Weak point in Plantinga's argument against naturalism

[seer]

This would also be true if God(s) exist, there is such a diversity of beliefs many if not most are false, therefore our deeply held beliefs are subject to question and most likely false, and there is good reason to question our rational abilities IF God(s) exist.

Shuny, I gave you the answer. We believe in false god's not because our rational abilities are in question, but because we are sinners and our moral sense is at fault.

Romans 1

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, I gave you the answer. We believe in false god's not because our rational abilities are in question, but because we are sinners and our moral sense is at fault.

Romans 1

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

That would make it problematic whether the Bible is true, or just legend and mythology. It is very relevant if there are many false beliefs people believe strongly that they are true. There is no certainty that our rational abilities are reliable even considering the consequences of your citation and our moral sense is at fault.

OK, there is absolutely no problem with there with true or false beliefs in Natural evolution, because Natural Evolution is indifferent to the 'truth of beliefs, whether they are of survival value or not. Naturalism has no problem with the consequences of 'Natural Evolution' concerning the truth of belief systems, nothing wrong here.

[JimL]

Shuny, I gave you the answer. We believe in false god's not because our rational abilities are in question, but because we are sinners and our moral sense is at fault.

Romans 1

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

So those who disbelieve in your version of God are suppressors of the truth?

19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

This is one of the most ludicrous passages in the Bible, in my opinion. First it assumes that what has been made has indeed been made and from that assumption all should understand the creators invisible qualities. Well, there is no evidence that what exists has been made and so neither is there knowledge of its creator or his qualities.

22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

I think that the worship of images existed long before the idea of monotheism?

[seer]

So those who disbelieve in your version of God are suppressors of the truth?

Yes...

This is one of the most ludicrous passages in the Bible, in my opinion. First it assumes that what has been made has indeed been made and from that assumption all should understand the creators invisible qualities. Well, there is no evidence that what exists has been made and so neither is there knowledge of its creator or his qualities.

Of course you would say this, you are suppressing the truth (and it's not that you are particularly wicked Jim, we all have done it). But the point is that creation itself proves a creator, a powerful, wise creator.

Psalm 19

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard."

I think that the worship of images existed long before the idea of monotheism?

Well no, Adam and his offspring (the first humans) were monotheistic - it fell apart soon after though.

[seer]

That would make it problematic whether the Bible is true, or just legend and mythology. It is very relevant if there are many false beliefs people believe strongly that they are true. There is no certainty that our rational abilities are reliable even considering the consequences of your citation and our moral sense is at fault.

Sorry Shuny, I will have to take the Apostle Paul's opinion over yours. But what would give you more confidence - a computer that was designed and built by engineers or one that was thrown together by the random forces of nature?

[shunyadragon]

Sorry Shuny, I will have to take the Apostle Paul's opinion over yours. But what would give you more confidence - a computer that was designed and built by engineers or one that was thrown together by the random forces of nature?

Nature, ultimately and the bottom line engineers must comply with the Laws of Nature.

It is a foolish myth that random forces have any determining factor in the course of natural events. The Laws of Nature rule for engineers.

It remains that by the evidence we have no certainity that our rational abilities are reliable or not concerning the diverse world views and religious beliefs regardless of whether God exists or not.

[mattbballman]

Please do yourself a favor and don't argue with Mr. Jello. It isn't fun or edifying.

This last response made me laugh so hard I had milk coming out of my nose. He doesn't even understand your analogy, seer. You ask whether you'd be more rational in trusting a designed computer or one randomly thrown together by the forces of nature . . .

And he says the engineers have to comply with laws of nature? Ladies and gentlemen. What does this mean? Where does this come from? What relevance does this have?

OF COURSE, engineers comply with the laws of nature. No, duh. Why even say this?

And then he says it's a foolish myth that random forces have any determining factor in the course of events!? Omg. Wow. You are in la-la land.

Then you say we have no evidence that our rational abilities are reliable or not. Then how the freak do you know that evolution chooses rational abilities that lead mostly to truth!??!

I'm terrified of what he'll say next.

[seer]

I'm terrified of what he'll say next.

He he he, Shuny is a trip...

[shunyadragon]

Please do yourself a favor and don't argue with Mr. Jello. It isn't fun or edifying.This last response made me laugh so hard I had milk coming out of my nose. He doesn't even understand your analogy, seer. You ask whether you'd be more rational in trusting a designed computer or one randomly thrown together by the forces of nature . . .

Yes, seer did ask that and it was a foolish question. Randomness determines nothing in the natural world. Your knowledge of science is dismal at best.

And he says the engineers have to comply with laws of nature? Ladies and gentlemen. What does this mean? Where does this come from? What relevance does this have?

OF COURSE, engineers comply with the laws of nature. No, duh. Why even say this?

Glad you were able to figure that out.

And then he says it's a foolish myth that random forces have any determining factor in the course of events!? Omg. Wow. You are in la-la land.

No, science. Again random forces do not have any determining factor in the course of events, the Laws of Nature determine that.

Then you say we have no evidence that our rational abilities are reliable or not. Then how the freak do you know that evolution chooses rational abilities that lead mostly to truth!??!

No, we do not have any evidence that our rational abilities are reliable or not concerning matters of faith and belief that Plantinga refers to. Evolution is indifferent to the 'truth' of beliefs and faith naturally.

I'm terrified of what he'll say next.

Call an exorcist.

[shunyadragon]

He he he, Shuny is a trip...

It would help if you and battbmallman could get little high school science and understand the nature of randomness, math and chaos theory.

[mattbballman]

Yes, seer did ask that and it was a foolish question. Randomness determines nothing in the natural world. Your knowledge of science is dismal at best.

Woohooo! Good comeback! Randomness determines nothing. Hmmmm. It determines absolutely nothing. Let's see. Let me get my handy-dandy dictionary. Flip, flip, flip. Aha! Randomness: random |ˈrandəm| adjective
made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.

Okay, follow a train of thought. Ready? Are you really prepared to say that in all of the freaking cosmos, nothing happens as a result of random forces? Seriously?

Glad you were able to figure that out.

It continues to bewitch me how you didn't even get my point.

No, science. Again random forces do not have any determining factor in the course of events, the Laws of Nature determine that.

Random forces can obey the laws of nature, you cretin. Read the definition above. Slowly.

No, we do not have any evidence that our rational abilities are reliable or not concerning matters of faith and belief that Plantinga refers to. Evolution is indifferent to the 'truth' of beliefs and faith naturally.

Hey, moron! You just proved my point. If Evolution is indifferent to the 'truth' of beliefs (YOUR WORDS!!!!!), that's Plantinga's freaking point. He's saying given evolution, you have no reason to think naturalism (or any worldview) is 'true', for evolution is a defeater for any belief you have. Please shoot yourself in the foot again.

Call an exorcist.

Every time you talk, I have to dodge the green slime!

[shunyadragon]

Woohooo! Good comeback! Randomness determines nothing. Hmmmm. It determines absolutely nothing. Let's see. Let me get my handy-dandy dictionary. Flip, flip, flip. Aha! Randomness: random |ˈrandəm| adjective
made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.

your getting closer. See below.

Okay, follow a train of thought. Ready? Are you really prepared to say that in all of the freaking cosmos, nothing happens as a result of random forces? Seriously?

Correct, but if you think about it randomness is not force. No forces or determining effects here.

Seer has brought this up before and I gave him the proper definition in science. Randomness in science only describes the probability of an event within a given set of parameters, see below.

http://science.yourdictionary.com/random

Science definition

random (rănˈdəm)
Relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
Relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

© source where applicable

Random forces can obey the laws of nature, you cretin. Read the definition above. Slowly.

Read the science definition I gave . . . slowly. Randomness has no force, random forces do not exist, except maybe in your imagination

Hey, moron! You just proved my point. If Evolution is indifferent to the 'truth' of beliefs (YOUR WORDS!!!!!), that's Plantinga's freaking point. He's saying given evolution, you have no reason to think naturalism (or any worldview) is 'true', for evolution is a defeater for any belief you have. Please shoot yourself in the foot again.

No, Plantinga's point was that Natrulsim was in contradiction with evolution, because evolution is indifferent to 'truth.' My argument is that Naturalism is compatable with evolution, because it is indifferent to 'truth.'

Yes, evolution is a defeater for any belief you have including any possible theistic belief.

Every time you talk, I have to dodge the green slime!

your but deep in it already, can't get out of it by dodging it.

[JimL]

Yes...

So you believe. But I can easily say the same of you, that because you believe Yahweh/Jesus to be God and creator of the world, you are suppressing the truth.

Of course you would say this, you are suppressing the truth (and it's not that you are particularly wicked Jim, we all have done it). But the point is that creation itself proves a creator, a powerful, wise creator.

Sorry, but existence itself does not prove it was created.

Psalm 19

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard."

God if he exists must be more glorious than the world, does that prove that God was created?

Well no, Adam and his offspring (the first humans) were monotheistic - it fell apart soon after though.

Well, that is true from you point of view. Sorry, I forgot that you took the story of A+E literally. I'm not sure, but wouldn't that make you a YEC considering the geneology and all?

[seer]

So you believe. But I can easily say the same of you, that because you believe Yahweh/Jesus to be God and creator of the world, you are suppressing the truth.

Ok, that is fine. Believe what you will.

Sorry, but existence itself does not prove it was created.

Of course it does. As Revelation tells us. Are you suppressing again James?

Well, that is true from you point of view. Sorry, I forgot that you took the story of A+E literally. I'm not sure, but wouldn't that make you a YEC considering the geneology and all?

Nope, one can be a open creationist (as I am) and still believe in a literal Adam and Eve - that all human beings are descended from one set of parents.

[JimL]

Ok, that is fine. Believe what you will.

My point was, just because someone does not believe what you believe does not mean that they are suppressing the truth.

Of course it does. As Revelation tells us. Are you suppressing again James?

No, I am not suppressing anything, you are just being a little bit arrogant because you mistakingly confuse belief with knowledge.

Nope, one can be a open creationist (as I am) and still believe in a literal Adam and Eve - that all human beings are descended from one set of parents.

Sorry, I am not familiar with the term, what does "open creationist" mean?