Originally posted by seer
View Post
That's kind of like trying to argue that the program running on a computer is dictated by the hardware. The reality is that the program function may be limited by the hardware, but it is not dictated by the hardware. The same instruction set can produce an essentially infinite number of results.
Originally posted by seer
View Post
And if they are, then it stands to reason that anything that is so disconnected from reality is to be unable to process it correctly is going to have a significantly less likelihood of surviving. Basically, I'm disagreeing with Plantinga's "P (R | N&E) = low" Plantinga has no substantiation for "low." The fact is, as soon as we have a finite, limited being, the P (R | any worldview) is undetermined. Finite/limited means our reasoning can be in error. We can take multiple steps to try to reduce this error, but perfect knowledge and error-free thinking is beyond our grasp - for ANY worldview.
Originally posted by seer
View Post
You seem to be arguing, basically, there is no way to know our knowledge is perfect, ergo we need a god.
First - we don't know that materialism necessitates determinism because we don't know the principles of causality are uniform across all levels of existence, and we have cause to think they might not be.
Second - I experience free will so, until I have cause to think that experience is an illusion, I'll accept that experience as a reality.
Third - you have the problem in a theistic worldview as well. You are not a perfect being. You are definitively limited and capable of (if not prone to) error. You cannot ensure the accuracy of your own beliefs in your own worldview either.
Comment