration, land on some planet which has an earth-like atmosphere, but about which nothing or next-to-nothing is known, and come across an object that looks more or less like a 1929 Model T Ford. You would certainly see this object as designed; you would not engage in probabilistic arguments about how likely it is that there should be an object like this that was not designed."Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-18-2014, 05:37 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Plantinga's argument for Design.
One of the keystones of Plantinga's Theory of Warrant and 'Proper Belief' is his argument for the necessity design and against Philosophical Naturalism. The purpose of this thread is to demonstrate that there is no justification for his argument for the necessity of 'design' other then his assertion by belief that this is true.
[quote=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga]
Evolution and Christianity
In the past, Plantinga has lent support to the intelligent design movement.[50] He was a member of the 'Ad Hoc Origins Committee' that supported Philip E. Johnson's 1991 book Darwin on Trial against palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould's high-profile scathing review in Scientific American in 1992.[51][52] Plantinga also provided a back-cover endorsement of Johnson's book.[53] He was a Fellow of the (now moribund) pro-intelligent design International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design,[54] and has presented at a number of intelligent design conferences.[55]
Originally posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga
In a March 2010 article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, philosopher of science Michael Ruse labeled Plantinga as an "open enthusiast of intelligent design".[56] In a letter to the editor, Plantinga made the following response:
"Like any Christian (and indeed any theist), I believe that the world has been created by God, and hence "intelligently designed". The hallmark of intelligent design, however, is the claim that this can be shown scientifically; I'm dubious about that."
". . . As far as I can see, God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go; hence evolution as such does not imply that there is no direction in the history of life. What does have that implication is not evolutionary theory itself, but unguided evolution, the idea that neither God nor any other person has taken a hand in guiding, directing or orchestrating the course of evolution. But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn't say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn't say that it isn't. Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution; but the contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such—apart from philosophical or theological add-ons—doesn't say that evolution is unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God."Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-18-2014, 05:34 AM.Tags: None
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
39 responses
186 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:32 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
132 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
428 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
305 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM | ||
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
|
406 responses
2,517 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 05:49 PM
|
Leave a comment: