Weak point in Plantinga's argument against naturalism

[shunyadragon]

Please explain with an argument why evolution entails the truth of Methodological Naturalism.

I think I have answered this before, but . . .

The evolution of the 'thinking' human is dependent on reasonably reliable cognitive functions to survive. The objective methods for dealing with problems of survival of the 'thinking' human' are the same as form the foundation of 'Methodological Naturalism.'

If you want to seriously question this and all knowledge and beliefs in one bag, OK, but the consequences represent a zero basis for all arguments and knowledge, and the Hindu wise man is the fall back position.

[seer]

No, it is by no reason accurate, because Darwin's intent was the limits of knowledge of the time, which Plantinga is not taking into consideration. In his book he felt confident that most of the questions and doubts he had concerning evolution would be resolved by future scientists, and his optimism is well founded.

That is completely false Shuny! Darwin connected nothing about "limited knowledge" to that point. You are just making stuff up now. If not show us all from Darwin's own words from the original letter.

“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind,if there are any convictions in such a mind?”

He is questioning our very cognitive abilities!

[shunyadragon]

That is completely false Shuny! Darwin connected nothing about "limited knowledge" to that point. You are just making stuff up now. If not show us all from Darwin's own words from the original letter.

“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind,if there are any convictions in such a mind?”

He is questioning our very cognitive abilities!

Yes, based on his limited knowledge at the time and theological cultural framework he was raised in.

[JimL]

Well no Jim, something is eternal here - either matter and energy or intelligence. You "believe" matter and energy are eternal and could form itself into the life creating universe that we live in, I "believe" that intelligence better explains this universe. Neither position can be "proven" empirically, they are both taken by faith.

Well, your question was why is there something rather than nothing, and, your answer was that, there is something because it must have had an intelligent source. But you seem to be disregarding the fact that if this "something" had an intelligent source, then there was "something" before there was "something" that itself had no source. You are accepting the fact that "something can exist necessarily" without a source, you just believe that that something had to be intelligent. Why is that?

No, a calculator could have a glitch or two but be generally correct. I'm in the electronic field and see this with microprocessors every day. But that was not my point - no one here believes that unaided nature could build a simple functioning abacus - no matter how much time you gave her - yet you believe that she could create something infinitely more complex like a rational human mind. I'm sorry, I just don't buy it.

Well in a sense unaided nature has built a simple functioning abacus, as well as a calculator if you consider man to be a part of nature, but do you really think that it would take a God billions of years to create an evolved human mind if that was his intent. And why create this unimaginably enormous universe with trillions of stars and planets just for little ol' us on this tiny speck of a planet?

[seer]

Yes, based on his limited knowledge at the time and theological cultural framework he was raised in.

That is just foolish Shuny:

“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind,if there are any convictions in such a mind?”

Nothing has changed, either our minds arose from the minds of lower animals or they didn't. If they did Darwin's doubt remain valid. What have we learned that would change that fact? Be specific please.

[seer]

Well, your question was why is there something rather than nothing, and, your answer was that, there is something because it must have had an intelligent source. But you seem to be disregarding the fact that if this "something" had an intelligent source, then there was "something" before there was "something" that itself had no source. You are accepting the fact that "something can exist necessarily" without a source, you just believe that that something had to be intelligent. Why is that?

Well of course I believe that something must exist necessarily, haven't we been over this time and time again? And why do I believe that this source is intelligent - simple, I don't believe for a moment that nature of herself could create the precise, life giving universe that we find ourselves in. To me there are fingerprints of Intelligence all over the cosmos.

http://www.reasons.org/design-evidences-cosmos-1998

Well in a sense unaided nature has built a simple functioning abacus, as well as a calculator if you consider man to be a part of nature, but do you really think that it would take a God billions of years to create an evolved human mind if that was his intent. And why create this unimaginably enormous universe with trillions of stars and planets just for little ol' us on this tiny speck of a planet?

Well no Jim, you are begging the question, since human intelligence is the very thing under consideration. I don't believe for a moment that unaided nature could create something completely foreign to its nature - intelligence, rationality... As far as how God created - I'm not privy to that information. But if He did take billions of years one could say that He was in no hurry, or short of resources. Efficiency was not necessary.

[shunyadragon]

That is just foolish Shuny:

“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.

Time and the new knowledge changes. Plantinga should deal with contemporary Geologists and scientists concerning any 'doubts' they have concerning the theory of evolution.

Nothing has changed, either our minds arose from the minds of lower animals or they didn't. If they did Darwin's doubt remain valid. What have we learned that would change that fact? Be specific please.

That question has not changed. By the evidence of contemporary evolution, no problem with our minds evolving from the minds of lower animals. We are not chimps, we have more evolved brains.

[seer]

That question has not changed. By the evidence of contemporary evolution, no problem with our minds evolving from the minds of lower animals. We are not chimps, we have more evolved brains.

But Darwin knew that! Shuny, you suggested that in light of contemporary evolution Darwin's doubt was no longer valid - but that is just false. What basic evidence do we have that Darwin did not - be specific please...

[shunyadragon]

But Darwin knew that! Shuny, you suggested that in light of contemporary evolution Darwin's doubt was no longer valid - but that is just false. What basic evidence do we have that Darwin did not - be specific please...

Absolutely yes, contemporary knowledge of evolution Darwin's doubt is no longer valid. contemporary knowledge has detailed information concerning the progressive evolution of the brain from higher mammals through to humans, and primitive behavior patterns in higher mammals that have evolved to the complex behavior patterns of humans. You have scoffed at the evidence I have presented in the past concerning this without any scientific background to make such judgments, but nonetheless the results of the modern research is available to you on the internet if you wish to look it up concerning the present knowledge available concerning the evolution of behavior and the brain.

[seer]

Absolutely yes, contemporary knowledge of evolution Darwin's doubt is no longer valid. contemporary knowledge has detailed information concerning the progressive evolution of the brain from higher mammals through to humans, and primitive behavior patterns in higher mammals that have evolved to the complex behavior patterns of humans. You have scoffed at the evidence I have presented in the past concerning this without any scientific background to make such judgments, but nonetheless the results of the modern research is available to you on the internet if you wish to look it up concerning the present knowledge available concerning the evolution of behavior and the brain.

Shuny, you are not saying anything that Darwin did not believe or teach! Have you ever read "The Descent of Man?" There is nothing new that we know that would change Darwin's doubt. I have asked you three times to relate one specific finding, after the time of Darwin, that would bear on, or change his doubt - you have offered nothing. Come on Shuny - just one FACT.

[shunyadragon]

But Darwin knew that! Shuny, you suggested that in light of contemporary evolution Darwin's doubt was no longer valid - but that is just false. What basic evidence do we have that Darwin did not - be specific please...

There are many research projects that demonstrate the evolution of the brain and morality, but you have always rejected them based on religious beliefs and not on any scientific qualifications. Below is an example of this . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior

Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days.

Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.

© source where applicable

[JimL]

Well of course I believe that something must exist necessarily, haven't we been over this time and time again? And why do I believe that this source is intelligent - simple, I don't believe for a moment that nature of herself could create the precise, life giving universe that we find ourselves in. To me there are fingerprints of Intelligence all over the cosmos.

http://www.reasons.org/design-evidences-cosmos-1998

Okay, but from my perspective I find that to be a contradiction of logic. It makes no sense to me that you find no problem with a creative and immaterial mind, and all that that entails, existing necessarily, but somehow have a problem with the material world of our experience existing necessarily. You are only concentrating on the natural world and wondering how could that be, its to complex and wonderful, it seems impossible that it wasn't created, but what about your creative intelligent mind, why would that then not also seem impossible not to have been created?

[seer]

Okay, but from my perspective I find that to be a contradiction of logic. It makes no sense to me that you find no problem with a creative and immaterial mind, and all that that entails, existing necessarily, but somehow have a problem with the material world of our experience existing necessarily. You are only concentrating on the natural world and wondering how could that be, its to complex and wonderful, it seems impossible that it wasn't created, but what about your creative intelligent mind, why would that then not also seem impossible not to have been created?

Again Jim, something here has to exist necessarily - it is either eternal mind or eternal matter. Now we look at our precise universe with dozens of very precise values (see past link) that are necessary for a orderly, life sustaining cosmos. Now, from our own experience we know that intelligence can and does create things with precise values (computers, cars, space shuttles, etc...), but there is no evidence (zero) that the mindless, random forces of nature could create such a precise universe. Or that these forces could create something completely opposite or foreign to their nature - intelligence.

[JimL]

Again Jim, something here has to exist necessarily - it is either eternal mind or eternal matter. Now we look at our precise universe with dozens of very precise values (see past link) that are necessary for a orderly, life sustaining cosmos. Now, from our own experience we know that intelligence can and does create things with precise values (computers, cars, space shuttles, etc...), but there is no evidence (zero) that the mindless, random forces of nature could create such a precise universe. Or that these forces could create something completely opposite or foreign to their nature - intelligence.

But again you are ignoring the extraordinary nature of an immaterial mind, you have no problem with that existing necessarily, not to mention the fact that it creates something completely opposit of its nature, i.e. the material world. Its merely a biased position not a logical one.

[seer]

But again you are ignoring the extraordinary nature of an immaterial mind, you have no problem with that existing necessarily, not to mention the fact that it creates something completely opposit of its nature, i.e. the material world. Its merely a biased position not a logical one.

How do you know that an immaterial mind is extraordinary, perhaps matter as we know it is the extraordinary thing? And the Mind may not be immaterial, or consist of a material that we are not familiar with. But it is intelligence nonetheless. And we know from our experience that our intelligence can create things that are not us - or even opposite of us. We the intelligent can create none intelligent things. That is a fact - and you have no evidence that the random forces of nature can create something not inherent to their nature. It is your position James that does not follow logically...