Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

[abelcainsbrother]

Good I agree with you so why are you believing man say naturalism and evolution are true? As you said man has been wrong so many times and yet here you are doing it.The bible tells us over and over not to believe man over God.Man is prideful and hard-headed and does not like to admit he is wrong and so this is why we should go on a case by case basis based on evidence for anything man says or thinks is true and this means there is no reason to believe evolution or naturalism are true with no evidence,regardless of what planting a thinks,it applies to anything he thinks is true like naturalism and evolution because no scientist has ever demonstrated life evolves or that matter can pop into existence and form itself on its own into the things that makes up the universe and man,besides infinite regression cannot be broken.

Dear abelcainsbrother
I do not say that I believe Prof. Plantinga, only that if we follow his reasoning, that is the logical conclusion.
Regards jonesm

Wrong! It is not logical at all.If Prof.Plantinga believes that he is not even in reality.He is outside logic,reason and reality.

[Morny]

... [sound of crickets] ...

No response to my previous detailing of Plantinga's argument flaw?

I watched the rest of your Plantinga video. And Plantinga still didn't provide any evidence as to why (under PN and evolution) our evolved brains have a low probability of forming reliable beliefs.

Apparently, Plantinga's "reliable beliefs" argument becomes easier by ignoring objections and not providing evidence. I'm not really surprised though, because people like Behe and Dembski do exactly the same.

In contrast, the multi-century development of the spectacularly successful scientific method, which may be the brain's greatest reliable idea, requires handling objections and providing evidence.

I would be happier than anyone, if evidence showed that our brains are receiving supernatural help to arrive at reliable beliefs. But Plantinga's wishing, hand-waving, and dogma don't show anything.

Critical thinking is too hard. Just tell me what to believe, so that I can counter anyone who disagrees with me.

[RickD]

Morny wrote:


I would be happier than anyone, if evidence showed that our brains are receiving supernatural help to arrive at reliable beliefs. But Plantinga's wishing, hand-waving, and dogma don't show anything.

How about the evidence of the existence of the human mind? Beliefs and thoughts don't originate in the brain, but in the mind. And since the mind is non-physical, or at the very least, not entirely physical, how do you explain its existence?

[Kurieuo]

... [sound of crickets] ...

No response to my previous detailing of Plantinga's argument flaw?

I watched the rest of your Plantinga video. And Plantinga still didn't provide any evidence as to why (under PN and evolution) our evolved brains have a low probability of forming reliable beliefs.

I liked your previous post after you wrote it, because you appeared to actually with the argument.
Now here, you've just gone all silly.

I'll respond to your previous post if I choose to.
Just like you chose to not answer some previous questions of mine.
So don't go all pouty now. I feel privileged that you at least want me.

As for evidence, you can't justify your scientism without circularity.
So it's a bit hypocritical asking for evidence for Plantinga's argument which nonetheless misses the boat.
That is, you miss the point of what Plantinga is saying which rests upon if then conditions like:

• 1) If someone accepts we evolved and believes in Naturalism then they have a defeater for their Rationality.
  OR to mix it around:
  2) If someone accepts Rationality and Evolution, then they have a defeater for Naturalism.
  OR:
  3) If someone accepts Naturalism and Rationality, then no bloody idea because there is no alternative to Evolution really.

Naturalism as defined in argument just doesn't seem like a logical or viable position no matter how you look at matters.

The argument I prefer is the second one, since we all are naturally inclined to think ourselves rational.
Indeed, I think we do hold many true beliefs. I think science does reveal real truths about the world
So I intuitively embrace my Rationality because to not is to be a loony in short.

And even if I'm wrong in embracing what appears obvious, at least I feel and appear to be living life even if I'm a brain in a vat.
So it's actually more logical in a practical and personal way for me to just go along with it all.
Thus, the Atheist has a way out of Plantinga's argument (which is presented as argument #1 above).
And that is, let's just all pretend anyway because it seems to work and be better to do so.

Get it? Got it? Good. I hope so. It allows you to reject Plantinga's (1) as an immediate knock-down.
Because it's more intuitive to accept what seems obvious a priori rather than an argument that leads of absurd conclusions of rejecting such.
THAT, is why Plantinga's argument doesn't do it for me.

Are you surprised?
Well, you never wanted to entertain a discussion about it,
but seems to have your nose out of joint from the get go due to your anti-God prejudices and barking up some strange tree of MN, which mind you I still don't know how the heck is relevant.

BUT, that leaves us with argument (2) which I think IS more potent.
And then if you try substitute out Evolution, well what are the candidates for (3)?
Naturalism is just a big pile of poo no matter how you look at it.
Unless you start looking to more sophisticated ideas like Thomas Aquinas'.

Oh, and you want to embrace Methodological Naturalism.
Fine, there is nothing wrong with trying to work out how the world naturally works.
What pushes and pulls things as God designed them, devoid of saying God is directly pushing and pulling every single thing.
Something MN can never explain though are what sustains the pushing and pulling. What keeps the foundational laws functioning as they do.
Why the laws, which admittedly by physicists, seem contingent in that we can picture them as being otherwise, are in fact the ones that we have.

NOW, even adapting Plantinga's argument in form (2) above, I personally believe he's too nice.
Because Naturalism doesn't even give you conscious self-thinking people, unless in addition to physical stuff we add conscious stuff to the fabric of Nature.

Without a dual physical-conscious sort of fabric in Nature, all that exist are "people" that are determined products of particles and physics.
A particle bouncing this way or that way leads to this thought or that behaviour.
IN OTHER WORDS, once physically reduced "we" aren't really in control. We don't really exist but are bypassed.
Descarte got it wrong, it is not true we think and therefore are. Because any "thought" that we do exist, is really just a side effect of some unintelligent particle hitting some other unintelligent particle. Our consciousness is at best like ripples from a stone thrown into a pond.

And so, what then of "our" supposed "beliefs"?
Well they don't exist either. Plantinga's been too gracious here in even letting Physical Naturalists have "beliefs"
Plantinga's focused upon rationality being unreliable, but the more potent argument which just pulls the absolute rug out of retarded Physicalist/Naturalistic thinking (mind me I'm not calling anyone retards), is that such can ONLY lead us to being determined products of random unintelligent events. And so, we don't really exist but are illusory.

You think I'm being harsh. Please don't. I'm just being straight and firm.
I'm not the one just saying this. Atheistic philosophers (professional Atheist logicians, thinkers and reasoners) have long known these problems.
Thomas Nagel recently came out to air them and people apart of the cult of scientism who appear to have no reasoning ability and unable to follow logic went all sooky and cried foul. But, if I were Nagel then I wouldn't care too much, because such people don't really exist on their view where everything, including us, is physically reduced.

[Morny]

How about the evidence of the existence of the human mind? Beliefs and thoughts don't originate in the brain, but in the mind. And since the mind is non-physical, or at the very least, not entirely physical, how do you explain its existence?

Google "begging the question".

What evidence shows that beliefs and thoughts don't originate in the brain?

[Morny]

So it's a bit hypocritical asking for evidence for Plantinga's argument which nonetheless misses the boat.

Plantinga is the one making a claim. How does asking for supporting evidence "miss the boat"?

Do you agree that I'm fairly representing Plantinga's claim?

Do you agree with Plantinga's claim?

If "No" to either question, then clearly and concisely explain.

[RickD]

How about the evidence of the existence of the human mind? Beliefs and thoughts don't originate in the brain, but in the mind. And since the mind is non-physical, or at the very least, not entirely physical, how do you explain its existence?

Google "begging the question".

What evidence shows that beliefs and thoughts don't originate in the brain?

I'll see what I can dig up regarding your question.

But in the meantime, think about this...Do the tv shows you watch, originate from inside the TV?

[abelcainsbrother]

Go with St Thomas Aquinas because no atheist can or has refuted his philosophy since the 13 th century.Aquinas was directly confronting naturalism then and despite all of the rhetoric we've heard about naturalism from people and even science it has never been refuted and is still just as true as then.

It is a fact that all atheists who reject God must deny logic,reason and reality and live their life based on imagination that defies logic,reason and reality in order to reject God,they are all in LA LA land even if they don't realize it and this is the scary part,they do not realize it and yet think they are so smart and educated in their rejection of God.

Since I have been looking into St Thomas Aquinas's philosophy? It makes me wonder why William Lane Craig doesn't use this,Craig thinks his KCA is more effective but I think WLC would be more persuasive if he used St Thomas Aquinas's philosophy because no atheist can or has refuted it and cannot do it,they can only ignore it and try to make a case for naturalism being shown true in the future,like with Sean Carroll,all he really does is kick the can down the road when it comes to science.

Carroll wants to try to convince you science will prove naturalism is true someday but naturalists have been saying the same thing since St Thomas Aquinas and have never refuted or shown him to be wrong.It cannot be refuted by any atheist,they are living in LA LA land in a rebellion against logic,reason and reality in order to reject God.

All people who reject God deny this fact of logic,reason and reality- ALL things have a cause and ALL things that have a cause are caused by something else and all things are willed into existence.All people who deny God deny this fact of logic,reason and reality and live their life in a direct rebellion to this fact using imagination to base their reality on.

Now to be fair to St Thomas Aquinas his philosophy is much bigger than this as I have narrowed it down to 3 bullet points but it cannot be refuted by any atheist out there.

All atheist believe not all things have a cause,and the things that did not have a cause are not caused by something else and they were not willed into existence. And this is in direct rebellion to the facts.

We could talk about anything in our world - people,cars,umbrellas,floods,tsunamies,hurricanes,tornadoes, universes,stars,planets,air planes,fish,water,TV's,radios,buildings,evolution,houses,children,love,hope,faith,courage,happiness,depression,we could go on and on and see that ALL things have a cause and ALL things were caused by something else and all things were willed into existence and yet in order to reject God people must defy logic,reason and reality in order to reject God.

[Kurieuo]

As mentioned above,

• Plantinga's argument results in a conclusion that Naturalism (the belief that a natural world is all there is devoid of any deity) and Evolution (commonly understood in terms of natural selection acting on random mutation, survival of the fittest, all that) are LOGICALLY incompatible bedfellows.

It is not an argument against evolution.
It is not an argument against Naturalism.
It is not an argument against evolution being unable to produce reliable thinking.
It is not an argument against being able to trust one's rationality, methodological naturalism, the scientific method or what-have-you.

So provided these misunderstandings continue, I'm not sure what benefit there to be had...

BUT, I would encourage anyone listening to the video series of Alvin Plantinga that I posted above, and also that EAAN Introduction video.

Not sure where you think the misunderstanding is. I said above that Plantinga's conclusion is:
"If evolution and philosophic naturalism are true, then reliable thinking is unlikely."
which directly leads to a contradiction, because supposedly humans can reliably think. So, according to Plantinga, either PN or evolution (or both) are false.
Surely, I can assume that you agree?
Good.

It sounds like you've started with refutations in trying to understand Plantinga's argument.
Many refutations to EAAN focus in upon "reliable thinking" but I think such is a misunderstanding on their part.
For example, we see refutations like people arguing that creatures with "true beliefs" would be "more fit for survival."

BUT, the person who focuses trying to justify rational belief, doesn't refute Plantinga's argument even if such is somehow justified.
Rather, the the argument being sounds just turns into modus tollens.

1. If evolution and philosophical naturalism (E&N) are true, then we can't trust our rationality (!R).
2. We can trust our rationality (R).
3. Therefore evolution and philosophical naturalism is not true (!E&N)

Now if you follow me, you should understand why you can show all the evidence in the world for justifying rationality.
It still doesn't matter to Plantinga's argument. For in justifying R you've not demonstrated Plantinga's whole sneaky point.
Which is Naturalism and Evolution cannot be had together -- they're incompatible bedfellows.

Therefore, if reliable thinking is had, then both Naturalism and Evolution cannot be true. One has to be wrong.
It needs to be demonstrated that the whole argument is unsound, not that they way Plantinga frames it is wrong (i.e., E&N -> !R).

Many refutations interestingly often accept Plantinga's premises.
They then set out to justify that our Rationality can be trusted via evolutionary processes.
Well, great. Good on these people. If Plantinga's argument is sound then they've just proven Philosophical Naturalism is false.

[Kurieuo]

So it's a bit hypocritical asking for evidence for Plantinga's argument which nonetheless misses the boat.

Plantinga is the one making a claim. How does asking for supporting evidence "miss the boat"?

I'm not going to waste my time explaining if you don't understand from my latest posts.

Do you agree that I'm fairly representing Plantinga's claim?

See previous post.

Do you agree with Plantinga's claim?

His argument is sound.

If "No" to either question, then clearly and concisely explain.

Enjoy my previous post.

[Morny]

Do you agree with Plantinga's claim?

His argument is sound.

Great! We're making progress.

Plantinga's remaining step shows that assuming evolution and philosophical naturalism are true, leads to the conclusion that reliable thinking is unlikely.

Do you agree?

[Kurieuo]

Do you agree with Plantinga's claim?

His argument is sound.

Great! We're making progress.

Plantinga's remaining step shows that assuming evolution and philosophical naturalism are true, leads to the conclusion that reliable thinking is unlikely.

Do you agree?

Progress? That remains to be seen.

I'd agree that's the argument formulation he uses, which I also wrote was the case in (1) of my post above.

[Morny]

Do you agree with Plantinga's claim?

His argument is sound.

Great! We're making progress.

Plantinga's remaining step shows that assuming evolution and philosophical naturalism are true, leads to the conclusion that reliable thinking is unlikely.

Do you agree?

Progress? That remains to be seen.

I'd agree that's the argument formulation he uses, which I also wrote was the case in (1) of my post above.

In my last post, I'm not asking if you agree that I've formulated Plantinga's argument correctly.

I'm asking if you agree that Plantinga's argument of accepting and using specific elements inside of philosophical naturalism and evolution, e.g., natural selection, do correctly lead to his conclusion that reliable thinking is unlikely.

[Kurieuo]

The argument doesn't matter, so much as the format being sound.
You have read my previous posts and know I've said I reject Plantinga's argument as presented, right?
So what's it matter. Just spit it what you want to say. It feels like you're playing games, and unnecessarily so.

[Morny]

The argument doesn't matter, so much as the format being sound.

The argument does matter. For example, one part of Plantinga's argument, which uses natural selection to infer that reliable thinking is unlikely, is absolutely crucial. And unfortunately for Plantinga, his line of inference does nothing but hand-wave, as I've explained in a previous post.

You have read my previous posts and know I've said I reject Plantinga's argument as presented, right?

One of your posts lists part of Plantinga's argument, and then you say, "The argument I prefer [...]".
So I don't know what you're saying about Plantinga. Do you agree with me that Plantinga's detailed argument using natural selection is flawed?
"Yes"? "No"? Or "I don't know"?
(Saying, "I don't know", is an acceptable answer.)

And the best I can tell, the argument you "prefer" is somehow related to the following snippets from your posts:

The argument I prefer:
2) If someone accepts Rationality and Evolution, then they have a defeater for Naturalism.

Because it's more intuitive to accept what seems obvious a priori rather than an argument that leads of absurd conclusions of rejecting such.

Because Naturalism doesn't even give you conscious self-thinking people, unless in addition to physical stuff we add conscious stuff to the fabric of Nature.

If you are making the claim that "Naturalism" is incomplete, then you have the burden of justification. Merely saying that "physical stuff" cannot produce the phenomenon of "consciousness" is hand-waving, not a justification.

At a minimum, you should be saying, "I don't know whether Naturalism is incomplete". But you're not. So I'd like to know what information you have that I don't.